Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Regarding the request to submit an Amicus in support of Plaintiffs by the Traditionalist Youth Network....the Plaintiffs have said, "Thanks, but no thanks".

    Zing...

    10/06/2014 23
    6 pg, 86.54 KB RESPONSE/ANSWER by Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Incorporated, Atlantic Guns, Incorporated, Stephen V. Kolbe, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Incorporated, Maryland Shall Issue, Incorporated, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Incorporated, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Incorporated, Andrew C. Turner and Wink's Sporting Goods, Incorporated to notice requesting response [22], Motion to file amicus curiae brief [18]. Nature of response: in opposition. [14-1945] Marc Nardone
     

    Attachments

    • Kolbe_23.pdf
      97.8 KB · Views: 211

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    They say they want to fight modernity , using social media I bet, to rescue the country from the greedy capitalists that founded it.

    OK then... is the brief any good or is a Monty Python gag...;)
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    So the Plaintiffs object to the submission of the TYN Amicus on behalf of the Plaintiffs #23 in a lengthy and detailed manner.

    The State responds with a simple "...the Defendants-Appellees do not object to the request for leave to file." in #24. That's it....

    The Court in #25 then grants the Amicus request on behalf of the Plaintiffs, despite the objection of the Plaintiffs.
    Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to file an amicus
    curiae brief, the court grants the motion and accepts the amicus brief filed by
    Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC.​

    :sad20:
     

    Attachments

    • Kolbe_24.0.pdf
      23.2 KB · Views: 154
    • Kolbe_25.0.pdf
      18.5 KB · Views: 285

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    So the Plaintiffs object to the submission of the TYN Amicus on behalf of the Plaintiffs #23 in a lengthy and detailed manner.

    The State responds with a simple "...the Defendants-Appellees do not object to the request for leave to file." in #24. That's it....

    The Court in #25 then grants the Amicus request on behalf of the Plaintiffs, despite the objection of the Plaintiffs.
    Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to file an amicus
    curiae brief, the court grants the motion and accepts the amicus brief filed by
    Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC.​

    :sad20:


    WTF?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!/1111111

    Seriously, are these judges steering a rudderless ship or something? Yes, CA4 Judges, if your google fu is good...I am calling you out.

    I thought deference would logically be given to the party for which the Amicus was trying to support? But what do I know, I'm just a juror not a judge.

    Shameful.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    WTF?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!/1111111

    Seriously, are these judges steering a rudderless ship or something? Yes, CA4 Judges, if your google fu is good...I am calling you out.

    I thought deference would logically be given to the party for which the Amicus was trying to support? But what do I know, I'm just a juror not a judge.

    Shameful.

    They are on our side

    http://www.tradyouth.org/

    Their press release: http://www.tradyouth.org/2014/09/stand-for-the-2nd-amendment/#more-48472

    They appear to want to help us.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Mostly harmless. The state will not waste time replying to that noise. But if they do I expect it will force us to respond.

    And for what its worth those num nuts are on no ones side but their own. Wide cases are dangerous.. Bad idea.

    If these guys hurt us.. remember them and hold them to account.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    They are on our side

    http://www.tradyouth.org/

    Their press release: http://www.tradyouth.org/2014/09/stand-for-the-2nd-amendment/#more-48472

    They appear to want to help us.

    Perhaps, but the Kolbe Attorney's don't want their help. They spent a lot of effort (filing #23 in Post 42 above) in opposing their Amicus as being beyond the scope of Kolbe.

    The State said merely that they "don't object". The judicial scales should have clearly leaned towards the plaintiffs, but it went the other way. I'm scratching my head on this one.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    They are from Indiana, with the only active chapter in Alberta, Canada?

    TradYouth
    P.O. Box 171
    Paoli, IN 47454

    Something doesn't smell right...
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Perhaps, but the Kolbe Attorney's don't want their help. They spent a lot of effort (filing #23 in Post 42 above) in opposing their Amicus as being beyond the scope of Kolbe.

    The State said merely that they "don't object". The judicial scales should have clearly leaned towards the plaintiffs, but it went the other way. I'm scratching my head on this one.

    My gut says the brief will be ignored by both parties.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,156
    It gives the court lots of reasons to find against the plaintiffs that have no bearing on the actual case, more chances for smoke and mirrors to confuse the uninformed.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    It gives the court lots of reasons to find against the plaintiffs that have no bearing on the actual case, more chances for smoke and mirrors to confuse the uninformed.

    Sort of. I think, and the pros will need to weigh in here, that the court must consider the actual case made, and while the parties may use the briefs in support, to rule agaist party based on an amicius that they opposed would be unusual to say the least.

    I am split balling even more than usual here so if I am nuts sing out.
     
    Apr 10, 2012
    84
    Frederick County
    If we lose, any legal angle to say:

    This outlier org was allowed in over our objections, with the blessing of the other side, and it affected the neutrality of the judge panel, blah blah blah?
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Who knows... the brief was for them to use to raise funds and posture for the press. If denied they would still use it to raise funds and posture for the press. But because they where denied the press might get curious, that's the real risk. Gura played it smart as always. The judge took the path of least resistance and also least publicity out side of the inside baseball types.


    Amicus accepted --- yawn.

    amicus denied ----- WTF?

    I think this is mostly harmless.. but it will get worse...if it gets publicly of the wrong kind...
     
    Last edited:

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,371
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom