Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014

lseries · Aug 21, 2014

Mr H said:
For those of us not on FB, his email excuses and lack of communication by other means makes him seem completely detached.

Amen.

IMNSHO, anyone who uses only Facebook to get the word out doesn't really want to win and isn't a serious candidate.

I know I'm not the only one who isn't on Facebook and who has no plans ever to be on Facebook. This was the first time I'd even heard his name.

He badly needs to expand his methods of communication.

It's fine with me if someone wants to forward this to him as long as it isn't edited. It's nothing I wouldn't say to his face should I ever meet him.

Haides · Aug 21, 2014

5.56blaster said:
That's not so. In 1983 when I became an Air Force cop all of are rifles were stamped Colt's AR-15. They were all safe-semi-full but that was what was on the rifle. BUT I do understand what your point. Im just trying to pass on some firearms history and not f%&king with what your saying.

Weird. Learn something new everyday. Thanks lol

pcfixer · Aug 23, 2014

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/?p=...23-courtupholdingbanonmilitiasuitablefirearms

krucam · Aug 23, 2014

A late entry from MD District Ct was seen on PACER, Item #80:

08/12/2014 78 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 8/12/14. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014 79 ORDER denying as moot 20 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 32 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint; granting 44 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 55 Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 65 Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude; denying 47 John Cutonilli's Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae; granting 45 63 Defendants' Unopposed Motions to Seal; and entering judgment in favor of the Defendants. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 8/12/14. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/22/2014 80 PAPERLESS Correspondence to Counsel: The court will issue an amended memorandum correcting a few typographical errors and clarifying, on page 38, that the court agreed with the defendants' (not the plaintiffs') position regarding retired law enforcement officers. (Blake, Catherine) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

fightinbluhen51 · Aug 23, 2014

So...all animals are equal, some more than others? How nice of the court.

N3YMY · Aug 24, 2014

fightinbluhen51 said:
So...all animals are equal, some more than others? How nice of the court.

So much for the concept of equal protection under the law.

Laws are for thee, not me :mad54:

HankR · Aug 28, 2014

Even Forbes gets it

See: The Second Amendment's Defining Moment

"Gun owners are now perplexed with a ruling by U.S. Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake. .....Judge Blake systematically presented the facts and then judged them, not by the facts, but by her politics...."

But read the whole thing, it's actually a pretty good exposure of our issue to the general public.

krucam · Aug 28, 2014

08/22/2014 80 PAPERLESS Correspondence to Counsel: The court will issue an amended memorandum correcting a few typographical errors and clarifying, on page 38, that the court agreed with the defendants' (not the plaintiffs') position regarding retired law enforcement officers. (Blake, Catherine) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

The Amended Memorandum is out:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.254564/gov.uscourts.mdd.254564.81.0.pdf

MJD438 · Aug 28, 2014

krucam said:
The Amended Memorandum is out:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.254564/gov.uscourts.mdd.254564.81.0.pdf

"extensive training"...yeah, my brother's source of training is me taking him to NRA every now and then to get some "lead downrange" time. Other than that, it is a one-day, rapidly get qualified event for him, per BPD policy...no training offered or provided for regular patrol officers unless they fail to qualify.

So, qualifying once per year (100 rounds fired, if qualifying to carry an off-duty firearm under BPD credentials) counts as "extensive training". Hell, I go through that every time I shoot (1-2 times/month).

DubTap21 · Aug 29, 2014

Great read.....thanks much for posting.

Haides · Aug 29, 2014

Ugh, I'm really regretting putting my forum settings to 40 posts per page. I *still* have to see Frosh's ugly mug every time I pull up this thread. Lol

eruby · Aug 29, 2014

To help move that hideous picture to a previous page, I am posting that I dislike OWEMalley.

Gryphon · Aug 29, 2014

He's finally gone. What we needed was to give a noob a waiver in trying to increase his post count!

Haides · Aug 29, 2014

eruby said:
To help move that hideous picture to a previous page, I am posting that I dislike OWEMalley.

You have done a good deed here today, good sir. :mdpatriot

Gryphon said:
He's finally gone. What we needed was to give a noob a waiver in trying to increase his post count!

Only time that would be acceptable lol

pcfixer · Sep 11, 2014

krucam said:
A late entry from MD District Ct was seen on PACER, Item #80:

Has this case been filed with the 4th Circuit for review yet?

annihilation-time · Sep 11, 2014

pcfixer said:
Has this case been filed with the 4th Circuit for review yet?

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=159961

MigraineMan · Sep 11, 2014

Accordingly, in general, when considering an equal protection challenge to legislation, the court should first determine whether the government is treating similarly situated individuals differently, and then decide whether there is a rational basis for the differential treatment.

The court agrees with the defendants that retired law enforcement officers are differently situated by virtue of their experiences ensuring public safety and their extensive training on the use of firearms.
...
Based on all the training and instruction retired law enforcement officers have received, they are better equipped than the general public to handle and store firearms safely and to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands. The court cannot conclude that the State of Maryland is treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike, and the plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge must fail.

Judge Blake is hyper-focussed on the training aspect. If I take the same training classes and qualify appropriately, may I purchase the prohibited firearms? No? How about the civilian contractors who instruct the LEOs? Still No?

Soooo, if it's not the training, the only other element is "experience ensuring public safety" aka "former employment as a LEO." Effectively, Judge Blake is establishing a social class status based on employment. "Former employment as a LEO" becomes a title, as it grants special consideration under the law - they become the new Nobles. (and I'm pretty sure such behavior is prohibited in the Constitution.)

fightinbluhen51 · Sep 12, 2014

MigraineMan said:
Judge Blake is hyper-focussed on the training aspect. If I take the same training classes and qualify appropriately, may I purchase the prohibited firearms? No? How about the civilian contractors who instruct the LEOs? Still No?

Soooo, if it's not the training, the only other element is "experience ensuring public safety" aka "former employment as a LEO." Effectively, Judge Blake is establishing a social class status based on employment. "Former employment as a LEO" becomes a title, as it grants special consideration under the law - they become the new Nobles. (and I'm pretty sure such behavior is prohibited in the Constitution.)

You mean like...a title of nobility? Isn't that expressly forbidden in Article 1, Section 9?

Abulg1972 · Sep 12, 2014

fightinbluhen51 said:
You mean like...a title of nobility? Isn't that expressly forbidden in Article 1, Section 9?

This the equal protection argument that the plaintiffs made and was shot down. You can paint it any way you want, but at the end of the day the law impermissibly treats citizens, all of whom have the same rights, differently. It doesn't matter whether one citizen has more training than someone else. The right to keep and bear is a fundamental right of all citizens. I see absolutely no basis for giving special treatment to a former LEO by allowing only him/her to purchase a banned firearm. A former LEO is just a regular citizen, and, according to this cracked out legislature, a regular citizen doesn't need a banned firearm.

fightinbluhen51 · Sep 12, 2014

Abulg1972 said:
This the equal protection argument that the plaintiffs made and was shot down. You can paint it any way you want, but at the end of the day the law impermissibly treats citizens, all of whom have the same rights, differently. It doesn't matter whether one citizen has more training than someone else. The right to keep and bear is a fundamental right of all citizens. I see absolutely no basis for giving special treatment to a former LEO by allowing only him/her to purchase a banned firearm. A former LEO is just a regular citizen, and, according to this cracked out legislature, a regular citizen doesn't need a banned firearm.

I'm fully aware of the legal argument. Believe me. It is a head scratcher.

Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MOLON LABE

Defenestration Specialist

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics