Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

RepublicanJD · Jan 21, 2015

BDWMS said:
I try not to get overly confident, but I am impressed with this brief. Really, how could the court NOT find in our favor? Even if I wasn't a gun owner and did not have a dog in the fight, this makes sense. Seems like the state didn't make its case.

The 4th Circuit is not full of the smartest Judges. More often than not they will uphold the lower court decision. I've had one case decided there and a few more on the way. Don't read too much into the brief.

Abulg1972 · Jan 21, 2015

RepublicanJD said:
The 4th Circuit is not full of the smartest Judges. More often than not they will uphold the lower court decision. I've had one case decided there and a few more on the way. Don't read too much into the brief.

Come on ...

swinokur · Jan 22, 2015

BDWMS said:
I try not to get overly confident, but I am impressed with this brief. Really, how could the court NOT find in our favor? Even if I wasn't a gun owner and did not have a dog in the fight, this makes sense. Seems like the state didn't make its case.

Yep. This is the same court who overturned Judge Legg in Wollard. How could they do it?

They did it. No predicting what they will do.

Maverick0313 · Jan 22, 2015

Malachi.2.15 said:
Just checked..."the identity of the assigned panel is released on the morning of oral argument" so we won't know the panel make up until the day of. For concealed carry, we only had Obama and Clinton appointees.

There are 17 judges...

Reagan appointees - 3
HW Bush appointees - 2
Clinton appointees - 4
W appointees - 3
Obama appointees -5 (scary isn't it...)

That makes 8 republican appointees and 9 democrat appointees from which a 3 member panel will be named. Want to run the probability analysis that we "randomly" get a friendly panel (defined as at least 2 of the 3 being republican appointees)?

abean4187 · Jan 22, 2015

Malachi.2.15 said:
Just checked..."the identity of the assigned panel is released on the morning of oral argument" so we won't know the panel make up until the day of. For concealed carry, we only had Obama and Clinton appointees.

There are 17 judges...

Reagan appointees - 3
HW Bush appointees - 2
Clinton appointees - 4
W appointees - 3
Obama appointees -5 (scary isn't it...)

That makes 8 republican appointees and 9 democrat appointees from which a 3 member panel will be named. Want to run the probability analysis that we "randomly" get a friendly panel (defined as at least 2 of the 3 being republican appointees)?

Being appointed by a Republican in no way means they are pro gun. We have been burned multiple times by Republican judges.

SPQM · Jan 22, 2015

Does this also challenge all of FSA2013?

IE, the asinine HQL requirement?

DC-W · Jan 22, 2015

SPQM said:
Does this also challenge all of FSA2013?

IE, the asinine HQL requirement?

No, just the banned items. There is a separate, pending case against the HQL.
Cases like these are extremely expensive and resource intensive.

OEH · Jan 22, 2015

DC-W said:
No, just the banned items. There is a separate, pending case against the HQL.
Cases like these are extremely expensive and resource intensive.

Does anyone have updated information on the HQL case? I looked at the Michel and associates site but it looked like it was dismissed last fall. I have not been able to follow the cases as closely lately so I'm trying to catch up.

dblas · Jan 22, 2015

OEH said:
Does anyone have updated information on the HQL case? I looked at the Michel and associates site but it looked like it was dismissed last fall. I have not been able to follow the cases as closely lately so I'm trying to catch up.

The HQL case is on hold at this time.

BradyWarrior · Jan 22, 2015

Malachi.2.15 said:
Just checked..."the identity of the assigned panel is released on the morning of oral argument" so we won't know the panel make up until the day of. For concealed carry, we only had Obama and Clinton appointees.

There are 17 judges...

Reagan appointees - 3
HW Bush appointees - 2
Clinton appointees - 4
W appointees - 3
Obama appointees -5 (scary isn't it...)

That makes 8 republican appointees and 9 democrat appointees from which a 3 member panel will be named. Want to run the probability analysis that we "randomly" get a friendly panel (defined as at least 2 of the 3 being republican appointees)?

Assuming a selection without bias.......20.5%

RepublicanJD · Jan 22, 2015

Abulg1972 said:
Come on ...

I don't like it anymore than you do. Just the truth. They've proved it to you before with gun cases. Why would this be different?

Brooklyn · Jan 23, 2015

BradyWarrior said:
Assuming a selection without bias.......20.5%

Sounds too low.. what's your model?

BradyWarrior · Jan 23, 2015

Brooklyn said:
Sounds too low.. what's your model?

Keep in mind, this model would only apply to a situation without bias, like if they picked names from a hat.

((8/17)*(7/16)*(6/15))+((8/17)*(7/16)*(9/15)) = .2058

press1280 · Jan 23, 2015

BradyWarrior said:
Keep in mind, this model would only apply to a situation without bias, like if they picked names from a hat.

((8/17)*(7/16)*(6/15))+((8/17)*(7/16)*(9/15)) = .2058

Yea I would have thought closer to 40%. Remember J Harvie Wilkinson (Reagan appointee) isn't on our side and his opinion in Masciandaro has basically been followed more faithfully than Heller/McDonald. He was the one who basically said it's better to dodge the whole outside the home question so they wouldn't be held responsible for acts of violence. Pure cop out IMO.

Brooklyn · Jan 23, 2015

BradyWarrior said:
Keep in mind, this model would only apply to a situation without bias, like if they picked names from a hat.

((8/17)*(7/16)*(6/15))+((8/17)*(7/16)*(9/15)) = .2058

Looks wrong

Kcbrown. Paging kcbrown

I seams to me is chose 3 from 17 with out replacement. Then the chance of each being pro vs anti would be a moving ratio.. so it would not be independent.

But it would not change much..

Each good pick would lower the odds of another good pick since the pool is smaller, but its not a big drop. I bet we could just use a moving average.

Now a good result was at least 2 good picks..

I think you are doing independent probability..

Its got to be combinatorial

Chose 3 out of 17. Without replacement... that's the denominator..

The numerator i is I think that number * probability ( moving average lets say)

That there is only one..

I think we need to monty Carlo it..

But I can't see how to do it with at least one chose function..

Help kcbrown...

Brooklyn · Jan 23, 2015

Ratio of chose functions.. chose 2 out of 8 Republican and 1 out of 9 d without replacement.

Chose 3 out of 17 without replacement.. that the denominator.

Then its the r chose above / that denominator. The Democrat chose function / that denominator

Then I think those to results get * Inpependent probability..

Help kcbrown

BradyWarrior · Jan 24, 2015

Brooklyn said:
Looks wrong

I think we need to monty Carlo it..

I *think* my math is correct. But I doubt they pick names out of a hat.

Tyeraxus · Jan 25, 2015

BradyWarrior said:
Keep in mind, this model would only apply to a situation without bias, like if they picked names from a hat.

((8/17)*(7/16)*(6/15))+((8/17)*(7/16)*(9/15)) = .2058

I think it's right for a random draw. First set is "all three are R appointees" and second set is "2Rs and 1D." The declining denominator in the two sets shows the "section without replacement."

Brooklyn · Jan 25, 2015

I think its conditional propability not independent propabilty but who cares..

mH3NO · Jan 29, 2015

Malachi.2.15 said:
Just checked..."the identity of the assigned panel is released on the morning of oral argument" so we won't know the panel make up until the day of. For concealed carry, we only had Obama and Clinton appointees.

There are 17 judges...

Reagan appointees - 3
HW Bush appointees - 2
Clinton appointees - 4
W appointees - 3
Obama appointees -5 (scary isn't it...)

That makes 8 republican appointees and 9 democrat appointees from which a 3 member panel will be named. Want to run the probability analysis that we "randomly" get a friendly panel (defined as at least 2 of the 3 being republican appointees)?

I know this isn't a math forum, but I just read all this and the discussion went on so long I feel the need to post the right answer... so if anyone still cares:

45.59%. Not going to include a proof, but it can be validated with a few lines of code.

Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Retired and loving it

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Past President, MSI

Banned

Active Member

I stand with John Locke.

Banned

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

I stand with John Locke.

Banned

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics