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

Abulg1972 · Aug 12, 2014

fightinbluhen51 said:
The best thing that they could do is send it back for more exploration of the fact finding and go back to trial.

The problem with that is the jury pool will suck.

Here is to hoping that some of us actually get the jury call, though I guess any MSI members would be dismissed immediately due to conflict of interest.

This case will never see a jury. And, Summary Judgment is granted by a judge, not a jury.

Haides · Aug 12, 2014

Didn't Miller, way back when, say that the 2A specifically protects arms suitable for military/militia use, as justification for holding that NFA restrictions on sawed-off shotguns were permissible because they had little to no use in a military/militia? Or am I remembering it wrong?

Jim12 · Aug 12, 2014

I think this Judge hasn't been to many gun shows, gun stores, ranges, or gun owners' homes, or read any firearms periodicals or run across any websites.

If she had done any of the above, she would have put her "serious doubts" on the defendants' claims, and expressed her ire over the fact that they fly in the face of reality.

iH8DemLibz · Aug 12, 2014

Dark Knight said:
Terrible news indeed.

Out of curiosity, can anyone list an example of a state-law, similar in nature to ours, that ended up being overturned and is now no longer valid?

I get the feeling MD will never go back to the way it used to be.

The way it used to be.....

How far back do we need to go to get to that point?

Are we talking the 19th century here?

This State has been a Liberal $hithole for some time now.

Abulg1972 · Aug 12, 2014

Dark Knight said:
Terrible news indeed.

Out of curiosity, can anyone list an example of a state-law, similar in nature to ours, that ended up being overturned and is now no longer valid?

I get the feeling MD will never go back to the way it used to be.

No. None of them have been overturned. Welcome to the Liberal States of America.

There are only a handful of states that have enacted gun grabbing laws like Md - CT, NY, HI. Until the Supreme Court decides to take this up, we can find pleasure only in states like Missouri that have amended their constitutions to say, Don't tread on me. Interesting fact - Maryland is one of the minority of states whose declaration of rights doesn't mention firearms.

smokey · Aug 12, 2014

definitely puts more pressure on people to show up in the general election, and put in work leading up to it. At least this gives md'ers some salt for their 281 wound to keep it relatively fresh.

fabsroman · Aug 12, 2014

FlatsFlite said:
That was Roberts I believe.

And you would be correct. Brain fart on my part.

fabsroman · Aug 12, 2014

Abulg1972 said:
I think it will be a long time - or never - before the Supremes take up one of these cases. My guess is that the 4 conservative justices are worried about Kennedy and won't agree to grant cert until they feel that they have "the case". Unfortunately, I think these cases will be stuck in the Circuit Courts for a while, and we all know how the 4th Circuit will dispose of this case (although I think Judge Blake made some serious errors in her fact finding - whether that will be deemed an abuse of discretion is a question. Judges are afforded a lot of latitude in their fact finding powers). This is a sad day for law abiding Marylanders.

For a Motion for Summary Judgment to be granted, there has to be NO dispute of a material fact. The Judge has to to view the facts in favor of the non-moving party, and again, there must be no dispute of fact. I don't think she should have granted Summary Judgment based upon the oral argument I heard. When it comes to Summary Judgment, she is NOT the finder of fact. She takes the undisputed facts and applies the facts to the law. Again, if there is a dispute of fact (e.g., whether these guns are common or uncommon), then she should not have granted Summary Judgment. I wouldn't be surprised if the 4th Circuit remands this back to Judge Blake for a trial. Wouldn't be surprised either if this gets crushed by the 4th Circuit and it upholds the District Court's ruling. Thing is, if it gets remanded for a trial, then we have to go through the trial and possibly another appeal to the 4th Circuit.

Mark75H · Aug 12, 2014

fabsroman said:
Thing is, if it gets remanded for a trial, then we have to go through the trial and possibly another appeal to the 4th Circuit.

This is what I expect. Longest, hardest route, but in the end the most likely route for permanent resolution in our favor. It is the route to the SC and victory.

Steady as she goes Mr Sulu.

Not_an_outlaw · Aug 13, 2014

Can you imagine this coming out of Texas? The judge would be run out of town. Maybe the judge wants this to go to the SC.

kcbrown · Aug 13, 2014

Patrick said:
SCOTUS has not bitten some of the more recent cases on carry, but nobody on either side of this debate think that remains the case much longer.

I do.

These questions are going to get answered.

Maybe, but I'm highly skeptical of that, at least with respect to SCOTUS weighing in on it.

Not_an_outlaw · Aug 13, 2014

Anybody think the Void for Vagueness argument was meaningless. You could argue that since the state doesn't know what the law means, it is unable to prosecute.

EL1227 · Aug 13, 2014

Not_an_outlaw said:
Anybody think the Void for Vagueness argument was meaningless. You could argue that since the state doesn't know what the law means, it is unable to prosecute.

Don't know about a "Void for Vagueness" argument, but this state has never been known for defining what their gun laws actually mean. In the case of FSA2013, they left much of that up to COMAR, who has already written new law and added to it in an attempt to 'clarify' the state's intent. It's a twist that we should have seen coming, sort of like Pelosi's 'read the bill' statement followed by EOs and waivers with ObamaCare.

Sometimes we feel like a kid being told to "do it because I said so, I'm the MOM and that's all you need to know". Blake's summary judgment follows that same pattern in accepting MOM's 'facts' over our Constitutionally factual arguments. It makes no difference whether MOM's facts were fabricated, his carried more weight because of his 'standing'. After all, he's the MOM.

ShallNotInfringe · Aug 13, 2014

Mr H said:
looks like time for a poll

During the court session when the common use discussion was going on, there was one point when I was willing the judge to conduct an unscientific poll of how many spectators in the room actually owned AR-15's. The result might have caused quite a stir.

ShallNotInfringe · Aug 13, 2014

EL1227 said:
Don't know about a "Void for Vagueness" argument, but this state has never been known for defining what their gun laws actually mean. In the case of FSA2013, they left much of that up to COMAR, who has already written new law and added to it in an attempt to 'clarify' the state's intent. It's a twist that we should have seen coming, sort of like Pelosi's 'read the bill' statement followed by EOs and waivers with ObamaCare.

Sometimes we feel like a kid being told to "do it because I said so, I'm the MOM and that's all you need to know". Blake's summary judgment follows that same pattern in accepting MOM's 'facts' over our Constitutionally factual arguments. It makes no difference whether MOM's facts were fabricated, his carried more weight because of his 'standing'. After all, he's the MOM.

We live under a MOMarchy.

ShallNotInfringe · Aug 13, 2014

Interesting conclusion in this article.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/judge-rules-banned-assault-long-guns-not-covered-under-2nd-amendment

Jim12 · Aug 13, 2014

Not_an_outlaw said:
Anybody think the Void for Vagueness argument was meaningless. You could argue that since the state doesn't know what the law means, it is unable to prosecute.

Or, more like, since the citizenry doesn't know what the law means, it is unsure how to comply.

fightinbluhen51 · Aug 13, 2014

Re: St. Louis and its impact with regards to this court case.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/12/gun-sales-up-across-area/

He says nearly 100 percent say they are buying them for defensive purposes. “They’re buying AR-15s, home defense shotguns, handguns, personal defense handguns something for conceal carry.” said King.

Interesting. Why would a gun store owner specifically call out the AR-15 by name and then generically lump everything else into "home defense shotguns and pistols?"

Quite frankly, two things should have occurred with regards to the data in the case (and I did not read the briefs in detail only skimmed and sped read);

1) the number of these arms for which have been manufactured in the USA for civilian sales.
2) the number of these arms for which have been manufactured in the USA for use by
A) LEO sales
B) FED AGENCIES sales
C) Military sales
D) and their subsquent percentages of annual acquisitions of small arms.

Mr H · Aug 13, 2014

Jim12 said:
I think this Judge hasn't been to many gun shows, gun stores, ranges, or gun owners' homes, or read any firearms periodicals or run across any websites.

If she had done any of the above, she would have put her "serious doubts" on the defendants' claims, and expressed her ire over the fact that they fly in the face of reality.

I'm guessing she defines "common" as "would I have one"...

I don't like using the word, but I think this decision deserves to be called one based on "Libtard Logic"

Tebonski · Aug 13, 2014

Did anyone really think a Clinton or Obama judge would give the Constitution a even shot?

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

When All Else Fails.

Ultimate Member

2A TEACHER

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Attachments

Lil Firecracker

Lil Firecracker

Lil Firecracker

Let Freedom Ring

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Banana'd

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics