4th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision seems destined to reach the Supreme Court

[Blacksmith101]

I think the case will be heard at the district court again with strict scrutiny applied and Frosh wins. We appeal to the 4th circuit again and it is upheld. We apply for cert at SC and they refuse to hear the case. It's the total screwing and I see it coming.

The complete ban with notable exceptions and partly because of those exceptions will not withstand properly applied true strict scrutiny. The whole levels of scrutiny debate is percolating up through multiple circuit courts and will at some point need to be decided by the Supremes. See the decision in Tyler v Hillsdale County for a discussion of the various circuits positions, starting at ii on page 19:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

 

[trailman]

I think the case will be heard at the district court again with strict scrutiny applied and Frosh wins. We appeal to the 4th circuit again and it is upheld. We apply for cert at SC and they refuse to hear the case. It's the total screwing and I see it coming.

I see that if it goes back to trial the district court will rule against us again. Because that's what they do . Why not? Who is going to do anything to them? Impeach them phhht.

I don't see Frosh thinking about anything. He is a dyed in the wool liberal and the end game is all he is after. Whether it is tomorrow or six years from now. I see him running this in a way that allows him to make the max use of the states treasury to grind us down over the years and bleed our side dry.

 

[Mark75H]

I see that if it goes back to trial the district court will rule against us again. Because that's what they do . Why not? Who is going to do anything to them?

4CA, that's who. The District Court is INSTRUCTED to rehear (actually hear and not just issue summary judgement) AND to use the "strict scrutiny" assessment of the FACTS. In the original judgement, I believe the judge actually said some of her rulings were based on "her feelings".

Failing to follow the 4CA's instructions will go right back to 4CA for instant overturn.

Could be part of the anti's plan, but being rude to higher courts is not well taken in the wider scheme of things.

 

[Rhome3]

Is there an educated guess to what the timeline for all of this looks like ? From what I understood this decision could be drug out for as long as possible (over a year or more).

Let's then say that strict scrutiny isn't fully applied in the manner that 4CA intended. How long does it take to then appeal it ? Never underestimate human ingenuity. There are far more anti-gunners than Pro 2A individuals in the state of Maryland. That, and the antis generally occupy positions of authority here in Maryland. Their pockets go deeper than ours because their pockets are lined with the shit they already stole from ours.

4CA, that's who. The District Court is INSTRUCTED to rehear (actually hear and not just issue summary judgement) AND to use the "strict scrutiny" assessment of the FACTS. In the original judgement, I believe the judge actually said some of her rulings were based on "her feelings".

Failing to follow the 4CA's instructions will go right back to 4CA for instant overturn.

Could be part of the anti's plan, but being rude to higher courts is not well taken in the wider scheme of things.

 

[Mark75H]

Is there an educated guess to what the timeline for all of this looks like ? From what I understood this decision could be drug out for as long as possible (over a year or more).

Let's then say that strict scrutiny isn't fully applied in the manner that 4CA intended. How long does it take to then appeal it ? Never underestimate human ingenuity. There are far more anti-gunners than Pro 2A individuals in the state of Maryland. That, and the antis generally occupy positions of authority here in Maryland. Their pockets go deeper than ours because their pockets are lined with the shit they already stole from ours.

Its taken us over a year to get this far. The 4CA ruling has proven the depth of their pockets means nothing.

Could easily take 3 or 4 more years, esp if it goes up to the Supreme Court.

 

[BeoBill]

I think the case will be heard at the district court again with strict scrutiny applied and Frosh wins. We appeal to the 4th circuit again and it is upheld. We apply for cert at SC and they refuse to hear the case. It's the total screwing and I see it coming.

Wasn't that the flow in a suit elsewhere? Like NYC or CA maybe?

 

[DanGuy48]

4CA, that's who. The District Court is INSTRUCTED to rehear (actually hear and not just issue summary judgement) AND to use the "strict scrutiny" assessment of the FACTS. In the original judgement, I believe the judge actually said some of her rulings were based on "her feelings".

Failing to follow the 4CA's instructions will go right back to 4CA for instant overturn.

Could be part of the anti's plan, but being rude to higher courts is not well taken in the wider scheme of things.

That seemed like a good question to me. Sheriffs aren't going to march in and arrest them for not doing what they're told, are they? They wouldn't be removed from the bench, would they? I'm not being snide because I don't know law like people here do, but what could actually be done if they just decide to do whatever they want?

 

[Inigoes]

That seemed like a good question to me. Sheriffs aren't going to march in and arrest them for not doing what they're told, are they? They wouldn't be removed from the bench, would they? I'm not being snide because I don't know law like people here do, but what could actually be done if they just decide to do whatever they want?

The judge would be removed, and possibly disbarred.

A La Plata judge just went through the process, and was convicted in federal court to boot.

 

[rbird7282]

ROFL - Yeah end up worse than he started.

FYI: There is some scuttlebutt that if Hillary is elected, she will appoint ObarfBag to the SC at the first chance she gets.

That won't happen. Hillary and Obama HATE each other. Obama would never be confirmed and I don't even think he would accept the appointment. (at least not from her, Shotgun Joe would be a different story)

 

[rbird7282]

I'll play:

Frosh appeals to full 4th, wins.

SCOTUS refuses to hear case.

Sadly this makes the most sense to me.
People here seem to be putting WAY too much faith in the courts with regards to 2A cases. Almost all judges seem to be political in some manner or another instead of just doing their job without bias. I don't have faith in the SCOTUS, especially given some of the recent rulings in the last 3-5 years.

I HOPE I'M WRONG.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Sadly this makes the most sense to me.
People here seem to be putting WAY too much faith in the courts with regards to 2A cases. Almost all judges seem to be political in some manner or another instead of just doing their job without bias. I don't have faith in the SCOTUS, especially given some of the recent rulings in the last 3-5 years.

I HOPE I'M WRONG.

I don't think you're wrong.

I think the smoke filled backroom deal to keep FSA2013 permanently in place has already been made.

Smoke and mirrors to make it look like the judicial system is working for the little guy.

Much like the Clinton e-mail server charade.

 

[tomh]

I don't think you're wrong.


Much like the Clinton e-mail server charade.

Hope you're wrong on both accounts, but who knows.

 

[JohnnyE]

We all should hope it goes to trial at the district court under the strict scrutiny standard. I think a trial under this standard is Frosh's nightmare scenario. If it happens, "for the children" and "public safety" assertions no longer are enough for the state. A trial on the merits would require the state to offer actual evidence in the form of witnesses offering reports, facts and figures. These witnesses would be cross-examined, and countered with our witnesses, facts and figures. Under this level of exploration, the antis house of cards will crumble. They have been relying on emotion all these years, not reality.

Frosh knows he needs to be granted an en banc rehearing, and to prevail before the full court of appeals, otherwise the nightmare trial takes place.

 

[Mark75H]

That seemed like a good question to me. Sheriffs aren't going to march in and arrest them for not doing what they're told, are they? They wouldn't be removed from the bench, would they? I'm not being snide because I don't know law like people here do, but what could actually be done if they just decide to do whatever they want?

The judge wouldn't have to be removed, just their decision would be vacated (nullified).

If there was some kind of "fix" that was "in" we would have lost at the 4th Court of Appeals. That we prevailed at that level should restore one's faith in the court system.

 

[Mark75H]

On the other hand, I do not think Judge Blake possesses the maturity or correct attitude to hear the case and will fein illness and have the case passed off to another judge on the District Court to avoid having to write the final opinion and pronounce it in court.

 

[fred333]

I think the smoke filled backroom deal to keep FSA2013 permanently in place has already been made.
Smoke and mirrors to make it look like the judicial system is working for the little guy.
Much like the Clinton e-mail server charade.

I think court decisions, especially at the appellate level, are different. That doesn't mean the fix isn't in, but if it is, it won't be due to some nefarious backroom deal before the hearing. Instead, it'll be due to judicial activism, which's been infecting courts and corrupting the judicial process, more or less openly (and without recourse), since the early '70s. What worries me is the makeup of the current Supreme Court; two-thirds of the sitting justices, based on the wording of their own written and spoken opinions, obviously see their responsibility as righting (perceived social) wrongs rather than upholding their constitutional duties (the Chief Justice's ruling on Obamacare's a prime, textbook example of this). And since they're lifers, I know of little that can be done to correct errant lawmaking by an unconstitutional Court.

As's been said, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that's 180 degrees out of phase with the current, domestic Marxist view of the world; and with the Supreme Court in its current guise, I think there's more to risk by having them hear the next Second Amendment case vs having them refuse it. But I could be wrong.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I think the case will be heard at the district court again with strict scrutiny applied and Frosh wins. We appeal to the 4th circuit again and it is upheld. We apply for cert at SC and they refuse to hear the case. It's the total screwing and I see it coming.

That will take a lot of dishonesty along with a lot of judicial limbo...but there is a lot of tyranny around these days.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Is there an educated guess to what the timeline for all of this looks like ? From what I understood this decision could be drug out for as long as possible (over a year or more).

Let's then say that strict scrutiny isn't fully applied in the manner that 4CA intended. How long does it take to then appeal it ? Never underestimate human ingenuity. There are far more anti-gunners than Pro 2A individuals in the state of Maryland. That, and the antis generally occupy positions of authority here in Maryland. Their pockets go deeper than ours because their pockets are lined with the shit they already stole from ours.

We got the ruling last week.

Literally 2 weeks for a notice of appeal for en banc request: 17 Feb 2016
Assuming that takes CA4 30 days to rule: 17 Mar 2016
60 days to file for cert: 17 May 2016
Docket from SCOTUS probably around 1 Jun 2016, with briefing schedule
We are looking at briefing over summer recess (court's term Ends 30 Jun 2016)
Summer conference? (Aug 2016)
Release of orders, sometime in Sept. 2016 to get a ya or nay on cert
IF granted (remember this is just on the scrutiny test) we are talking probably winter of 17 for arguments (maybe fall of 16 if we are lucky)
Order on just the scrutiny no sooner than 30 Jun 2017

Then we get remand all the way back to the district court to be scheduled and argued (if this goes to SCOTUS now, assuming cert is granted). So we aren't until at earliest until let's say 1/1/18 until some finalization, then we get to go through this again (at least to CA4 on the full merits).

That timeline assumes, Frosh is denied en banc, petitions for cert (at this stage on just the scrutiny and NOT the facts/merits), and is granted cert. Knock six months to a year off if cert is denied in summer of '17.

I'll assume, based on SCOTUS's lack of interest in gun cases lately, along with yesterday's EPA emissions regs that has told the lower courts & lawyers to stop accelerating the process to get to SCOTUS and develop the full record for their review, my best guess is cert will be denied at this point. That too, is why I think CA4 didn't rule on just the motions from district, and remanded this for more development along with scrutiny guidance and some findings of fact.

In reality, based on yesterday's EPA loss, I think CA4 sees the larger picture, knowing this will go to SCOTUS, but it's just a question of time.

That won't happen. Hillary and Obama HATE each other. Obama would never be confirmed and I don't even think he would accept the appointment. (at least not from her, Shotgun Joe would be a different story)

They may hate each other, but they both like power, money, fame, and more power. They are both ideologues. Their common enemy is us; the people. Thus, they will put their hate aside if they can "fundamentally transform the country."

We all should hope it goes to trial at the district court under the strict scrutiny standard. I think a trial under this standard is Frosh's nightmare scenario. If it happens, "for the children" and "public safety" assertions no longer are enough for the state. A trial on the merits would require the state to offer actual evidence in the form of witnesses offering reports, facts and figures. These witnesses would be cross-examined, and countered with our witnesses, facts and figures. Under this level of exploration, the antis house of cards will crumble. They have been relying on emotion all these years, not reality.

Frosh knows he needs to be granted an en banc rehearing, and to prevail before the full court of appeals, otherwise the nightmare trial takes place.

I tend to agree; let's put it all out there, see where the cards fall. Using the Constitution on our side, along with a strict scrutiny ruling, the stats would have to be completely OVERWHELMINGLY against us, for them to win.

Newsflash, the facts AREN'T on their side. At best, they point to no correlation and at worse (for them) they benefit US.

The judge wouldn't have to be removed, just their decision would be vacated (nullified).

If there was some kind of "fix" that was "in" we would have lost at the 4th Court of Appeals. That we prevailed at that level should restore one's faith in the court system.

I think court decisions, especially at the appellate level, are different. That doesn't mean the fix isn't in, but if it is, it won't be due to some nefarious backroom deal before the hearing. Instead, it'll be due to judicial activism, which's been infecting courts and corrupting the judicial process, more or less openly (and without recourse), since the early '70s. What worries me is the makeup of the current Supreme Court; two-thirds of the sitting justices, based on the wording of their own written and spoken opinions, obviously see their responsibility as righting (perceived social) wrongs rather than upholding their constitutional duties (the Chief Justice's ruling on Obamacare's a prime, textbook example of this). And since they're lifers, I know of little that can be done to correct errant lawmaking by an unconstitutional Court.

As's been said, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that's 180 degrees out of phase with the current, domestic Marxist view of the world; and with the Supreme Court in its current guise, I think there's more to risk by having them hear the next Second Amendment case vs having them refuse it. But I could be wrong.

To both of your points, IANAL, but I'm assuming the circuit could find Blake in contempt if she does not follow their order (assuming it stands up to en banc request and cert).

As far as Congress using its power to impeach judges for ignorant and tyrannical decisions, that ship has long since sailed. Then again, most of Washington is derelict in their duty to uphold and defend the Constitution.

If you want(ed) to nip judicial activism and senselessness in the bud, Congress should NOT rubber stamp judicial appointees, and they should impeach judges that do not defend individuals & the Constitution.

 

[BeoBill]

Has anyone thought of pursuing FSA13 overturn as "tainted fruit" because of the illegal vote that passed it?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Has anyone thought of pursuing FSA13 overturn as "tainted fruit" because of the illegal vote that passed it?

Non-starters for the courts. They don't rule upon legislative procedural grounds, simply because the legislature sets its own rules. Besides, it passed the 3rd reader, so what grounds do you really have? One re-vote on an amendment?