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

[Jaybeez]

the applicable part of heller is that the government cannot ban an entire class of weapons in common use. dc had banned all handguns. md is not banning all rifles, just some specific and non specific rifles based on arbitrary reasons. several are very uncommon, and several are the most popular rifles in md. thebstate is claiming that this infringes very little, is proven to be necessary for public safety, and effects law abiding citizens the least amount possible. they claim to know this because they had "experts" and did "research".

 

[Inigoes]

Thank you all, who were in attendance today.

 

[teratos]

the applicable part of heller is that the government cannot ban an entire class of weapons in common use. dc had banned all handguns. md is not banning all rifles, just some specific and non specific rifles based on arbitrary reasons. several are very uncommon, and several are the most popular rifles in md. thebstate is claiming that this infringes very little, is proven to be necessary for public safety, and effects law abiding citizens the least amount possible. they claim to know this because they had "experts" and did "research".

It bans semi-automatic rifles with a magazine capacity of > 10. One of them happens to be the most popular model sold in the US. They left some (HBAR's) legal. It will be hard to argue that non-HBAR rifles pose more of a threat to public safety than those with a different contour. Yet another huge inconsistency in the State's case.

Our side asked that the State's "expert's" testimony be stricken because what they said at the SB281 hearings was a whole lot different than what they said when deposed under oath. Also, it turns out that their "experts", while having expertise in some subjects, do not have expertise on this subject.

 

[Hollywood Ball]

Thank you all, who were in attendance today.

I popped in for about 20 minutes to catch the tail end of our prelim argument. Took a 5 minute recess as my opportunity to leave without causing a stir, as I couldn't stay much longer anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jpo183]

It bans semi-automatic rifles with a magazine capacity of > 10. One of them happens to be the most popular model sold in the US. They left some (HBAR's) legal. It will be hard to argue that non-HBAR rifles pose more of a threat to public safety than those with a different contour. Yet another huge inconsistency in the State's case.

Our side asked that the State's "expert's" testimony be stricken because what they said at the SB281 hearings was a whole lot different than what they said when deposed under oath. Also, it turns out that their "experts", while having expertise in some subjects, do not have expertise on this subject.

Does the judge grant this to happen on the spot or is this again revealed whenever they choose to come out with the decision. ?

Also was this not simply a hearing to see if it can go to trial?

 

[Inigoes]

Also was this not simply a hearing to see if it can go to trial?

This is all that will be gotten.

Trials are basically for criminals

 

[Gryphon]

When the parties file cross motions for summary judgment, with each side claiming there are no material disputes of fact, it is highly unusual for the Judge to say otherwise and force a trial just to determine the facts. Even if the parties present the undisputed facts differently, its basically argument, which the judge will sort out without the need for trial. A trial on these factual issues would be a complete circus. Expect the judge to accept one side or the others arguments, or to split on the issues give each side victories and defeats, that will be appealed. Just my best guess.

 

[dblas]

Does the judge grant this to happen on the spot or is this again revealed whenever they choose to come out with the decision. ?

Also was this not simply a hearing to see if it can go to trial?

This was a hearing on the motions presented by the plaintiffs (us) and the defendants (MD). She will issue a written ruling on the motions in time. Yes, there may be a trial if there is an issue of the fact (and there is).

This is all that will be gotten.

Trials are basically for criminals

Not entirely, if there is a argument about the facts of a case, a trial may be warranted to hear the fact and for the judge to decide the facts and their merit.

 

[fabsroman]

Work calls
Make some of those meticulously crafted cookies for the judge and everyone can call it a day!

Would have been nice if she had made some of the cookies for those of us that attended. Then the antis could have really been jealous.

 

[glock9mm]

Thanks for all the updates and those that were there today!

 

[DC-W]

Would have been nice if she had made some of the cookies for those of us that attended. Then the antis could have really been jealous.

 

[runswscissors]

I'm not a patient person. How long till we get the ruling/opinion/whatever?

 

[DC-W]

I'm not a patient person. How long till we get the ruling/opinion/whatever?

When the Judge completes the opinion.

There's no better answer than that.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I'm not a patient person. How long till we get the ruling/opinion/whatever?

When the Judge completes the opinion.

There's no better answer than that.

Yep. Could be tomorrow. Could be next year, or longer.

 

[Tomcat]

I'm not a patient person. How long till we get the ruling/opinion/whatever?

2 weeks is the norm

 

[swinokur]

wow-that took a long time.

 

[Dave]

lots of people subscribed i imagine

 

[teratos]

wow-that took a long time.

Much longer than I would have thought....

 

[fabsroman]

2 weeks is the norm

2 weeks is the norm for a written opinion from a Federal Court? Where did you come up with this "norm"?

 

[teratos]

2 weeks is the norm for a written opinion from a Federal Court? Where did you come up with this "norm"?

Everyone knows it's 2 weeks


(it's a running joke than when people ask "when", the answer is always "2 weeks")