Decision in Kolbe!

[toddtrain]

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/appeals-...econsider-md-gun-law-ruling/37818304#comments

 

[Mr H]

They'll twist it sideways later...

Vinny DeMarco was unavailable for comment.

 

[occbrian]

"The State’s expert Daniel Webster even agreed that it is reasonable to assume that a purpose for keeping one of the prohibited weapons is self-defense in the home."

hahaha...

THANKS, DANIEL!

 

[esqappellate]

How do you cite this opinion? I never know how to blue book stuff that just has come out.

Kolbe v. Hogan, No. 14-1945 (4th Cir., Feb. 4, 2016) (slip op). It's not yet up on Westlaw. That may take a couple of days.

 

[Mr H]

"The State’s expert Daniel Webster even agreed that it is reasonable to assume that a purpose for keeping one of the prohibited weapons is self-defense in the home."

hahaha...

THANKS, DANIEL!

But he wouldn't want it ever seeing the light of day. It might see someone it hates, and just start killing on its own!

What a twit he is...

 

[Soda]

WOW!!!! JUST WOW!!!!

I mean, i'm going to wait to see how they rig the system in their favor like they have in so many other of these kinds of decisions, but WOW!

 

[Elliotte]

Question for you Esq (or anyone else that knows) since the case is remanded back to the District, does it automatically go back to the same judge? Likewise when the District generates a new ruling will it come back to this same panel of 3 Circuit judges?

 

[balttigger]

SO, by vacating the District Court's decision, it still leaves the law as is - correct?

And now we have to wait for Blake to "re-decide" and figure out how she can word her decision to screw us again and stay true to her liberal task masters so we can go back to Richmond - again - and wait another year for the hearing -again- then wait a year for the decision -again- before it goes.....

See ya back here in 5 years.

 

[rseymorejr]

They'll twist it sideways later...

Vinny DeMarco was unavailable for comment.

Maybe he had a stroke?

 

[esqappellate]

Awesome news!!! And thanks for the mostly plain English summary, esqappellate:

Well, I do the best I can on that....

 

[rockstarr]

SO, by vacating the District Court's decision, it still leaves the law as is - correct?

And now we have to wait for Blake to "re-decide" and figure out how she can word her decision to screw us again and stay true to her liberal task masters so we can go back to Richmond - again - and wait another year for the hearing -again- then wait a year for the decision -again- before it goes.....

See ya back here in 5 years.

I could be wrong but that's basically how I am seeing it as well and am not quite sure why all the excitement over nothing imo.

 

[esqappellate]

Question for you Esq (or anyone else that knows) since the case is remanded back to the District, does it automatically go back to the same judge? Likewise when the District generates a new ruling will it come back to this same panel of 3 Circuit judges?

Yes, to the same district court judge. And yes, probably, to the same panel on any subsequent appeal. This decision becomes "law of the case" That's assuming that there is no further review en banc or at the Supremes.

 

[protegeV]

That is because 2A in MD linked this page on facebook. It should maybe go to WC so not everyone can see the comments.

WC is not a legitimate shield. Leave it alone.

 

[danb]

When it comes to more and more courtrooms, I'm a bird in hand any day of the week.

Democratic delegate voting to moot a court case to prevent any national implications of this opinion, a court case they themselves created 3 years ago, then claiming the pro gun mantle..

Aw hell no.

ETA: but im open to compromise if these idiots want to add personal protection and self defense for wear and carry

 

[esqappellate]

I could be wrong but that's basically how I am seeing it as well and am not quite sure why all the excitement over nothing imo.

Applying strict scrutiny is *huge* As the dissent noted, that standard is "strict" in theory but "fatal in fact" Frosh et al will have very hard time with it.

 

[MDFF2008]

I could be wrong but that's basically how I am seeing it as well and am not quite sure why all the excitement over nothing imo.

She very well could deliver another half-assed opinion, but now that the 4th has said SS must be applied, it'll be harder for her to write an opinion that says "guns are bad mkay" and easier for the panel to over turn it.

This is big, not for the immediate minute, but for the future.

 

[raif10]

Welp...time to open the wallet again. I always support the struggle.

 

[occbrian]

Applying strict scrutiny is *huge* As the dissent noted, that standard is "strict" in theory but "fatal in fact" Frosh et al will have very hard time with it.

IMO... barring en banc... this essentially handcuffs Blake.

Frosh et al were already contorted beyond belief in their initial argument. It would appear that this decision already lays the ground work for destroying their position (without actually doing so).

If Frosh gets out of this with a favorable decision at the district level, it will be a Houdini level escape.

 

[camobob]

For those interested in looking for a meaningful statement to express to their delegates in regards to current and future MD firearm legislation, I present this quote from the opinion. (pg. 45 of 90)

Our distinguished dissenting colleague asserts that we have imprudently and unnecessarily broken with our sister courts of appeal and infers that we will bear some responsibility for future mass shootings. In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions and we will not respond beyond noting this. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.

Today is a good day!

 

[balttigger]

So now it has to be scheduled for a new hearing and everyone has to have time to file their briefs and prepare - so we are looking at realistically??? September?