Decision in Kolbe!

[NB82]

The ruling is up: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945.P.pdf
Anyone speak lawyer? What's going on?

 

[motorcoachdoug]

This is posted today in 4ca Kolbe vs Hogan
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

[Maxsplat]

I'm not a lawyer but I have a feeling this statement means we need to take this further:

"We conclude — contrary to the now-vacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach."

For those wondering that was found on page 9.

 

[Apd09]

I'm removing this post

 

[fabsroman]

This is posted today in 4ca Kolbe vs Hogan
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

They must apply strict scrutiny. We WON. The District Court applied intermediate scrutiny. HOLY COW!!!!!!!!!!!! The tides are turning. I just glanced through it, and it will have to wait until this weekend for me to read all of it, but it looks really promising. It also mentions that "large capacity mags" are standard in that there are 75 million of them in circulation.

To sum up, the panel vacates the district court’s summary
judgment order on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims and
remands for the district court to apply strict scrutiny. The
panel affirms the district court’s summary judgment order on
Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim with respect to the FSA’s
exception permitting retired law enforcement officers to possess
semi-automatic rifles. Finally, the panel affirms the district
court’s conclusion that the FSA is not unconstitutionally vague.

 

[mxrider]

For now, we lost. Will get into it deeper later

 

[mxrider]

They must apply strict scrutiny. We WON. The District Court applied intermediate scrutiny. HOLY COW!!!!!!!!!!!! The tides are turning. I just glanced through it, and it will have to wait until this weekend for me to read all of it, but it looks really promising. It also mentions that "large capacity mags" are standard in that there are 75 million of them in circulation.

To sum up, the panel vacates the district court’s summary
judgment order on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims and
remands for the district court to apply strict scrutiny. The
panel affirms the district court’s summary judgment order on
Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim with respect to the FSA’s
exception permitting retired law enforcement officers to possess
semi-automatic rifles. Finally, the panel affirms the district
court’s conclusion that the FSA is not unconstitutionally vague.

Not correct. The court ruled Intermediate scrutiny applies.

 

[teratos]

This flies in the face of Miller which said SBS were not covered because they were not in military service.....

 

[fabsroman]

Not correct. The court ruled Intermediate scrutiny applies.

Am I reading the wrong opinion?

Yep, the link that was posted is to the February 4, 2016 opinion. SOB

So, I go from happy as can be, to this sucks as much as possible. SOB

I don't even want to read the en banc opinion now.

 

[mxrider]

Am I reading the wrong opinion?

Yep, the link that was posted is to the February 4, 2016 opinion. SOB

So, I go from happy as can be, to this sucks as much as possible. SOB

I don't even want to read the en banc opinion now.

No you don't

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[krucam]

District ruling is affirmed....

 

[Boondock Saint]

To SCOTUS we will go,
To SCOTUS we will go,
Hi, ho, the dairy-o,
To SCOTUS we will go...

 

[Muleskinner]

To SCOTUS we will go,
To SCOTUS we will go,
Hi, ho, the dairy-o,
To SCOTUS we will go...

They refused to look at NY They refused to look at CT

Don't hold yer breath...

Next stop after they refuse to give an opinion...California style laws..turn in your mags that hold more then 10, pin in your 10 round mags and register ever rifle you own...OH and no more then 500 rounds of ammo...watch it happen...

 

[fightinbluhen51]

They refused to look at NY They refused to look at CT

Don't hold yer breath...

Next stop after they refuse to give an opinion...California style laws..turn in your mags that hold more then 10, pin in your 10 round mags and register ever rifle you own...OH and no more then 500 rounds of ammo...watch it happen...

Then a criminal I shall become!

 

[teratos]

Then a criminal I shall become!

Amen.

 

[dogbone]

Then a criminal I shall become!

Or a patriot...

 

[Muleskinner]

Then a criminal I shall become!

You and me both...and plenty of others...

 

[teratos]

#notmycircuitcourt

 

[Abacab]

If you didn't know it was over when it went en banc, this will sting for you. Otherwise as expected.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

You and me both...and plenty of others...

Let them read it. Let them honestly put this before a jury of our peers.

I know it is damned near stupid to be your own legal counsel in situations like this; but I would seriously consider a nullification defense.

Out and out front a nullification defense. And let any SA read these words here to know it and attempt to boot it from court! I dare you!

#notmycircuitcourt

Unfortunately, it is the hand we are dealt; but the judiciary is out of control. All of the Federal government is truly out of control. They just aren't getting the message no matter how we slice it.

If you didn't know it was over when it went en banc, this will sting for you. Otherwise as expected.

Most of us knew; but the thin line of hope was being held.

How these tyrranists (not jurists) get away with they're mental gymnastics (up hold Chester & Black in one decision, deny "Ford Pick-ups" in another) is absolutely disgusting.

Separate, but equal, and it does not mean NOT open to criticism when the rejects get outcome based rulings.

(I'm extra pithy today; I'm sick, literally, with a cold, and I'm miz).