Kolbe en banc decision

[fabsroman]

Just read a Baltimore Sun article, and it says that 21 states had asked SCOTUS to take Kolbe on cert. Am I getting this right? 21 states want to know a final SCOTUS answer to this conundrum and SCOTUS will not take it.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Just read a Baltimore Sun article, and it says that 21 states had asked SCOTUS to take Kolbe on cert. Am I getting this right? 21 states want to know a final SCOTUS answer to this conundrum and SCOTUS will not take it.

I believe it was this brief:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...20-Other-States-In-Support-of-Petitioners.pdf

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Is their anyway they can refile asking for reconsideration on this? A third of the US is asking SCOTUS to take the case.

 

[jcutonilli]

Is their anyway they can refile asking for reconsideration on this? A third of the US is asking SCOTUS to take the case.

I believe there is a rehearing mechanism. You can see this on page 8 of their latest orders https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112717zor_f204.pdf

They don't tell you why they reject you. I am not sure what you would say that has not already been said.

 

[pcfixer]

I believe it was this brief:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...20-Other-States-In-Support-of-Petitioners.pdf

Very good Amici Curiae.

These efforts to impose a federal ban similar to Maryland’s highlight the need for this Court’s involvement. Granting certiorari and reversing the Fourth Circuit would provide clarity not only to the lower courts,
but would also make clear to Congress that a federal attempt to disrupt the regulatory framework adopted by the overwhelming majority of States would be unconstitutional.

 

[esqappellate]

Is their anyway they can refile asking for reconsideration on this? A third of the US is asking SCOTUS to take the case.

Rehearing is almost *never* granted in the absence of some fundamental change in the law or facts that completely change the case. Not here. Seeking rehearing is generally a waste of time and money

 

[rockstarr]

Just read a Baltimore Sun article, and it says that 21 states had asked SCOTUS to take Kolbe on cert. Am I getting this right? 21 states want to know a final SCOTUS answer to this conundrum and SCOTUS will not take it.

this blew my mind as well.

 

[press1280]

Even though there's a split WRT how the various circuits came to their conclusions, the results end up being the same. And that's the problem unfortunately, and the fact the circuits which have these bans are all pretty leftist.
Since the SAF and NRA have been reluctant to go to state courts, we're kind of stuck until SCOTUS makes a ruling that creates a scrutiny standard which can put these other decisions in doubt.

 

[jcutonilli]

There really was not much of a split across the circuits. The reason is that they were all argued the same. The problem is not the courts it is us. We refuse to acknowledge that we are members of society. Was any argument presented that demonstrated that a good guy with a gun makes us safer? The answer is no. The plaintiffs in all the cases were incredibly selfish and refused to acknowledge this basic fact. They simply made it about themselves. So long as you continue to ignore the fact that public safety is all of our responsibilities you are going to loose. Stop being selfish.

 

[j_h_smith]

Trying to be the optimist, could there be a reason the SC didn't take this case? Did someone see an issue that would have made this case unwinnable? It seems like this case had merit and should have been heard. So, do we have a guardian angel sitting on the bench, knowing that it wasn't the strongest case and they'd rather not hear the case then to rule against us?

 

[DanGuy48]

"weapons of war"- well I guess I declared a war on deer.

I'm not a hunter. Does Maryland restrict the type of rifles that can be used to hunt deer? I assume there is a caliber restriction at the lower end but what about semi-auto vs. bolt?

 

[jcutonilli]

This case is like the DC, NY, CT, and Highland Park AWB cases. While NY did not bring the case before SCOTUS, all of the other cases filed for cert and were denied. Kolbe is a little different because it was determined that they arms in question did not even have 2A protection. Even if they did correct the difference, you are still left with the same arguments that the other AWB cases presented. Why should they take a case the 4th time around when one of the primary reasons to take a case is that there is a split. The argument that Kolbe presented to SCOTUS was that there was a split, yet the decision was ultimately the same. How is that really a split if the outcome is the same?

 

[j_h_smith]

I'm not a hunter. Does Maryland restrict the type of rifles that can be used to hunt deer? I assume there is a caliber restriction at the lower end but what about semi-auto vs. bolt?

No, Maryland does not.

 

[Adolph Oliver Bush]

I'm not a hunter. Does Maryland restrict the type of rifles that can be used to hunt deer? I assume there is a caliber restriction at the lower end but what about semi-auto vs. bolt?

Must make 1200 ft-lbs at the muzzle.

 

[fabsroman]

Must make 1200 ft-lbs at the muzzle.

And no more than 8 rounds loaded in the mag. You can use a larger capacity mag, but it cannot have more than 8 in it.

 

[Muleskinner]

Trying to be the optimist, could there be a reason the SC didn't take this case? Did someone see an issue that would have made this case unwinnable? It seems like this case had merit and should have been heard. So, do we have a guardian angel sitting on the bench, knowing that it wasn't the strongest case and they'd rather not hear the case then to rule against us?

They refused to hear NY, they refused to hear CT it was almost guaranteed they would not hear MD...That's the reason...they set the precedent a few years back..

What we need is a constitutional amendment stating that ALL challenges directly to the Bill of Rights are to be heard directly by the SCOTUS without first going before a circuit. Those rights are suppose to be inclusive to every citizen in the country so that means the individual circuits should have zero say and the SCOTUS should be bound by law to hear the case...they don't get a choice..period..

 

[kcbrown]

There really was not much of a split across the circuits. The reason is that they were all argued the same. The problem is not the courts it is us. We refuse to acknowledge that we are members of society. Was any argument presented that demonstrated that a good guy with a gun makes us safer? The answer is no. The plaintiffs in all the cases were incredibly selfish and refused to acknowledge this basic fact. They simply made it about themselves. So long as you continue to ignore the fact that public safety is all of our responsibilities you are going to loose. Stop being selfish.

Suppose you argue that a good guy with a gun makes us safer because an individual's ability to defend himself adds to the aggregate safety. The state will argue, because they did argue, that the weapons in question here were not owned in any substantial way for self-defense, an argument that the court bought and used as part of its justification for finding the weapons to be outside of the scope of the 2nd Amendment, despite the fact that the plaintiffs argued against it:

Even if the State were correct that there must be evidence of use for self-defense, the record contains expert testimony from Buford Boone (former Special Supervisory Agent who oversaw the FBI’s Ballistic Research Facility in Quantico, Virginia), Dr. Gary Roberts, and Guy Rossi that the Prohibited Firearms are ideal for self-defense because they are easy to control, highly accurate, have limited penetration capability with respect to missed shots, and are effective at deterring aggressors. JA 2087, 2179-82, 2130-31. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert James Curcuruto testified that a survey of 21,942 owners showed that one of the primary reasons for their purchase of a Prohibited Firearm was home defense. JA 1878. Plaintiff Andrew Turner, a wounded veteran with partial paralysis of his dominant hand, testified that he uses his regulated firearm (now prohibited) to ensure his ability to defend his home. JA 1855-56. The State’s expert witness Daniel Webster, a leading Maryland gun control advocate, acknowledged the commonsense understanding that Prohibited Firearms are kept by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, JA 2291, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has confirmed this fact. JA 740. No court that has considered this issue has accepted the State’s argument that the Prohibited Firearms are not used for self-defense.
.
.
.
Clearly, “necessity” is not the correct standard for determining Second Amendment protection because the Heller Court rejected the District’s argument that its handgun prohibition was constitutional because the District permitted the use of other firearms in self-defense and, therefore, handguns were not necessary. Heller, 554 U. S. at 629. Just as the State cannot argue that handguns are not commonly kept for self-defense, it cannot credibly argue that the Prohibited Magazines are not commonly kept for self-defense. Thus, it changes the test it would have this Court apply. There is no basis in the law for requiring “necessity” as a condition for Second Amendment protection, and doing so would run counter to Supreme Court precedent focusing on the popular choice of law-abiding citizens.

So in light of that, how exactly do you believe an "individual safety contributes to public safety" argument would have saved this case, when the court wasn't even buying the argument that the weapons were owned for self-defense purposes in the first place, even in the face of evidence to the contrary?

 

[jcutonilli]

The state has not enacted a total ban. They have already acknowledged that these arms have some societal use and have specifically granted exceptions. Self defense is not one of those exceptions. The reason stated in Kolbe for allowing retired law enforcement officers had to do with public safety. Kolbe never argued for public safety so the situation is different. All you really need to do is say we agree with the state that these arms have a societal use related to public safety. The state cannot dispute this. At the time of our founding it was expected that all citizens provide public safety. It is even listed on the MSP website. The state cannot dispute that either. There is really nothing for them to dispute.

 

[Adolph Oliver Bush]

And no more than 8 rounds loaded in the mag. You can use a larger capacity mag, but it cannot have more than 8 in it.

No more than three, plug required, if you're hunting skunk though.......

 

[JosERW]

Even though there's a split WRT how the various circuits came to their conclusions, the results end up being the same. And that's the problem unfortunately, and the fact the circuits which have these bans are all pretty leftist.
Since the SAF and NRA have been reluctant to go to state courts, we're kind of stuck until SCOTUS makes a ruling that creates a scrutiny standard which can put these other decisions in doubt.

So how do we get a strict scrutiny case to SCOTUS? Can any gun case be a strict scrutiny case? If the only way we're going to SCOTUS is with a split than the only way we're getting a split is with a federal ban because only commie states, with commie courts will enact these bans. So basically our rights are gone and we're pretty much f'ed.