Kolbe v. O'Malley Hearing - Commentary & Link to Audio

drblast33 said:

I hate how these go because I feel like some judges ask questions crafted to go down a useless rabbit hole. The questions do nothing but take time away from the testimony. I feel like they should go back and forth for a month, and they should let them.

Click to expand...

In my opinion (and many others as well) everything that any pro gun group in Md has been wasted down a useless rabbit hole. I still have the little stickers we handed out back in 1988 trying to defeat the gun ban which formed the infamous "handgun roster". We worked our asses off collecting signatures and trying to inform people about their rights and how the new law would infringe on them...They didn't care..they voted for the law anyway...

And now I see good men and women beating their heads into brick walls (figuratively) with petitions, letter writing, emails, rallies and attending committee hearings on bills that will never see the light of day. Even if this law gets overturned and the 20 round capacity mags are reinstated it's only a tiny victory and only a matter of time before the gun grabbers find another way to remove our rights...maybe by limiting the amount of ammo you can have? Or limiting your "privilege" in this state to buy ammo to once a year and only a small number of boxes? They WILL find a way...Hogan will not be governor forever and it's a pretty good bet that the next one will be a liberal democrat...

Nothing works...I know first hand how the liberal anti gun mentality works...being married to one for several years taught me a lot..the more you fight, the louder the tantrum they throw...the harder they dig in their heels...short of getting the states illegal, unconstitutional gun laws before the Supreme Court of the United States you have no chance...no chance of removing SB281, no chance of EVER getting a definition for GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL and no chance of a SHALL ISSUE...period...Should you give up? Well ask yourself this...if this was a fight that was winnable...even in the long (very long) run the NRA would be throwing money at this issue like crazy...where have they been? They send up a rep or two to speak at the committee hearings and then they go back to their castle in Fairfax and forget about us for another year...And I know what you are thinking..."if we can't change the liberal's minds, we can change the delegate....in theory you're right...at least you were right until Owe Malley and his minions redrew and gerrymandered the election district map in 2010...Even if you were successful in removing one liberal from office, Chances are another would win the seat...We can't recall them, we can't defeat them in an election, and we cannot gather signatures to place a proposition on the ballot...in short the Democrats have stacked the deck..

Muleskinner said:

In my opinion (and many others as well) everything that any pro gun group in Md has been wasted down a useless rabbit hole. I still have the little stickers we handed out back in 1988 trying to defeat the gun ban which formed the infamous "handgun roster". We worked our asses off collecting signatures and trying to inform people about their rights and how the new law would infringe on them...They didn't care..they voted for the law anyway...

And now I see good men and women beating their heads into brick walls (figuratively) with petitions, letter writing, emails, rallies and attending committee hearings on bills that will never see the light of day. Even if this law gets overturned and the 20 round capacity mags are reinstated it's only a tiny victory and only a matter of time before the gun grabbers find another way to remove our rights...maybe by limiting the amount of ammo you can have? Or limiting your "privilege" in this state to buy ammo to once a year and only a small number of boxes? They WILL find a way...Hogan will not be governor forever and it's a pretty good bet that the next one will be a liberal democrat...

Nothing works...I know first hand how the liberal anti gun mentality works...being married to one for several years taught me a lot..the more you fight, the louder the tantrum they throw...the harder they dig in their heels...short of getting the states illegal, unconstitutional gun laws before the Supreme Court of the United States you have no chance...no chance of removing SB281, no chance of EVER getting a definition for GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL and no chance of a SHALL ISSUE...period...Should you give up? Well ask yourself this...if this was a fight that was winnable...even in the long (very long) run the NRA would be throwing money at this issue like crazy...where have they been? They send up a rep or two to speak at the committee hearings and then they go back to their castle in Fairfax and forget about us for another year...And I know what you are thinking..."if we can't change the liberal's minds, we can change the delegate....in theory you're right...at least you were right until Owe Malley and his minions redrew and gerrymandered the election district map in 2010...Even if you were successful in removing one liberal from office, Chances are another would win the seat...We can't recall them, we can't defeat them in an election, and we cannot gather signatures to place a proposition on the ballot...in short the Democrats have stacked the deck..

Click to expand...

You are really wrong on this one by several hundred miles.

1. Shannon Alfred, the NRA-ILA Maryland lobbyist, is not a "90 day wonder" she busts her but working issues in MD year round, along side the rest of us.

2. The NRA is bankrolling the majority of this lawsuit and is a named plaintiff of the case.

3. The NRA is also the organization that dropped the starting funds for the HQL lawsuit that is currently on hold.

So, tell us again, how much the NRA doesn't care about Maryland?

/rant

dblas said:

You are really wrong on this one by several hundred miles.

1. Shannon Alfred, the NRA-ILA Maryland lobbyist, is not a "90 day wonder" she busts her but working issues in MD year round, along side the rest of us.

2. The NRA is bankrolling the majority of this lawsuit and is a named plaintiff of the case.

3. The NRA is also the organization that dropped the starting funds for the HQL lawsuit that is currently on hold.

So, tell us again, how much the NRA doesn't care about Maryland?

/rant

Click to expand...

In 1988 when we fought against the handgun roster the NRA was here every single day. beating down the doors of delegates, bank rolling the PR campaign, producing TV and radio spots, taking out full page ads in the papers, high level NRA management came to rallies and spoke..I see none of that now..BUT even if they did the rest of my points are valid and enough that you still will NEVER see concealed carry in this state. It's over...they have won....

AGCLVP said:

Governor Hogan has no influence with Brian Frosh because the Attorney General of Maryland is an independent elective office. Frosh will probably do whatever he can to keep the gun ban in place. This is why I have cautioned that as promising as the 4th Circuit hearing was, it is not the final act. One way or the other, this case is headed for the Supreme Court. Whether or not SCOTUS will agree to hear the case is another matter.

Click to expand...

You know what would be awesome... If the appellate level agrees with the plaintiff and rules that FSA 2013 is unconstitutional. And then the Supreme Court refuses to take the case per the filing of the state.

Then we could use Vinnie's tactic and say the Supreme Court agrees with the 2A community that the State of Maryland implemented an unconstitutional law.

What many need to understand is that the oral arguments are not testimony, but rather an opportunity for the parties to highlight or supplement what they have filed in written form in their briefs, and an opportunity for the judges to probe something not explained in those briefs. Hence, while the exchanges during the arguments may suggest individual judges skepticism on certain points, its not the full picture of the issues that have been briefed and the issues before them.

Thank you for the summary, the links, and all the behind the scene hard work that goes into these legal battles.

esqappellate said:

Having just finished listening (for the first time), I got to say that I am not convinced that we necessarily have this won. Listening to a tape, of course, is not the same thing as being there, as there is no way to read body language (which can be quite informative). We may win and some of the questions were favorable, but not all of them. The court will have to wrestle with this notion that ARs are somehow uniquely dangerous military-type weapons. We know it is crazy, but we know guns. Judges don't know guns. Of course, if the state wins on their theory, Sweeney is right, the next ban will be on semiauto handguns.

Click to expand...

Why don't we see the Miller case emphasized more here. Sweeney did bring it up, but I think it could have been used more. The opinion in that case was that short barreled shotguns were not protected by the 2A and were unusual because they were not in common use by the MILITARY. That clinches this argument.

Has anybody probed into the distinction between military-style and civilian weapons?

Libs love to use machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. as extreme examples of things civilians shouldn't easily obtain, because they are "military style." Then they use the "military style" moniker in a slippery-slope argument to ban the AR15.

A 1911 is as "military style" as one can get, yet there's zero practical distinction between it and any other pistol. And they aren't banned.

If you can have a military style 1911, why not a military style AR15?

Jim12 said:

Has anybody probed into the distinction between military-style and civilian weapons? Libs love to use machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. as extreme examples of things civilians shouldn't easily obtain, because they are "military style." Then they use the "military style" moniker in a slippery-slope argument to ban the AR15. A 1911 is as "military style" as one can get, yet there's zero practical distinction between it and any other pistol. And they aren't banned. If you can have a military style 1911, why not a military style AR15?

Click to expand...

Nobody has used a .45 in a mass shooting. Also, you would wake up the unwashed masses. The majority of gun owners don't own a modern sporting rifle. Try to ban grandad's .45 and Garand.

If FSA 2013 were ruled unconstitutional, then wouldn't MD have to reimburse everyone who paid for fingerprints and the HQL? As much as I would like to see FSA 2013 removed, I believe that we will never see that happen. Not being a pessimist, just a realist.

Doobie said:

If FSA 2013 were ruled unconstitutional, then wouldn't MD have to reimburse everyone who paid for fingerprints and the HQL? As much as I would like to see FSA 2013 removed, I believe that we will never see that happen. Not being a pessimist, just a realist.

Click to expand...

No, nobody's suing for damages. But it is a fun thought to explore -- sue the MD state government in a class action for deprivation of civil rights? Wouldn't go anywhere in court but could get some interesting p.r. and a discussion. That's how the Left operates, and it's worked for them for 50 years. Of course, the majority of lawyers and judges are liberals.

teratos said:

Nobody has used a .45 in a mass shooting. Also, you would wake up the unwashed masses. The majority of gun owners don't own a modern sporting rifle. Try to ban grandad's .45 and Garand.

Click to expand...

Well, that would bring the issue to a head, and wake up those who are dozing on their rights.

Given that oral argument made clear that a revolver is a semi-automatic, and the State bans "military style" AR15's because they are more accurate and deadlier in semi-automatic mode than in their "military style only" automatic mode, the State can use the same argument to claim that every semi-automatic shotgun is "military style" and should be banned. Pistols and revolvers, too, using their argument.

They've drawn a distinction without meaning. In other words, it's entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Btw, short haircuts and camo are "military style." Maryland needs to ban them next. That's what we get for electing a bunch of old Vietnam-era anti-war hippies and their proteges and progeny to public office. Obama included.

Muleskinner said:

In my opinion (and many others as well) everything that any pro gun group in Md has been wasted down a useless rabbit hole. I still have the little stickers we handed out back in 1988 trying to defeat the gun ban which formed the infamous "handgun roster".......

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say wasted. Amusing to the opposition is more like it. From what we read of MSI representatives, gun rights in Maryland have made steady progress since 1988. I must confess, I've wasted time writing and sending testimony too. It is like being on a board of a directors of nine, and you are the constant "one" of 8 to 1 votes. Sure, I can keep voicing a pro 2A opinion to the majority in this state who will not change their mind. How likely is that majority going to change minds here for stricter gun controls? Works both ways. Legislative route is not a winner. How many years does it take some to realize that? The progress I've seen legislatively has been a one way direction for tighter firearms control, maybe I'm mistaken. Concentrate on the legal issues in the courts. Legislative is a waste of time.

Next wait is why the new MSP Superintendent is not accepting "self defense" as G&S, despite the closed door meetings..

Doobie said:

If FSA 2013 were ruled unconstitutional, then wouldn't MD have to reimburse everyone who paid for fingerprints and the HQL? As much as I would like to see FSA 2013 removed, I believe that we will never see that happen. Not being a pessimist, just a realist.

Click to expand...

The HQL is not being challenged in this case. This is only about the banned firearms and "high" capacity magazines. There is a separate suit that has been put on hold for the time being, about the HQL.

mxrider said:

The HQL is not being challenged in this case. This is only about the banned firearms and "high" capacity magazines. There is a separate suit that has been put on hold for the time being, about the HQL.

Click to expand...

IIRC, DeMarco has said publicly on occasion, even recently, that the HQL law wasn't challenged. Is he lying? If so, why hasn't he been corrected?

mxrider said:

The HQL is not being challenged in this case. This is only about the banned firearms and "high" capacity magazines. There is a separate suit that has been put on hold for the time being, about the HQL.

Click to expand...

Why is the HQL lawsuit on hold? I keep hearing everyone say it was filed but on hold? What's the deal with that?

Jim12 said:

IIRC, DeMarco has said publicly on occasion, even recently, that the HQL law wasn't challenged. Is he lying? If so, why hasn't he been corrected?

Click to expand...

moojersey said:

Why is the HQL lawsuit on hold? I keep hearing everyone say it was filed but on hold? What's the deal with that?

Click to expand...

The HQL suit was filed at the same time as the Kolbe case. I don't know the legal terms, but it was put on hold with the ability to start back up at any time within 3 years. This was done due to financial reasons as the funds were not there to proceed with that case. All of the organizations are working together to try and fund this.

mxrider said:

The HQL is not being challenged in this case. This is only about the banned firearms and "high" capacity magazines. There is a separate suit that has been put on hold for the time being, about the HQL.

Click to expand...

Jim12 said:

IIRC, DeMarco has said publicly on occasion, even recently, that the HQL law wasn't challenged. Is he lying? If so, why hasn't he been corrected?

Click to expand...

moojersey said:

Why is the HQL lawsuit on hold? I keep hearing everyone say it was filed but on hold? What's the deal with that?

Click to expand...

The hql case is Doe v O'Malley.

Read this:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...re-Doe-v.-OMalley-and-Tardy-v.-OMalley_18.pdf

ShallNotInfringe said:

The hql case is Doe v O'Malley. Read this: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-OMalley_Status-Report-re-Doe-v.-OMalley-and-Tardy-v.-OMalley_18.pdf

Click to expand...

Mid 6 figures to push the case, and funding just isn't there.

teratos said:

Mid 6 figures to push the case, and funding just isn't there.

Click to expand...

I've always thought that the HQL restrictions coupled with the MSP regs was a strong case as it acts to heavily restrict access to handguns in the home. If we win the AWB in the 4th in Kolbe, it will be even stronger.

Ok thank you all for responding so quick. That makes sense. I would imagine funding to be tight with two suits going forward at the same time.