Kolbe en banc decision

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Heller: Held
    [/U]Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
    and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
    Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265,
    refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
    limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
    limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
    the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
    banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
    the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
    capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

    AND:
    1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption
    of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within
    a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments. . .”).
    If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would
    be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational basis.the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
    ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
     

    Attachments

    • HellerVSDC07-290.pdf
      631.9 KB · Views: 208

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    The progressive crowd has always coalesced around two mantras:
    1. We know what’s best for you because we are smarter and better educated and better connected, and you are little more than a simple redneck hick.
    2. When we have the power, we’ll program your life and make you live the way we plan for you. You won’t have to worry (or think) about a thing.

    Progressives are entrenched in power in America now and the next step could be the ruin of our republic, which will become a Fascist state. (FDR praised Hitler’s friend, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, for his vision and “social engineering.”) The next step could be uniforms (eliminating class distinctions in clothing because that embarrasses the poor), a tax on red cars (the color excites the senses), seizure of your retirement accounts (too unequal in a progressive “democracy”), the elimination of advertisements that portray women in bathing suits (that offends Muslims)…and where exactly is John Galt?

    Part of the progressive vision is to do away with citizen ownership of firearms. Progressives, through their FBI, say you shouldn’t have and don’t need a gun for any reason, from hunting to self-defense. Under progressive “leadership,” our way of life, our individuality, the land of the free and home of the brave itself, the last, best hope for mankind, could simply wither and die.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16a1074.htm

    May 3 2017 Application (16A1074) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 22, 2017 to July 21, 2017, submitted to The Chief Justice.

    Looks like they will be seeking cert, but I'd estimate it may not get to conference until the very end of the year.

    The extension has officially been approved.
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16a1074.htm
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Delay is good in case Kennedy decides this summer is the right time to hang up his robes as the nomination could be concluded before cert is considered, having five solid votes would be far better than four solids and a squishy.
     

    JosERW

    Member
    May 18, 2017
    13
    Been reading posts on here for a while. I'm from NY so I care very much about the success of this case. Just wondering if there is there anything to be read into this extension or just that its an extension? With SCOTUS denying cert to every case before this I am a little pessimistic about them granting this case. What makes this case any different (besides the fact the 4th's ruling was completely and utterly irrational and illogical.

    With everything going on, should Kennedy retire, would we get a replacement by the time this is ready to go to conference?
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,776
    Bel Air
    Been reading posts on here for a while. I'm from NY so I care very much about the success of this case. Just wondering if there is there anything to be read into this extension or just that its an extension? With SCOTUS denying cert to every case before this I am a little pessimistic about them granting this case. What makes this case any different (besides the fact the 4th's ruling was completely and utterly irrational and illogical.

    With everything going on, should Kennedy retire, would we get a replacement by the time this is ready to go to conference?


    Sure. Now that you only need a simple majority to approve a Justice, they should get a replacement through with ease. Justice Pryor would make the libs' heads explode.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Been reading posts on here for a while. I'm from NY so I care very much about the success of this case. Just wondering if there is there anything to be read into this extension or just that its an extension? With SCOTUS denying cert to every case before this I am a little pessimistic about them granting this case. What makes this case any different (besides the fact the 4th's ruling was completely and utterly irrational and illogical.

    With everything going on, should Kennedy retire, would we get a replacement by the time this is ready to go to conference?

    I wouldn't read much into the extension. It's a good move in case another case gets decided contrary to this one, then we'll have a split which will make it more likely that SCOTUS takes it.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,695
    The progressive crowd has always coalesced around two mantras:
    1. We know what’s best for you because we are smarter and better educated and better connected, and you are little more than a simple redneck hick.
    2. When we have the power, we’ll program your life and make you live the way we plan for you. You won’t have to worry (or think) about a thing.

    Progressives are entrenched in power in America now and the next step could be the ruin of our republic, which will become a Fascist state. (FDR praised Hitler’s friend, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, for his vision and “social engineering.”) The next step could be uniforms (eliminating class distinctions in clothing because that embarrasses the poor), a tax on red cars (the color excites the senses), seizure of your retirement accounts (too unequal in a progressive “democracy”), the elimination of advertisements that portray women in bathing suits (that offends Muslims)…and where exactly is John Galt?

    Part of the progressive vision is to do away with citizen ownership of firearms. Progressives, through their FBI, say you shouldn’t have and don’t need a gun for any reason, from hunting to self-defense. Under progressive “leadership,” our way of life, our individuality, the land of the free and home of the brave itself, the last, best hope for mankind, could simply wither and die.

    I completely understand your angst about the fate of the Republic, so called. I shared it until November 8.

    At that point, it became obvious that there are still enough Americans who remember what this country is about, and are willing to act to preserve and protect it.

    On 2A issues alone, it's obvious that the tide has long since turned favorably toward 2A rights. Living in MD makes it hard to see, as we're still suffering under the Progressive yoke. While CA, NJ, MA, NY and their ilk retain their repressive policies, CA and NY are losing population, as more and more folks are unwilling to give up their rights and tax dollars to support political structures that do not support their interests.

    Illinois and Wisconsin have gone shall-issue, a remarkable fact that is under-appreciated by those suffering from BGOS.

    So long as good men are willing to stand up for what they believe, the nation and its founding principles will survive. "Standing up" requires more effort that clicking keyboards, however. Physically facing up to politicians, financially supporting those pols and organisations that reflect your values, and defending your stance to those who would intimidate you into silence, is going to be required.
     

    JosERW

    Member
    May 18, 2017
    13
    I wouldn't read much into the extension. It's a good move in case another case gets decided contrary to this one, then we'll have a split which will make it more likely that SCOTUS takes it.

    As far as I know there are no pending "aw" ban cases at the appeals level currently. The recent CA challenge will take at least 3 years and the MA challenge (I think they are suing) hasn't even gotten to district court yet but the 1st Circuit is super liberal. We may NEVER get a split. This is pretty much our best chance.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    As far as I know there are no pending "aw" ban cases at the appeals level currently. The recent CA challenge will take at least 3 years and the MA challenge (I think they are suing) hasn't even gotten to district court yet but the 1st Circuit is super liberal. We may NEVER get a split. This is pretty much our best chance.

    There is an Illinois case which has now been going on years in their state courts, otherwise I don't know any others. It's possible we may get lucky with a criminal case, or perhaps scrutiny guidance from SCOTUS in the meantime.
    In essence the delay can only help. I do agree getting a split specifically on an AWB is going to be difficult since the few places that have them always have courts stacked up with anti judges.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    There is an Illinois case which has now been going on years in their state courts, otherwise I don't know any others. It's possible we may get lucky with a criminal case, or perhaps scrutiny guidance from SCOTUS in the meantime.
    In essence the delay can only help. I do agree getting a split specifically on an AWB is going to be difficult since the few places that have them always have courts stacked up with anti judges.

    SCOTUS doesn't only take cases where there is a split. It will take a case where the law is just flat out wrong. In essence, it will take an appeal case where the lower courts are continually misapplying precedent from SCOTUS cases, like Heller.

    The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value.

    http://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...ational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

    As far as I am concerned, the 4th Circuit misapplied Heller and ignored the facts in the case.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,192
    Davidsonville
    If the wait or delay is another 6 to 10 months, or longer, would it be for naught if in that time frame there is another meaningless attack somewhere in the US?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    SCOTUS doesn't only take cases where there is a split. It will take a case where the law is just flat out wrong. In essence, it will take an appeal case where the lower courts are continually misapplying precedent from SCOTUS cases, like Heller.



    http://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...ational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

    As far as I am concerned, the 4th Circuit misapplied Heller and ignored the facts in the case.

    True, but the stats are heavily against you without a split (I believe I read over 90% are splits) and since they already passed on Freidman I just can't see this one going anywhere unless the court makeup changes OR there's a split.
     

    JosERW

    Member
    May 18, 2017
    13
    True, but the stats are heavily against you without a split (I believe I read over 90% are splits) and since they already passed on Freidman I just can't see this one going anywhere unless the court makeup changes OR there's a split.

    This is also what I have been told. With no split we're SOL and since the lower courts know this they will just keep upholding these bans. Since no jurisdictions with friendly courts will ban these guns we may never get a split. Justice Thomas even said in his dissent on Freidman's cert denial that the court has taken cases without splits before and that this case should be no different especially considering it relegates the Second Amendment to being a second class right. I am hopeful but this would be my fourth letdown should they not take it. The fact that a corrupt biased ruling like the 4CA's could stand makes an absolute mockery of the Constitution and the Federal Judiciary.

    Needless to say, people in NY are already living under the assumption we will never get our rights back. Everyone is more than happy to have their neutered AR's... that is until they ban those.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,951
    Messages
    7,260,379
    Members
    33,357
    Latest member
    Curtis6789

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom