fabsroman
Ultimate Member
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.
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.
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 it was this brief:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...20-Other-States-In-Support-of-Petitioners.pdf
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.
Is their anyway they can refile asking for reconsideration on this? A third of the US is asking SCOTUS to take the case.
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.
"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?
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.
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?
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.
Kolbe v O'Malley Reply Brief for Plaintiffs Appellants said: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.
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.
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.