4th Circuit decision in Kolbe on AWB

[Dreago]

Vinnie is like a rejected muppet.

Animal has better hair and makes a hell of a lot more sense when he talks.

 

[danb]

Vinnie is like a rejected muppet.

Please do not insult muppets. Besides, Vinnie is not a puppet. Frosh is the puppet and Vinnie is the hand.

 

[teratos]

Please do not insult muppets. Besides, Vinnie is not a puppet. Frosh is the puppet and Vinnie is the hand.

I think it's the other way around. They have Vinnie shilling all the time. Frosh is much smarter than Vinnie.

 

[Mr H]

I think it's the other way around. They have Vinnie shilling all the time. Frosh is much smarter than Vinnie.

This...

But Curran & Co. is still backing the whole shebang. Frosh just happens to be the current tip of the tool...

 

[mxrider]

Yeah, but we're not there yet. Long road to come.

Actually, we are there at this moment. Their ruling is binding in the 4th right now.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[EL1227]

I think it's the other way around. They have Vinnie shilling all the time. Frosh is much smarter than Vinnie.

Well, actually ...

If Frosh were as smart as you give him credit, he would tell Spinny Vinnie to stop crediting him in recorded public statements like he did on State Circle.

Taking that vid to the bank may get us a two-fer simultaneously discrediting Frosh and deMarco in the court of public opinion. Which quite possibly might also help in the HQL suit.

If Vinnie is spinning, why shouldn't we ?

 

[RepublicanJD]

Actually, we are there at this moment. Their ruling is binding in the 4th right now.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

We are not there yet. En banc is coming and it probably won't go well.

 

[redeemed.man]

I think this is the gun control case Justice Roberts has been keeping his powder dry for.

I see a YUGE win if it goes to SCOTUS.

Maybe but I would rather see carry rights advanced nationally.

 

[danb]

I think it's the other way around. They have Vinnie shilling all the time. Frosh is much smarter than Vinnie.

Honestly I think if you put the two together in a room with matches they could not invent fire.

 

[BeoBill]

Well, actually ...

If Frosh were as smart as you give him credit, he would tell Spinny Vinnie to stop crediting him in recorded public statements like he did on State Circle.

Taking that vid to the bank may get us a two-fer simultaneously discrediting Frosh and deMarco in the court of public opinion. Which quite possibly might also help in the HQL suit.

If Vinnie is spinning, why shouldn't we ?

And that's where the fatal combination of arrogance and sunlight may take both of them down.

 

[mxrider]

We are not there yet. En banc is coming and it probably won't go well.

Until we lose en banc or at SCOTUS, the 4th ruling is binding

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[RepublicanJD]

Until we lose en banc or at SCOTUS, the 4th ruling is binding

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Do you think you're enlightening me? You're not getting another case decided before En Banc.

 

[danb]

Do you think you're enlightening me? You're not getting another case decided before En Banc.

I posted in the other thread. I think en banc or Supreme Court hearing this at this stage is a longshot. I think Frosh will tilt at the windmill because he has to, but 1- the court's own precedent seems to require this result;2-at this stage its only a remand for more fact finding. The full court can let this percolate more before they take it. Plus, the dissent is not very persuasive.

I do not see a compelling reason to take this since the law has not been struck yet.

 

[RepublicanJD]

I posted in the other thread. I think en banc or Supreme Court hearing this at this stage is a longshot. I think Frosh will tilt at the windmill because he has to, but 1- the court's own precedent seems to require this result;2-at this stage its only a remand for more fact finding. The full court can let this percolate more before they take it. Plus, the dissent is not very persuasive.



I do not see a compelling reason to take this since the law has not been struck yet.

Definitely possible.

 

[Kharn]

The 4th also rarely sits en banc, in the last decade they've heard at most four cases per year (that was 2011) with the average being 2 cases. 2015 had no en banc cases.

 

[Master_P]

The 4th also rarely sits en banc, in the last decade they've heard at most four cases per year (that was 2011) with the average being 2 cases. 2015 had no en banc cases.

Not to sound like KcClown, but ... well ... because guns!


Salient COA opinions that attract this much public attention are at elevated odds of getting vacated en banc. Examples:

Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Dep’t
Peruta v. County of San Diego
Halbig v. Burwell

Moore v Madigan was a pro-gun COA opinion which fell one vote short of getting vacated en banc.

Seeing that the Judge King's dissent goes off the deep end with the whole "weapons of war" BS, it's a fair bet that he will make a sua sponte call to have the panel opinion vacated en banc, if the AG doesn't make that request first.

 

[MDFF2008]

I actually had the same thought. While I'd love to see the 4th circuit follow that principal of almost never going en banc, we are talking about 2A here and that seems to have it's own playbook.

Let's hope that this is the first step in standardizing the 2A playbook to be inline with the 1A playbook.

 

[press1280]

Not to sound like KcClown, but ... well ... because guns!


Salient COA opinions that attract this much public attention are at elevated odds of getting vacated en banc. Examples:

Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Dep’t
Peruta v. County of San Diego
Halbig v. Burwell

Moore v Madigan was a pro-gun COA opinion which fell one vote short of getting vacated en banc.

Seeing that the Judge King's dissent goes off the deep end with the whole "weapons of war" BS, it's a fair bet that he will make a sua sponte call to have the panel opinion vacated en banc, if the AG doesn't make that request first.

Don't forget Nordyke v. King (in which the government even won), US v. Skoien

 

[teratos]

Not to sound like KcClown, but ... well ... because guns!


Salient COA opinions that attract this much public attention are at elevated odds of getting vacated en banc. Examples:

Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Dep’t
Peruta v. County of San Diego
Halbig v. Burwell

Moore v Madigan was a pro-gun COA opinion which fell one vote short of getting vacated en banc.

Seeing that the Judge King's dissent goes off the deep end with the whole "weapons of war" BS, it's a fair bet that he will make a sua sponte call to have the panel opinion vacated en banc, if the AG doesn't make that request first.

I'd be fine with the "weapons of war" argument if the Judges on "our" side would put the rest of the intent of the 2A down on paper. If you look at the Miller decision, it says a SBS is not covered basically because it is not a weapon of war. Not in those words, but it is implied. The 2A reserves the Power to the People. That is the ability to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical. That act would REQUIRE weapons of war. At it's heart, the dissent unintentionally makes our case as well.

 

[Inigoes]

I'd be fine with the "weapons of war" argument if the Judges on "our" side would put the rest of the intent of the 2A down on paper. If you look at the Miller decision, it says a SBS is not covered basically because it is not a weapon of war. Not in those words, but it is implied. The 2A reserves the Power to the People. That is the ability to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical. That act would REQUIRE weapons of war. At it's heart, the dissent unintentionally makes our case as well.

That is how the courts paints us gun owners as paranoid.

Everytime the tyranical government argument surfaces, the courts dismiss the idea as some mental delusion.