Decision in Kolbe!

[Bourbonstamps]

O'malley drops out of presidential race because no one likes him and now his ******** law is being broken in the courts. twas a good week.

 

[Schipperke]

Wonder how Muleskinner will spin this

 

[Mr H]

You know what I really like about reading this decision? I can see Baron von Frosh saying all of this stupid stuff, and love watching the Circuit piss all over him.

I'm sure he's Froshing himself about now...

 

[AwesomeBill]

Time to dig out the checkbook and make some more donations to keep the fight funded.

 

[aquaman]

Wonder how Muleskinner will spin this

He was banned this morning.

 

[Sev]

interesting....

Will watch to see how this plays out.

The shooter in me is excited

The cynic in me is..... cynical

 

[rockstarr]

interesting....

Will watch to see how this plays out.

The shooter in me is excited

The cynic in me is..... cynical

same same same for me

 

[CypherPunk]

Not to mention the fact that LEOs are NOT bound by law to aid a citizen in distress.

...and statistically more likely to be charged with firearm crime than a citizen with a permit.

 

[esqappellate]

Time to dig out the checkbook and make some more donations to keep the fight funded.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Strict scrutiny is the opposite of "Guns are bad cause the government says so, m'kay?"

The state must show a compelling interest (easy in this case) but it also but show that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there is no less restrictive way to accomplish the government's interest.

Those parts are hard. This is setting up to be a big case now, and a prime example of why you must have the money to go all the way. This case could establish SS as the standard of review for 2A claims, which would be HUGE because it would place 2A claims on the same level as 1A claims.

Good summary. Strict scrutiny has always been the holy grail of 2A litigation. This is wonderful.

 

[rockstarr]

wow 58 members and 103 guests viewing hmmnnn

 

[danb]

Maybe Frosh will let it ride then. If he goes all in and loses the anti-gunners would lose more(nationally) than we would in MD.

I dont think that the SCT will take this, because it's only being sent back for another trial. They have the option of waiting until after the retrial and more facts are developed. The 4 liberals are just as worried about Kennedy.

The question is whether Frosh seeks en banc. Asking seems likely, granting seems unlikely. All they lose by appealing is time, and I do not think they are in a hurry for trial.

 

[Schipperke]

Get a Bill in quick to repeal FSA2013, if passed, moot?

 

[danb]

Get a Bill in quick to repeal FSA2013, if passed, moot?

I would personally want this 4 th circuit opinion to stand, so I would be against this

 

[Mr H]

I dont think that the SCT will take this, because it's only being sent back for another trial. They have the option of waiting until after the retrial and more facts are developed. The 4 liberals are just as worried about Kennedy.

The question is whether Frosh seeks en banc. Asking seems likely, granting seems unlikely. All they lose by appealing is time, and I do not think they are in a hurry for trial.

Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm off on this...

Since it's a remand, I didn't think an appeal en banc would be an option??!!

 

[cdstraw]

For those interested in looking for a meaningful statement to express to their delegates in regards to current and future MD firearm legislation, I present this quote from the opinion. (pg. 45 of 90)

Our distinguished dissenting colleague asserts that we have imprudently and unnecessarily broken with our sister courts of appeal and infers that we will bear some responsibility for future mass shootings. In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions and we will not respond beyond noting this. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.

 

[esqappellate]

Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm off on this...

Since it's a remand, I didn't think an appeal en banc would be an option??!!

It is an option, if only because it created a circuit conflict in the applicable standard of review. But it is *much* less of an option because it is a mere remand, and thus not a conflict in the actual holdings. Frosh has a *big* problem.

 

[Mr H]

OK, thanks!!

 

[Boondock Saint]

For those interested in looking for a meaningful statement to express to their delegates in regards to current and future MD firearm legislation, I present this quote from the opinion. (pg. 45 of 90)

Our distinguished dissenting colleague asserts that we have imprudently and unnecessarily broken with our sister courts of appeal and infers that we will bear some responsibility for future mass shootings. In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions and we will not respond beyond noting this. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.

 

[occbrian]

Frosh has a *big* problem.

Music to my years...