Decision in Kolbe!

[teratos]

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.

That give me a BIG grin.

 

[Rickman]

Hello Mr Frosh. I'm quite sure you of a bunch or your lickers are among the 106 guests currently reading/monitoring/crying over this post. Since I am apparently banned from the ability to post on your FB page, I'll say it here - You lose, suck it up and admit your unconstitutional fiasco is falling apart at the seams and it couldn't happen to a bigger jerk.

 

[Mr H]

Maybe we need to send him some baby wipes...

 

[Tomcat]

Is the dissenting Judge (King?) a member on here? From his dissent

The banned assault rifles and shotguns constitute no more than 3% of the civilian gun stock,

 

[Tomcat]

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.

We should all send a copy of that quote to Frosh

 

[trickg]

We should all send a copy of that quote to Frosh

You beat me to it - you posted that I as I was composing this:

What I find to be interesting here is that Frosh used a cherry-picked quote from Heller as a means to sell FSA2013, not that he needed that much help. He said something to the effect of, "...even the Heller decision states that reasonable restrictions on firearms are allowed..."

And yet here we are with this quote:

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.

 

[Mr H]

I can't find my contact info, but if anyone can push this up to Ammoland and TTAG, that would be huge!!

 

[Schipperke]

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

When it comes to more and more courtrooms, I'm a bird in hand any day of the week.

 

[JoshA]

So, when can I start buying 30rd mags in state?

 

[Drmsparks]

Short version is that they said it is reasonable for it to be easier for retired law enforcement officers to purchase a weapon than a common citizen (IIRC this goes to the HQL requirement waiver) because they have more experience and are more likely to act in the public good, etc.

thanks. I have always felt that equal protection would be a great way to deal with may issue vs shall issue

 

[wolfwood]

How do you cite this opinion? I never know how to blue book stuff that just has come out.

 

[Tomcat]

Forgot in my previous posts

Thank you to esqappellate for bringing this to our attention today

 

[Merc1973]

wow 58 members and 103 guests viewing hmmnnn

This thread is linked from ARFCOM (ar15.com General discussion)

 

[toddtrain]

wow 58 members and 103 guests viewing hmmnnn

That is because 2A in MD linked this page on facebook. It should maybe go to WC so not everyone can see the comments.

 

[6pack]

I'm so freaking excited right now.

 

[trickg]

That is because 2A in MD linked this page on facebook. It should maybe go to WC so not everyone can see the comments.

Agreed, not that it's going to matter much in the courts, but it could give the media some bytes here and there that could paint us in an unfavorable light.

 

[BrewDoc_MD]

Awesome news!!! And thanks for the mostly plain English summary, esqappellate:

This is also summarized by me over at https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...er/14-kolbe-v-hogan-formerly-kolbe-v-o-malley

 

[Mr H]

That is because 2A in MD linked this page on facebook. It should maybe go to WC so not everyone can see the comments.

As esq noted elsewhere... this has national implications.

 

[Mr H]

Agreed, not that it's going to matter much in the courts, but it could give the media some bytes here and there that could paint us in an unfavorable light.

Like they wouldn't anyway...

If folks just keep it to the point (ok, maybe a little comedic--but not awful), there shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Pushrod]

Woo Hoo! This made my day! After all the biased doom and gloom decisions by the courts of the past few years, it is awesome to have one that has ruled on the law using the apparent meaning of the Constitution.