Kolbe en banc decision

[Boondock Saint]

Again when MSI flat out lied I responded. They seem to think they have the only solution to this problem. I guess they should as they got shall issue for MD. The referendum would of won , it had as much chance as this lawsuit. MSI decided not to get into that fight. I am glad that Washington's men didnt think like that in Valley Forge. We must think outside the box but just like Ginsburg the old guard in MD wont do that so we will get reamed so more and MSI will cry they need more money to do nothing.

If you have proof of wrongdoing, bring it. Otherwise you might consider not opining on matters about which you have absolutely no knowledge.

 

[SPQM]

The referendum would of won , it had as much chance as this lawsuit.

Then explain to me why FSA 2013 was not thrown out five seconds after it became law, because "weapons of war" as B.Frosh so defines them, are constitutionally protected under US v. Miller c.1935.

The answer is, and always is:

GUNS ARE EVIL AND ICKY.

 

[Abacab]

Again when MSI flat out lied I responded. They seem to think they have the only solution to this problem. I guess they should as they got shall issue for MD. The referendum would of won , it had as much chance as this lawsuit. MSI decided not to get into that fight. I am glad that Washington's men didnt think like that in Valley Forge. We must think outside the box but just like Ginsburg the old guard in MD wont do that so we will get reamed so more and MSI will cry they need more money to do nothing.

You've offered no proof this was ever said about the referendum.

"The referendum would have won."
"As much a chance as the lawsuit (that lost)"

Pick one and tell me how you measure these chances.

 

[frogman68]

If you have proof of wrongdoing, bring it. Otherwise you might consider not opining on matters about which you have absolutely no knowledge.

I did 4 1/2 years ago it was blown off. Hmm just like the democrats

Then explain to me why FSA 2013 was not thrown out five seconds after it became law, because "weapons of war" as B.Frosh so defines them, are constitutionally protected under US v. Miller c.1935.

The answer is, and always is:

GUNS ARE EVIL AND ICKY.

Because it never made it to the ballot

You've offered no proof this was ever said about the referendum.

"The referendum would have won."
"As much a chance as the lawsuit (that lost)"

Pick one and tell me how you measure these chances.

Yes after the show we were at . With the Anti LT Gov Brown saying there will be a AR behind every tree and he still lost tells me the referendum would of abolished FSA 2013

 

[SPQM]

Because it never made it to the ballot

Excuse me, we have a 1935 Supreme Court case saying that only weapons of war are constitutionally protected as milita weapons -- that was their entire reasoning behind upholding NFA 1934; because sawed off shotguns were not used by militaries (never mind them being used in WWI Trench Warfare).

So again, why wasn't FSA 2013 thrown out five minutes after it became law through a lawsuit? You don't need a referendum or anything, because of standing Supreme court case law from 1935.

Again, it's because GUNS ARE EVIL AND ICKY.

If things were truly just, all it would take is using B.Frosh's own words "weapons of war", and then pointing to US v. Miller and boom, FSA2013's banning is undone. But it won't because the men in black haven't played by jurisprudence or judicial logic for a very, very long time.

 

[Ranchero50]

I did 4 1/2 years ago it was blown off. Hmm just like the democrats

Because it never made it to the ballot

Yes, 4 long years later I still feel a pro gun referendum still had / has no chance of passing in this state. That was the majority feeling back then other than some extremist's who didn't seem to understand how voting works. They get to chose the wording of the question, making it as long and confusing as possible. I'd venture given a legislatively written question, most folks would answer it wrong thinking they were answering it how they felt. That was the strength of the argument to not have this go to referendum.

Eventually another firearm case will be heard by the Supreme Court which Trump willing will lean more towards a pro gun sentiment. Patience grasshopper.

 

[SPQM]

You can argue all day long about how things should work or not.

But remember that twenty years ago, the NRA spent EIGHT million dollars ($17 Million in 2017 dollars) on the 1988 Saturday Night Special referendum.

They lost; and we have had to put up with the "list" ever since.

And Maryland has become more liberal since then.

The biggest issue is that our opponents (B.Frosh, M.O'Malley, et al) have "free" spending, in the form of laws which they get/got paid to come up with -- and it then costs us untold millions to bring them to court.

Doing professional quality litigation is not cheap; and the other side gets it for "free" since they control the Attorney General's office.

EDIT: I would love more than nothing else to do a lawsuit against FSA2013 using the US v Miller ruling as a basis for a challenge; but it costs minimum of $500K or so to do a pro quality case (minimum needed to get a good quality law firm so that I'm not laughed out of court, and unlike more liberal causes, lawyers generally don't work for pro bono for "EVIL AND ICKY" causes.)

I don't have half a million that I don't care about if it disappears, so...

EDIT: here is a mental exercise. Imagine that FSA 2013 was about Abortions and saying that to get an Abortion, you needed a "second opinion" on whether it was needed (similar to HQL ****ery).

Anyone want to offer any thoughts on how fast law firms would fall over themselves in offering pro bono legal services for challenges? (to a point -- law firms still need to keep the lights on). Basically, if the cause is considered "doubleplus good", that side gets a good amount of pro bono stuff, because the legal firms see it as free advertising and networking, and will comp the case to some extent in order to make those connections.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I did 4 1/2 years ago it was blown off. Hmm just like the democrats

You have absolutely zero proof of any fiscal impropriety on MSI's part, right? If you had it, you would have gladly posted it here. You don't have any because it didn't happen.

You have previously and now continue to slander excellent people with this nonsense. That makes you a troll, and I'm through highlighting your gross ignorance on the subject.

It's one thing to be woefully ignorant on a matter, but to double down on it is asinine and cause for a ban, in my humble opinion.

 

[whistlersmother]

Excuse me, we have a 1935 Supreme Court case saying that only weapons of war are constitutionally protected as milita weapons -- that was their entire reasoning behind upholding NFA 1934; because sawed off shotguns were not used by militaries (never mind them being used in WWI Trench Warfare).

So again, why wasn't FSA 2013 thrown out five minutes after it became law through a lawsuit? You don't need a referendum or anything, because of standing Supreme court case law from 1935.

Again, it's because GUNS ARE EVIL AND ICKY.

If things were truly just, all it would take is using B.Frosh's own words "weapons of war", and then pointing to US v. Miller and boom, FSA2013's banning is undone. But it won't because the men in black haven't played by jurisprudence or judicial logic for a very, very long time.

The don't intend to play by "jurisprudence or judicial logic".

Heller and McDonald were anomalies - as evidenced by the rejection of every 2A case since, even the tortured illogical cases.

We need "honest" jurors - are any to be found in a world were duplicity, collection of political power, and moral ineptness are celebrated?

 

[danb]

Ahh, I see we are back to the referendum canard.

No. If it had a chance we would have a much more pro 2A governor than we do. Even worse, the Dem legislature would have controlled the wording and framing of the ballot. Wording is the key to winning. Dog shit will poll well if you word the question right.

 

[paperwork351]

The concealed carry referendum failed miserably over 20 years ago. It hasn't gotten any better.

 

[kcbrown]

All bearable arms is a generic statement that Heller later clarifies what that represents. They specifically call out "dangerous and unusual" weapons. They also mention the "M-16 and the like". Not all bearable arms are covered.

Right. But as dangerous as the AR-15 may be, it is most certainly not "unusual". Thus, it cannot be regarded as "dangerous and unusual".

It is entirely possible that stun guns could possibly be considered dangerous and unusual and not have 2A protection. The Court never determined that and sent it back to the lower courts to determine if an appropriate reasoning could be applied. The state dropped the case.

I suppose that's true.

The 4CA certainly claims that an AR-15 is like an M-16. While it may not be a correct statement, it is definitely a true statement. Kolbe simply tried to argue it is used a lot, but did not indicate that there were appropriate reasons why it was needed. Kolbe failed to point out the 4CA ignored federal law.

The 4CA went much further than that. It said that weapons that are like those most useful in military service are not protected. It did so on the basis of this:

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.

(emphasis mine)

But the only reason the Court even mentioned that is this:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816.

(emphasis mine)

But the AR-15 is not "most useful in military service". If it were, then it would be used by the military for military service. It may be like a weapon that is "most useful in military service", but the first bit I quoted is referring only to those weapons "most useful in military service", not weapons like those "most useful in military service". Which is to say, with the way that sentence is constructed, the "most useful in military service" attribute is a required attribute, and any arm that lacks that does not fall into the exclusion that SCOTUS is implying exists.

In any case, I do agree with you that the reasoning you call out is the basis of the 4CA's decision. But my point is that both Caetano and Kolbe came about as a result of a direct and intentional misreading of Heller, which in turn generated a decision in which the weapon in question was decided to be outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment. There is a difference in the reasoning behind which the decisions were made, but that is the only thing that truly distinguishes the cases.

 

[Abacab]

Yes after the show we were at . With the Anti LT Gov Brown saying there will be a AR behind every tree and he still lost tells me the referendum would of abolished FSA 2013

The would be Governor that ran as far away from guns as possible and to this day continues to run away from any and all social issues is your slam dunk proof that the referendum would have "abolished FSA 2013."

This is clearly an excellent metric.

 

[Abacab]

The concealed carry referendum failed miserably over 20 years ago. It hasn't gotten any better.

But muh Hogan

 

[jcutonilli]

I don't believe that M-16s are the most useful for military service. When you read the rest of the paragraph it seems clear to me that they are trying to say that small arms are protected, but the truly useful weapons like bombers and tanks are not. The term small arm was also specifically injected into the preceding paragraph about the NFA.

I am not sure I would categorize the 4CA decision as intentional misreading of the case. There is some ambiguity in the wording. Kolbe did not really bring this to the attention of the court.

 

[hodgepodge]

First, I'm incredibly disappointed by this refusal of cert. Not really surprised, just disappointed.

MSI has been as effective as any organization could be in Maryland. FSA 2013, spent shell casings, and a dozen other infringing laws would have been worse without MSI. Remember they can oppose laws but not politicians.

Start your own group. Create your own approach. If it's effective, I'll support it.

Otherwise, get on board with one of the groups that's carrying the water (or the signs).

 

[BeoBill]

First, I'm incredibly disappointed by this refusal of cert. Not really surprised, just disappointed.

MSI has been as effective as any organization could be in Maryland. FSA 2013, spent shell casings, and a dozen other infringing laws would have been worse without MSI. Remember they can oppose laws but not politicians.

Start your own group. Create your own approach. If it's effective, I'll support it.

Otherwise, get on board with one of the groups that's carrying the water (or the signs).

Can't argue with that, IMO.

The fight for civil rights continues...

 

[kcbrown]

I don't believe that M-16s are the most useful for military service.

I don't believe the Court meant "more useful in military service than any other weapon is", since if that were the case, then only one weapon would be exempt from 2A protection.

Rather, I believe it meant that the weapon in question is more useful in military service than in any other context.

What contexts do you believe the M-16 to be more useful in than military duty?

When you read the rest of the paragraph it seems clear to me that they are trying to say that small arms are protected, but the truly useful weapons like bombers and tanks are not. The term small arm was also specifically injected into the preceding paragraph about the NFA.

But it's bearable arms that are under discussion, no? That automatically means "small arms" in the general case, though things like shoulder-mounted rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc., also qualify as "bearable arms".

And the M-16 was explicitly called out as an example of a weapon that may be banned, even though it clearly qualifies as a member of the "small arms" category.

I am not sure I would categorize the 4CA decision as intentional misreading of the case. There is some ambiguity in the wording. Kolbe did not really bring this to the attention of the court.

Of course it's intentional. You have to be a dolt to mistakenly read it the way they did. When you say "<adjective> <noun> -- <some specific example> and the like -- <rest of sentence>", the part between the dashes is optional. The sentence means the same whether the clarifying example is there or not. Hence, the meaning of "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause." is precisely the same as what SCOTUS said in Heller.

What the 4CA did was to pull the "and the like" portion, which was inside the dashed section, outside of it and instead applied it directly to the adjective phrase, thus transforming the above to "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service, and their like, may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.", which most definitely has a different meaning than what SCOTUS actually said.


How can you possibly expect Kolbe to point out that a given reading of a phrase in Heller is incorrect when they don't even know that the court in question is entertaining that particular reading in the first place???



Is it really your contention that the Supreme Court does not know how to write decisions in such a way that their meaning is unambiguous to the lower courts that read them??

 

[Blacksmith101]

If the referendum would have won we would already have a conservative majority in the State legislature and would not need a referendum.

 

[jcutonilli]

The paragraph about the "M-16 rifles and the like" is about weapons that are most useful in military service. You should note the plural of weapon, which means they are referring to more than one weapon type. I am reading the entire paragraph to determine what weapons that are most useful in military service means. The third sentence provides the context. Effective militias require sophisticated weapons that are unusual in society (consistent with previous paragraph about dangerous and unusual weapons). The fourth sentence provides examples of sophisticated weapons (tanks and bombers) and states small arms are not effective against sophisticated weapons. The fifth sentence states that this does not matter. The second sentence refers back to the NFA paragraph.

The term M-16 rifles and the like would seem to be connected to the NFA paragraph via the second sentence. It seems to clarify that the small arms referred to in both paragraphs do not apply to NFA items.

I do not agree that the meaning of the sentence changes depending on whether like refers to M-16 rifles or to useful military weapons. This is because like means things that are similar.

I expect Kolbe to point out things like this because that is the position that the state took. You can't have them because they are weapons of war.