Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

[Racer Doug14]

Hell I'm thinking 2017!

 

[annihilation-time]

Two more years.

 

[Ellegon]

Not good news for us ! ! ! ! !
http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20151019/f225b6d6-26f7-4c1a-a331-cbc1d1b723fd

 

[MDFF2008]

Not good news for us ! ! ! ! !
http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20151019/f225b6d6-26f7-4c1a-a331-cbc1d1b723fd

Standard 2A two step. Kolbe will prob come out soon.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

"Disproportionately used in crime"

WTFO

 

[Jim12]

Not good news for us ! ! ! ! !
http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20151019/f225b6d6-26f7-4c1a-a331-cbc1d1b723fd

Quote:
"Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and a lead plaintiff, said his group — the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association — will appeal to the Supreme Court, which could take up the case with recent rulings on state gun control laws.

"It wasn't a surprise. We expected it," he said. "

What he should have said was something like, "Unfortunately this Court saw fit to uphold the unconstitutional infringement of millions of Americans' fundamental civil rights, and we intend to have those rights vindicated."

 

[fightinbluhen51]

"Disproportionately used in crime"

WTFO

Except...they aren't.

 

[Abulg1972]

Except...they aren't.

Mind boggling

 

[BeoBill]

Quote:
"Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and a lead plaintiff, said his group — the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association — will appeal to the Supreme Court, which could take up the case with recent rulings on state gun control laws.

"It wasn't a surprise. We expected it," he said. "

What he should have said was something like, "Unfortunately this Court saw fit to uphold the unconstitutional infringement of millions of Americans' fundamental civil rights, and we intend to have those rights vindicated."

The Volokh Conspiracy weighs in:

2nd Circuit upholds N.Y. and Conn. arms bans; contradicts Heller and McDonald
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ller-mcdonald/

The 2nd Circuit decision exemplifies the pattern in many lower federal courts of defying the Supreme Court’s admonition in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The approach of some lower courts seems to be that Heller stands for little beyond its holding that handgun bans are unconstitutional. In Heller, the court chastised lower courts for having “overread” the court’s 1939 decision in United States v. Miller; the Miller court had upheld the federal tax and registration system for sawed-off shotguns, but many lower courts asserted that Miller had ruled that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” that no individual can assert. Among the lower courts which, according to Heller, placed “erroneous reliance” on an incorrect interpretation of Miller, was the 2nd Circuit, in United States v. Scanio, No. 97–1584, 1998 WL 802060 (2d Cir., 1998).

 

[pcfixer]

BeoBill... Linky no worky.

 

[swinokur]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-conn-arms-bans-contradicts-heller-mcdonald/

 

[platoonDaddy]

BeoBill... Linky no worky.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/21/2nd-circuit-upholds-n-y-and-conn-arms-bans-contradicts-heller-mcdonald/

 

[esqappellate]

Our 28j letter response in Kolbe to the State's reliance on the 2d Circuit decision on the {so called} SAFE act.

 

[Abulg1972]

Our 28j letter response in Kolbe to the State's reliance on the 2d Circuit decision on the {so called} SAFE act.

Not working

 

[Mark75H]

Not working

worked fine for me

 

[Abulg1972]

Ah, it's not showing up via taptalk but works via interwebz.

 

[bblades262]

Our 28j letter response in Kolbe to the State's reliance on the 2d Circuit decision on the {so called} SAFE act.

Hello! I read the PDF, and I'm having trouble understanding it. (What does it all MEAN?! )

 

[esqappellate]

Hello! I read the PDF, and I'm having trouble understanding it. (What does it all MEAN?! )

It means that our counsel are drawing support from the 2d Circuit's AWB ruling to the extent they can. The 2d Circuit precedent is not binding on the 4th Cir. It is at most persuasive precedent.

 

[Schipperke]

It means that our counsel are drawing support from the 2d Circuit's AWB ruling to the extent they can. The 2d Circuit precedent is not binding on the 4th Cir. It is at most persuasive precedent.

Do these kind of communications just not set back a ruling even more and more months now?

 

[esqappellate]

Do these kind of communications just not set back a ruling even more and more months now?

Not at all. 28j letters are as common as can be and the court very much expects them from counsel.