Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

[Kharn]

Can't remember when the interview was recorded but she state that she road a stationary bike 20 miles and did 200 sit ups couple times a week. But I would agree a heart only has so many beats.

She still nods off in oral argument regularly.
Maybe she should cut back to 10 miles on public court days.

 

[mxrider]

So when do we expect MD to make a decision on this complaint. And what are the actual chances they decide in favor of us?

Md has no impact in this as it currently sits waiting on the decision from the full 4th Circuit.

If you were referring to the HQL suit, I'll let others chime in there that know the system better.

 

[pcfixer]

Anyone know an update on decision?

 

[danb]

I am sure they went back and are rewriting the decision now that Trump got elected and the composition of the Supreme Court will change.

2 more weeks, no doubt.

 

[esqappellate]

I am sure they went back and are rewriting the decision now that Trump got elected and the composition of the Supreme Court will change.

2 more weeks, no doubt.

Personally, I don't believe that the election will make the slightest bit of difference with these judges, much less the still inchoate make up of the SCT. Federal judges just don't work that way. They are appointed for life.

 

[krucam]

I'm fairly certain the delay (from CA4 average) will likely involve the writing of dissent(s) from the majority opinion.

 

[esqappellate]

I'm fairly certain the delay (from CA4 average) will likely involve the writing of dissent(s) from the majority opinion.

Absolutely, this won't be unanimous. And there will likely be concurring opinions too. Recall that the decision is not final until published so there may well be some internal discussions going on among the judges. It's why en banc is granted so rarely -- they are real time burners.

 

[danb]

Personally, I don't believe that the election will make the slightest bit of difference with these judges, much less the still inchoate make up of the SCT. Federal judges just don't work that way. They are appointed for life.

I know. Just a little MDS tinfoil



Opinions take as long as they take.

 

[pcfixer]

There are 3 En Banc cases that don't have decisions in the 4th from 2016.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/en-banc-cases#2016

 

[Mr H]

Now that Garland is officially out, might we see movement?

 

[esqappellate]

There are 3 En Banc cases that don't have decisions in the 4th from 2016.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/en-banc-cases#2016

Take a close look at the history of en banc decisions. Almost every one of them reverse the panel.

 

[esqappellate]

Now that Garland is officially out, might we see movement?

Won't make a bit of difference.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

I'll be back in 2 weeks.

 

[swinokur]

Lifetime appointments tend to insulate one from politics.

genius

 

[danb]

Lifetime appointments tend to insulate one from politics.

genius

Often, also logic and common sense.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Often, also logic and common sense.

Yep, that's the truth. I can't remember the case, but it was cited here recently. It was where the court said that a getting a license was not a prohibition, but a certification of qualifications. It said something like getting an FFL only requires a small basis of knowledge and just applying for a license. It failed to mention getting permits, going though zoning boards, paying for legal representation, completing onerous paperwork, gathering the appropriate insurance. It's like they are completely out of touch with the reality of running a business. "Let them eat cake" comes to mind.

Edit: was this case US v. Samuel Hosford

 

[esqappellate]

Yep, that's the truth. I can't remember the case, but it was cited here recently. It was where the court said that a getting a license was not a prohibition, but a certification of qualifications. It said something like getting an FFL only requires a small basis of knowledge and just applying for a license. It failed to mention getting permits, going though zoning boards, paying for legal representation, completing onerous paperwork, gathering the appropriate insurance. It's like they are completely out of touch with the reality of running a business. "Let them eat cake" comes to mind.

Edit: was this case US v. Samuel Hosford

You know Hosford is an interesting case. In that case, the 4th Circuit sustained the conviction of a person who engaged in the "business" of selling firearms (in this case to an undercover federal agent) without being a FFL. Oops. What is interesting about the case are not the facts of the case, but rather that the panel used the same, well-established two step analysis and the existing Chester / Masciandaro test for determining whether to apply strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny in rejecting the defendant's Second Amendment defense. The court reaffirmed that "core Second Amendment conduct includes the “'fundamental right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home....'" (843 F.3d at 168, quoting Masciandaro). The court then added that the federal law requiring a person engaging in the business of selling firearms to become a FFL, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), was subject to only intermediate scrutiny because: "The law . . . regulates rather than restricts, addresses only conduct occurring outside the home, and does not touch on self-defense concerns." (Id.)

Kolbe en banc has yet to be decided. Yet, presumably every member of this panel (GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ), knows where Kolbe stands. That this panel embraced the tests articulated in prior circuit precedent may thus be indicative of the en banc court's forthcoming analytical approach in Kolbe. The court's extended discussion of the standard of review is particularly notable as the opinion goes to some length to stress the difference between regulation of inside the home possession vs. regulation of outside the home business activities. That is favorable for Kolbe and the HQL suit. Of course, this branches into reading "tea leaves."

 

[mxrider]

You know Hosford is an interesting case. In that case, the 4th Circuit sustained the conviction of a person who engaged in the "business" of selling firearms (in this case to an undercover federal agent) without being a FFL. Oops. What is interesting about the case are not the facts of the case, but rather that the panel used the same, well-established two step analysis and the existing Chester / Masciandaro test for determining whether to apply strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny in rejecting the defendant's Second Amendment defense. The court reaffirmed that "core Second Amendment conduct includes the “'fundamental right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home....'" (843 F.3d at 168, quoting Masciandaro). The court then added that the federal law requiring a person engaging in the business of selling firearms to become a FFL, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), was subject to only intermediate scrutiny because: "The law . . . regulates rather than restricts, addresses only conduct occurring outside the home, and does not touch on self-defense concerns." (Id.)

Kolbe en banc has yet to be decided. Yet, presumably every member of this panel (GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ), knows where Kolbe stands. That this panel embraced the tests articulated in prior circuit precedent may thus be indicative of the en banc court's forthcoming analytical approach in Kolbe. The court's extended discussion of the standard of review is particularly notable as the opinion goes to some length to stress the difference between regulation of inside the home possession vs. regulation of outside the home business activities. That is favorable for Kolbe and the HQL suit. Of course, this branches into reading "tea leaves."

All I have to say is wow. I would love to live inside your brain for a few days

 

[Brooklyn]

You know Hosford is an interesting case. In that case, the 4th Circuit sustained the conviction of a person who engaged in the "business" of selling firearms (in this case to an undercover federal agent) without being a FFL. Oops. What is interesting about the case are not the facts of the case, but rather that the panel used the same, well-established two step analysis and the existing Chester / Masciandaro test for determining whether to apply strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny in rejecting the defendant's Second Amendment defense. The court reaffirmed that "core Second Amendment conduct includes the “'fundamental right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home....'" (843 F.3d at 168, quoting Masciandaro). The court then added that the federal law requiring a person engaging in the business of selling firearms to become a FFL, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), was subject to only intermediate scrutiny because: "The law . . . regulates rather than restricts, addresses only conduct occurring outside the home, and does not touch on self-defense concerns." (Id.)

Kolbe en banc has yet to be decided. Yet, presumably every member of this panel (GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ), knows where Kolbe stands. That this panel embraced the tests articulated in prior circuit precedent may thus be indicative of the en banc court's forthcoming analytical approach in Kolbe. The court's extended discussion of the standard of review is particularly notable as the opinion goes to some length to stress the difference between regulation of inside the home possession vs. regulation of outside the home business activities. That is favorable for Kolbe and the HQL suit. Of course, this branches into reading "tea leaves."

And did the court actually apply IS? Or was it actually rational Basis?

Or is that a state secret

 

[DaemonAssassin]

All I have to say is wow. I would love to live inside your brain for a few days

You aren't the only one that would like to live in his brain for a few days.