Jump to content


Photo

Kolbe et al v. Hogan (CA4 Disposition)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#31 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 9,186 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 05 February 2016 - 10:40 AM

I have to admit, as I read through the document, I was smiling from ear to ear.  

 

A buddy of mine is currently in law school so we have debates through instant messenger.  It's actually pretty fun because we never call one another names and is good practice for him.  

 

I shared this with him and specifically noted this part

 

 

 

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.

 

 

And then I said, this is exactly what I've been talking about with regard to placing judges who act as activists instead of apply previous precedents and constitutional scrutiny to cases that come across their desks.  Finally we find a judge that doesn't let their political bias cloud their opinion.  

 

We don't need activist judges, we need people that actually understand the intent that our founders had when creating our founding documents, but also are able to understand and apply previous decisions and logic to cases that are on their desk.  Federal judges are supposed to be the people that protect the integrity of the constitution and strike down any laws that are unconstitutional and written into law by corrupt and overreaching government.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#32 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 05 February 2016 - 12:10 PM

Though it looks like if nothing happens within 21 days (no petition from the state, no request from a judge) then there would be no en banc, yes? Would the state appeal to SCOTUS from here, or do they have to wait until the district court issues the new ruling then appeal back to the CA4 first? Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The state says they'll request en banc, it was in one of the articles I read.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#33 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,899 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 05 February 2016 - 12:57 PM

Though it looks like if nothing happens within 21 days (no petition from the state, no request from a judge) then there would be no en banc, yes? Would the state appeal to SCOTUS from here, or do they have to wait until the district court issues the new ruling then appeal back to the CA4 first? Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The state says they'll request en banc, it was in one of the articles I read.

Any ideas on how that'll go?
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#34 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,162 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 05 February 2016 - 01:11 PM

I have to admit, as I read through the document, I was smiling from ear to ear.  

 

A buddy of mine is currently in law school so we have debates through instant messenger.  It's actually pretty fun because we never call one another names and is good practice for him.  

 

I shared this with him and specifically noted this part

 

 

 

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.

 

 

And then I said, this is exactly what I've been talking about with regard to placing judges who act as activists instead of apply previous precedents and constitutional scrutiny to cases that come across their desks.  Finally we find a judge that doesn't let their political bias cloud their opinion.  

 

We don't need activist judges, we need people that actually understand the intent that our founders had when creating our founding documents, but also are able to understand and apply previous decisions and logic to cases that are on their desk.  Federal judges are supposed to be the people that protect the integrity of the constitution and strike down any laws that are unconstitutional and written into law by corrupt and overreaching government.  

Hillary is one scary women when it comes to the Supreme Court.  This is the biggest single reason to vote for a Republican this time round.  If this woman gets in.. truly... our way of life is over as we know it.  Here is a clip from her Town Hall a couple of nights ago.  She is asked what litmus test will she perform when choosing Supreme Court Justices - She then goes on for a couple of minutes on this subject.  All that time talking about the choosing Supreme Court Justices ... and never once mentions the Constitution!

 

Again... scary...

 


Edited by Hipshot Percussion, 05 February 2016 - 01:11 PM.

“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7
 
"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor
 
New Gunner Journal
 

#35 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 February 2016 - 04:58 PM

The woman said Obama would make an excellent Justice. Any lunatic that thinks Obama would make even a mediocre Justice needs...help. He has zero respect for the Constitution, spit on it more times than I have fingers and toes. Then again Commom Core teaches that the document is a living document so that fits in with the liberal agenda. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#36 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 08 February 2016 - 10:21 AM

That is scary, and shows once again how hostile she is to the 1st Amendment to go along with her well-known hostility to the 2nd. She rails against the Citizens United decision (a case stemming from the government's censorship of a movie about her) and calls it a gift to the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers don't benefit from that ruling, they're rich enough that they don't have to pool money with other like-minded persons to get their voice heard. The law struck down in the CU case was designed to stifle the political speech of ordinary people while those of the political parties and the super rich were unimpeded, it was insidious. That should have been an easy 9-0 decision by the court, yet 4 liberal justices thought there was no issue with the government censoring political speech prior to an election. That truly scares the heck out of me, and I shudder to think of Hillary or Bernie appointing anyone to the court.

Edited by chislinger, 08 February 2016 - 10:22 AM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#37 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 04 March 2016 - 08:41 PM

Panel opinion and mandate vacated for rehearing en banc. This per curiam (unpublished) order was just issued. Oddly it does not mention vacating the panel opinion and mandate but FRAP states that the original panel opinion goes out the window when en banc is granted.

"A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in a requested poll of the court to grant Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that rehearing en banc is granted.
The parties and amici curiae shall file, within 10 days of the date of this order, 16 additional paper copies of their bries and appendices filed under the original briefing schedule. En banc oral argument of this case is scheduled for Wednesday, May 11, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in Richmond, Virginia."

You can bet that the three knuckleheads on the Woollard panel (Judges King, Davis and Diaz, the last two unable to think for themselves in Woollard so they had King do their work for them) voted to rehear the case. King dissented in Kolbe. MD probably didn't even need to petition for rehearing en banc.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#38 transplant

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 04 March 2016 - 10:26 PM

:( :( :'(

#39 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 05 March 2016 - 11:47 AM

Isn't it amazing how the supposedly rare en banc is granted with every 2A victory at the Circuit level?



#40 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 March 2016 - 12:29 PM

The only real exception to that (that I can recall) is Moore. And I think that was because of Posner's colleagues being scared of him haha. That or a solid pro-gun majority. This is a significant departure from stare decisis (intermediate scrutiny has always been applied until Tyler and Kolbe) and is a constitutional issue, so...yeah. Plus all of those CA4 Judges like Davis and Diaz are so incompetent and play follow the leader, it's sad. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#41 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,155 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 06 March 2016 - 01:51 AM

The only real exception to that (that I can recall) is Moore. And I think that was because of Posner's colleagues being scared of him haha. That or a solid pro-gun majority. This is a significant departure from stare decisis (intermediate scrutiny has always been applied until Tyler and Kolbe) and is a constitutional issue, so...yeah. Plus all of those CA4 Judges like Davis and Diaz are so incompetent and play follow the leader, it's sad. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

 

Speaking of Posner, if Obama had spine, he'd nominate him for the SCOTUS. Even though Posner said he doesn't want to be on it, he's by far the best person to serve in that capacity. Everyone on the court would have to suck it and would not have any ability to disagree with his opinions. Posner is a judicial juggernaut.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#42 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 5,395 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 06 March 2016 - 06:57 AM

Posner is anti-gun.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#43 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,062 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 06 March 2016 - 10:42 AM

How are the rest of the 4th circuit judges? 



#44 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 06 March 2016 - 01:26 PM

Nine of the judges are Clinton or Obama nominees. Including Chief Judge Traxler who delivered the majority opinion. Six of the judges are Reagan, Bush I and II nominees. Obama has the most active circuit judges out of any one President, five. Even more liberal judges such as Davis, who had no idea what to do with Woollard (try doing your job?) along with Carter nominees and older Clinton, Bush, Reagan nominees are senior status so thank God only active judges are eligible to vote and hear the case or we'd really be screwed. None of the judges who are senior status are eligible to vote or sit on the en banc panel because none of them served on the original panel. FRAP Rule 35 governs en banc procedure. Call me an optimist but Traxler delivered a rock solid opinion that will be tough to undermine. Then again King, Diaz, and Davis found a way to undermine the Constitution in Woollard, even if it was a load of horse manure. I would really like to see CA6 come back with an affirmation of the panel opinion in Tyler, or reversal of district court, same thing. That would be guiding. Oh, and Posner may hate guns but he respects the Constitution (see his opinion in the recent case involving the Indiana texting and driving law, guy got pulled over because a cop "thought" he was texting since it's legal to do everything but text while driving, searched the vehicle and found a few lbs of heroin in the car, turns out guy wasn't texting so the panel tossed the traffic stop and the fruits of the tree) so there's no way Obama would put a man like Posner on the SCOTUS bench. It would be ironic if he were to replace Scalia, but he's 77 or almost 77 years old. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#45 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 12 March 2016 - 11:21 AM

The only real exception to that (that I can recall) is Moore. And I think that was because of Posner's colleagues being scared of him haha. That or a solid pro-gun majority. This is a significant departure from stare decisis (intermediate scrutiny has always been applied until Tyler and Kolbe) and is a constitutional issue, so...yeah. Plus all of those CA4 Judges like Davis and Diaz are so incompetent and play follow the leader, it's sad. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

 

 

CA7 simply is a much favorable court, maybe not pro-gun, but at least pro-precedent and not packed with idealogues like CA2,3,4, and 9. Moore was one vote away though.En banc is supposed to be rare, so rare that in some circuits you have a better chance of your case getting to SCOTUS than en banc. But yet it seems every victory we get is taken away because the liberals will not stand for ANY expansion of gun rights.

 

In this case I think the panel was following precedent, simply because the majority was the same majority who created the precedent! See US v. Chester. They said intermediate scrutiny was proper for a criminal defendant, not a law abiding citizen.

Now, I'm afraid we'll see them reverse and say that CA4 needs to follow other circuits because AW are not handguns, so they'll get relegated to intermediate scrutiny and we therefore lose.


Edited by press1280, 12 March 2016 - 11:22 AM.


#46 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,899 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 12 March 2016 - 02:15 PM

But yet it seems every victory we get is taken away because the liberals will not stand for ANY expansion of gun rights.


What's scary aren't the politicians, but the millions of citizens across the country that want to prevent people from exercising their rights. They don't like the idea that their neighbors can easily own and carry firearms and would like to stop that, so they vote for politicians who support their goals. It's scary to think that the person sitting next to you on the bus might recoil in horror if you revealed yourself to be a gun owner.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless