skinnyb82 Posted July 30, 2017 at 07:48 PM Author Share Posted July 30, 2017 at 07:48 PM · Hidden by mauserme, July 30, 2017 at 09:07 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, July 30, 2017 at 09:07 PM - No reason given EDIT: Please delete this post, I didn't realize Mr. Nichols had already posted the cert petition. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment
RoadyRunner Posted August 21, 2017 at 11:43 PM Share Posted August 21, 2017 at 11:43 PM SCOTUSblog petition of the day: Kolbe v. Hogan - SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/ Issues: (1) Whether District of Columbia v. Heller excludes the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines from Second Amendment protection; and (2) whether they may be banned even though they are typically possessed for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted August 22, 2017 at 12:48 PM Share Posted August 22, 2017 at 12:48 PM Darn good issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted August 22, 2017 at 11:28 PM Share Posted August 22, 2017 at 11:28 PM Amicus from CATO Institute in support of petitioners (a good read)... https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/kolbe_cert-stage.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted August 24, 2017 at 06:51 PM Share Posted August 24, 2017 at 06:51 PM SAF Joins Amicus Brief Asking High Court Review Of Maryland Gun Case Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/08/saf-joins-amicus-brief-asking-high-court-review-maryland-gun-case/#ixzz4qhTblAHR Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook“Our interest in this case is guided by the belief that government cannot prohibit whole classes of firearms, including semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, that are in common use by private citizens and civilian law enforcement,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. ‘But in Maryland, they want to do exactly that. It’s almost as if they either don’t understand Heller, but are deliberately ignoring what was explained clearly by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.”“…govrnment cannot prohibit whole classes of firearms, including semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, that are in common use…” explained SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb As the brief explains, “Maryland’s firearm and ammunition restrictions stem from a misunderstanding of firearms that are in common use by citizens and law enforcement agencies. Most sheriffs and deputies carry semi-automatic handguns with magazines larger than 10 rounds that are banned in Maryland; many patrol vehicles carry a rifle that is banned in Maryland. Classifying typical sheriffs’ arms as ‘weapons of war’ alienates the public from law enforcement. Among the many harmful consequences: when a deputy uses deadly force, people will say that he or she used a military weapon. This is inflammatory, and false.”“This is just one of several Second Amendment questions we believe the high court needs to address,” Gottlieb said. “There is also the question of bearing arms outside the home for personal protection. These constitutional issues must be addressed, and we’d rather it be sooner than later.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted August 25, 2017 at 02:17 PM Share Posted August 25, 2017 at 02:17 PM SAF Joins Amicus Brief Asking High Court Review Of Maryland Gun Case Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/08/saf-joins-amicus-brief-asking-high-court-review-maryland-gun-case/#ixzz4qhTblAHR Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook “Our interest in this case is guided by the belief that government cannot prohibit whole classes of firearms, including semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, that are in common use by private citizens and civilian law enforcement,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. ‘But in Maryland, they want to do exactly that. It’s almost as if they either don’t understand Heller, but are deliberately ignoring what was explained clearly by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.”“…govrnment cannot prohibit whole classes of firearms, including semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, that are in common use…” explained SAF founder Alan M. GottliebAs the brief explains, “Maryland’s firearm and ammunition restrictions stem from a misunderstanding of firearms that are in common use by citizens and law enforcement agencies. Most sheriffs and deputies carry semi-automatic handguns with magazines larger than 10 rounds that are banned in Maryland; many patrol vehicles carry a rifle that is banned in Maryland. Classifying typical sheriffs’ arms as ‘weapons of war’ alienates the public from law enforcement. Among the many harmful consequences: when a deputy uses deadly force, people will say that he or she used a military weapon. This is inflammatory, and false.”“This is just one of several Second Amendment questions we believe the high court needs to address,” Gottlieb said. “There is also the question of bearing arms outside the home for personal protection. These constitutional issues must be addressed, and we’d rather it be sooner than later.” This is pretty clever though the notion that police are civilians is not as widespread as it should be. Heck, even police use "civilian" to describe the general population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 9, 2017 at 11:11 PM Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 11:11 PM It was scheduled for a conference today, but yesterday it was rescheduled by SCOTUS. A good sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted November 14, 2017 at 04:50 PM Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 04:50 PM Distributed for conference on 11/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 14, 2017 at 05:38 PM Author Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 05:38 PM It either means they're seriously considering it or a Justice is drafting a dissent from denial. Crap shoot. Orders list next week will be interesting. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:14 PM Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:14 PM It either means they're seriously considering it or a Justice is drafting a dissent from denial. Crap shoot. Orders list next week will be interesting. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkI'm guessing that Gorsuch and Thomas are all for it, but I'm also wondering where Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts are on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:28 PM Author Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:28 PM Plus it is a bad time for any court, much less SCOTUS, to be taking up such a contentious issue. I have a bad feeling this will be denied for political reasons. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:32 PM Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:32 PM Plus it is a bad time for any court, much less SCOTUS, to be taking up such a contentious issue. I have a bad feeling this will be denied for political reasons. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkI certainly hope that's not the case, and most of the stuff I've read indicates that they're almost forced to take this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alskid Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:36 PM Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:36 PM Plus it is a bad time for any court, much less SCOTUS, to be taking up such a contentious issue. I have a bad feeling this will be denied for political reasons. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkInteresting. Why would they care? Lifetime jobs, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:54 PM Author Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 06:54 PM Roberts has politicized the court. His opinions in the Obamacare cases show that he preserved Obamacare for political, rather than legal/constitutional reasons. He "made" it constitutional. Then he's absolutely shocked when Obergefell v. Hodges comes down in favor of the petitioners, rips the majority for politicizing it and says it has nothing to do with the constitution. NFIB v. Sebelius had everything to do with the constitution (Commerce Clause) and forcing Americans to buy something that they do not want or do not need (I'm an unmarried male, I don't need maternity leave nor do I need birth control), but he figured out a way to dodge the issue (using the Anti-injunction Act, taxes cannot be challenged until imposed) the same way that the majority in Obergefell did. Hypocrisy. These nine Justices should want this case to put it to bed once and for all, regardless of ideology. And Kennedy needs to get his posterior back in the pro-gun wagon. That being said, you are correct, DD. The Maryland FSA is far more broad than Highland Park's AWB. They would get a crack at far more issues than if they had taken Friedman. This is a PERFECT case to take up. It really doesn't get juicier. I still wish they had taken up Shew or the SAFE Act case, but they didn't so...oh well. It's very clear that Thomas is beyond sick and tired of the Court blowing off the Second Amendment cases where there are not just circuit splits but circuit fissures like with carry outside the home, all while taking up nonsensical, feel good cases where no circuit split exists. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted November 14, 2017 at 07:41 PM Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 07:41 PM Yep. Kennedy was the swing vote in the Heller majority and he started having serious doubts and regret after the Newtown shooting. I don't think you can rely on his vote in an AWB case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 14, 2017 at 09:08 PM Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 09:08 PM It either means they're seriously considering it or a Justice is drafting a dissent from denial.My guess would be Gorsuch and Thomas are drafting yet another 2nd-Amendment-as-a-second-class-right dissent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 14, 2017 at 09:13 PM Share Posted November 14, 2017 at 09:13 PM It's very clear that Thomas is beyond sick and tired of the Court blowing off the Second Amendment cases where there are not just circuit splits but circuit fissures like with carry outside the home, all while taking up nonsensical, feel good cases where no circuit split exists.His frustration was palpable when (very out of character) he blurted out that comment/question about the Lautenberg prohibition in oral argument, and he never speaks in oral argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted November 22, 2017 at 11:29 PM Share Posted November 22, 2017 at 11:29 PM So I've done some google-fu, but am coming up empty. This was distributed for conference yesterday, but there haven't been any updates. Has anyone heard anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 23, 2017 at 12:01 AM Author Share Posted November 23, 2017 at 12:01 AM Orders list won't be published until Friday I believe. If not Friday then it'll be Monday or Tuesday. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alskid Posted November 27, 2017 at 02:47 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 02:47 PM 17-127 KOLBE, STEPHEN V., ET AL. V. HOGAN, GOV. OF MD, ET AL. The motion of Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 27, 2017 at 02:53 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 02:53 PM Wonder why they allow the amicus to be filed if they won't even hear the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 27, 2017 at 04:52 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 04:52 PM I don't think I can respect the Supreme Court anymore after this. Now they're not even issuing dissents, they're merely going along with it. Absolutely unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted November 27, 2017 at 05:24 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 05:24 PM Assuming the two haven't wavered after Las Vegas, Gorsuch and Thomas know we don't have the votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 27, 2017 at 06:38 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 06:38 PM Elections have consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 27, 2017 at 08:16 PM Author Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 08:16 PM Somehow I knew this was coming. It sickens me. We don't even know how many voted to take it. Or if it was a strategic denial due to Kennedy or...who knows, but they're gonna run out of AWBs to deal with if they keep passing on every single AWB. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted November 27, 2017 at 08:51 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 08:51 PM Hi, I see this as a dramatic abdication of their responsibility to help the citizenry know the legal framework we have to live within. It also might have been a strategic action -- waiting for a "better" case. But I doubt it... I would, however, like to think that eventually diversity in the circuits will compel them to tackle this issue. FWIW. Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 27, 2017 at 10:59 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 10:59 PM Hi, I see this as a dramatic abdication of their responsibility to help the citizenry know the legal framework we have to live within. It also might have been a strategic action -- waiting for a "better" case. But I doubt it... I would, however, like to think that eventually diversity in the circuits will compel them to tackle this issue. FWIW. Rich PhillipsI think we'll have to wait until a state or municipality in a conservative judicial circuit passes an AWB, and it is struck down. Then there will be a circuit split, and hopefully by then Kennedy and Ginsburg will be gone, maybe Sotomayor too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted November 28, 2017 at 05:19 PM Share Posted November 28, 2017 at 05:19 PM Hi, I see this as a dramatic abdication of their responsibility to help the citizenry know the legal framework we have to live within. It also might have been a strategic action -- waiting for a "better" case. But I doubt it... I would, however, like to think that eventually diversity in the circuits will compel them to tackle this issue. FWIW. Rich PhillipsTBH, I don't think they are looking for a "better case." I think they are waiting for a "better SCOTUS." With the current composition of the Supreme Court, taking a case like this right now could be like playing with fire. There is a decent chance that they could have upheld Kolbe, and and then it would become the law of the land, setting a very bad precedent. After Mr. Trump nominates conservative replacements for Justices Kennedy and/or Bader Ginsburg, they may be more willing to go down that road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted November 28, 2017 at 06:38 PM Share Posted November 28, 2017 at 06:38 PM SCOTUS denying cert, at this time, is probably a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted November 28, 2017 at 08:44 PM Share Posted November 28, 2017 at 08:44 PM I agree with Skinny, I think this was more strategic. I posted this elsewhere: I don't think this is so bad. I mean that ban/case would have been a good one for the pro-gun crowd from a legal perspective since it really was trying to define things like the AR platform as a weapon in "common use". This is a link back to Heller where the court pointed out that you could not ban weapons that are in common use. But you then have to think of how the judges will rule... they pick or deny cases that are politically touchy based on what they think they can get at the end of it.Since Heller had set some standards there have really been no more SCOTUS cases around these assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, etc. Heck they didn't even take up the question of "May Issue" from places like NY/NJ.Its hard to guess what is in the heads of these judges but you basically know its a 4/4 split with Kennedy having been the tie breaker on Heller.But if I HAD TO GUESS... the 3 or 4 that would be pro-2A (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch & maybe Roberts) are not wanting to take the case because they don't know how Kennedy will swing. That is the ONLY reason I can see when dealing with a "ban" on anything that touches the Bill of Rights.My only hope is one of the older members of the other side (Bryer-79, Ginsburg-84, or even Kennedy-81) will retire or drop dead thus being replaced by the current POTUS. Do that and you have a pretty solid 5:4... best case 1 or 2 of them drop before the next 24 months are out, because they are NOT going to retire and allow their replacement to be picked by Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.