Jump to content


Photo

Kolbe et al v. Hogan (CA4 En Banc)


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#61 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,774 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:43 PM

SCOTUSblog petition of the day:

Kolbe v. Hogan - SCOTUSblog
http://www.scotusblo.../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.

Edited by RoadyRunner, 21 August 2017 - 05:44 PM.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#62 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 22 August 2017 - 06:48 AM

Darn good issues!



#63 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,774 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 22 August 2017 - 05:28 PM

Amicus from CATO Institute in support of petitioners (a good read)... https://object.cato...._cert-stage.pdf

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#64 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,306 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 24 August 2017 - 12:51 PM


SAF Joins Amicus Brief Asking High Court Review Of Maryland Gun Case

 

Read more: https://www.ammoland.../#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.”


“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

 


#65 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 25 August 2017 - 08:17 AM

SAF Joins Amicus Brief Asking High Court Review Of Maryland Gun Case

 

Read more: https://www.ammoland.../#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.”

 

 

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.



#66 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 09 November 2017 - 05:11 PM

It was scheduled for a conference today, but yesterday it was rescheduled by SCOTUS. A good sign.



#67 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,109 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:50 AM

Distributed for conference on 11/21


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


#68 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:38 AM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#69 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,109 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:14 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 Tapatalk

I'm guessing that Gorsuch and Thomas are all for it, but I'm also wondering where Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts are on this.  


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


#70 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:28 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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#71 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,109 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:32 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 Tapatalk

I 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.  


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


#72 alskid

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:36 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 Tapatalk


Interesting. Why would they care? Lifetime jobs, right?

#73 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:54 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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#74 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 14 November 2017 - 01:41 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.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#75 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 14 November 2017 - 03:08 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.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#76 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 14 November 2017 - 03:13 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.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#77 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,109 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 22 November 2017 - 05:29 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?  


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


#78 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 November 2017 - 06:01 PM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#79 alskid

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 14

Posted 27 November 2017 - 08:47 AM

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.

#80 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 27 November 2017 - 08:53 AM

Wonder why they allow the amicus to be filed if they won't even hear the case?

#81 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 27 November 2017 - 10:52 AM

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.
"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

#82 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,431 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 27 November 2017 - 11:24 AM

Assuming the two haven't wavered after Las Vegas, Gorsuch and Thomas know we don't have the votes.

Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#83 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,472 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 27 November 2017 - 12:38 PM

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

#84 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 November 2017 - 02:16 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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#85 richp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,119 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 04

Posted 27 November 2017 - 02:51 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

#86 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,472 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 27 November 2017 - 04:59 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 Phillips

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

#87 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 28 November 2017 - 11:19 AM

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

TBH, 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.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#88 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,157 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:38 PM

SCOTUS denying cert, at this time, is probably a good thing.

#89 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 28 November 2017 - 02:44 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.


Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#90 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,472 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 28 November 2017 - 08:34 PM

supreme-court-gun-free-zone.jpg
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users