Jump to content

Kolbe et al v. Hogan (CA4 En Banc)


Recommended Posts

Posted · 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
  • 4 weeks later...

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


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

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.”

 

 

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

  • 2 months later...

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

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

  • 2 weeks later...
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

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

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

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...