Jump to content


Photo

Kolbe et al v. Hogan (CA4 En Banc)


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,735 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
  • 594 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 22 August 2017 - 06:48 AM

Darn good issues!



#63 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,735 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
  • 2,290 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
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 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
  • 8,021 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
  • 6,285 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
  • 8,021 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
  • 6,285 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
  • 8,021 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
  • 23 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
  • 6,285 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
  • 1,829 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
  • 2,202 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
  • 2,202 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.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users