Decision in Kolbe!

[dlmarion]

Seems like a lot of good quotes and references in there to be used in other legal challenges. Is this type of decision (appeal) legal precedent?

 

[esqappellate]

I think the AG will go for the En banc. Why submit to a hearing where you must now prove your experts testimony, review the testimony (remember we had an order of magnitude more supporters/testifiers then the Anti's did***) and be held to Strict Scrutiny?

The odds are better to go to an En banc and avoid new testimony, basing your case on the same old data that won you the case originally. They will only have to rehash the same old tripe that has been working elsewhere.

Or am I missing something?


Edit: *** This is why it is important to testify. Even if the GA ignores you, the courts may get a chance to review your testimony.
.

If I were Frosh, that is what I would do too. Going for en banc is a no lose proposition for him. And he knows that he can't meet the strict scrutiny test. But he has a real problem. A "conflict" with other circuits over the standard is not the same thing as a conflict over the result. Theoretically he could win on remand. He can make all the same arguments in a second en banc petition if he loses after remand. Second, the panel majority is dead right that circuit precedent (Chester) requires strict scrutiny for "in the home" restrictions. So the panel is on sound ground there. So the split in the circuits on the standard is the pre existing split, not created by this decision. So that leaves SCT review and that's a long shot for him on a petition from interlocutory decision that merely ordered a remand. The SCT would rather rule on the basis of the full record created after remand, at least that is what I would argue in opposing cert. And yes, I would oppose cert., even though others would rather have a SCT decision on this now. Better to prove your case under strict scrutiny and then let *that* case go to the SCT after Frosh loses on remand.

 

[Brooklyn]

If I were Frosh, that is what I would do too. It's no lose for him. And he knows that he can't meet the strict scrutiny test.

He also knows he can't or in any case did not met IS.

So if we goes only on the record..he can win his IS and still lose.

Frosh is not used to fair fights...he's never been in one..

But he may not be smart enough to know this... after all the smart play is to read and study the decision before making public statements..

 

[Boxcab]

If I were Frosh, that is what I would do too. It's no lose for him. And he knows that he can't meet the strict scrutiny test.

Thanks for the input Esq.

That's is best chance and his odds are much higher then zero, the risk is then being taken to DC for the final step.


(I see you add insight as I typed, thanks again!)



.

 

[esqappellate]

Seems like a lot of good quotes and references in there to be used in other legal challenges. Is this type of decision (appeal) legal precedent?

Oh, yes, quite so as to the legal issues decided by the court.

 

[JettaRed]

Forgive me if this has been answered, but I read the whole thing (almost--10 pages left) and don't have the mental fortitude to read 17 pages of this forum. But what is the bottom line? Can I buy a "normal" AR-15 and magazines with capacity greater than 10?

 

[esqappellate]

Forgive me if this has been answered, but I read the whole thing (almost--10 pages left) and don't have the mental fortitude to read 17 pages of this forum. But what is the bottom line? Can I buy a "normal" AR-15 and magazines with capacity greater than 10?

Not yet.

 

[teratos]

Forgive me if this has been answered, but I read the whole thing (almost--10 pages left) and don't have the mental fortitude to read 17 pages of this forum. But what is the bottom line? Can I buy a "normal" AR-15 and magazines with capacity greater than 10?

It'll be a few years.

 

[rsideout]

Which one has been handling the bulk of this legal work? I already donate to two of these groups. Time for another donation.

NRA-ILA.

Thanks & Done!

 

[EL1227]

Forgive me if this has been answered, but I read the whole thing (almost--10 pages left) and don't have the mental fortitude to read 17 pages of this forum. But what is the bottom line? Can I buy a "normal" AR-15 and magazines with capacity greater than 10?

Not yet.

It'll be a few years.

But just drive over to DE, VA, or PA and buy all the magazines you want.

 

[teratos]

Thanks & Done!

You bet!

 

[SW6906user]

It'll be a few years.

I need my Springfield not sure I can wait that long. Just kidding, good or at least promising news for us.

 

[BeoBill]

He also knows he can't or in any case did not met IS.

So if we goes only on the record..he can win his IS and still lose.

Frosh is not used to fair fights...he's never been in one..

But he may not be smart enough to know this... after all the smart play is to read and study the decision before making public statements..

I don't know whether arrogance or stupidity will dominate Frosh's actions on this.

 

[teratos]

I don't know whether arrogance or stupidity will dominate Frosh's actions on this.

Arrogance. Frosh is far from stupid.

 

[Brooklyn]

Arrogance. Frosh is far from stupid.

Result is the same..

 

[Mr H]

Almost halfway through. So much win in there, but this struck me...

The State’s position flows from a hyper-technical, out-of-context parsing of the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller “that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 627 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). The State misreads Heller, as Second Amendment rights do not depend on how often the semi-automatic rifles or regulated magazines are actually used to repel an intruder. The proper standard under Heller is whether the prohibited weapons and magazines are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” as a matter of history and tradition, id. at 625 (emphasis added), not whether the magazines are often actually employed in self-defense incidents. Actual use in self-defense is a poor measure of whether a particular firearm is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens” for self-defense, as it is unlikely most people will ever need to actually discharge a firearm in self-defense. See Fyock, 25 F. Supp. 3d at 1276 (“The fact that few people will require a particular firearm to effectively defend themselves should be celebrated and not seen as a reason to except [that firearm] from Second Amendment protection. Evidence that such magazines are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes is enough.”).

 

[JettaRed]

Not yet.

It'll be a few years.

Thanks.

Well, thank goodness the dissenting opinions were just that--dissenting.

 

[navycraig]

Arrogance. Frosh is far from stupid.

Things are not going well for him at all on his own FB page. I'm actually surprised that the comments are not being deleted.

 

[HotWheelsUMD]

just finished reading 338 posts of awesome. this is great news. gotta send some checks this week!

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I like the way you think!

I wouldn't be suggesting that someone who sneered under their breath during the committee hearing in the GA be asked what their real unbiased legal opinion is in an effort to justify their vote and the bill from a SS ruling now would I?

Oh I wouldn't be putting this individual on record that would become a material witness and thus prevent him from helping formulate the arguments for upholding this steaming pile of Frosh; nah....I can't possibly be suggesting that would be my IANAL strategy!

I bet that Frosh just froshed himself when he read that!

The Court of Appeals simply gave the parties another opportunity. It is up to them to use it or not. I, for one, would like to have a full trial on these issues. That is the only way to resolve credibility issues. When their experts get on the stand, you tear them apart.

. Can contempt for a ruling be proven before, during, or after said ruling?

Could be. It would be fun. We have better lawyers than they do.

And, some who just stayed at an MDS thread last 5-7 years. Of course, there a lot of great lawyers here and a lot of good armchair lawyers.

I've learned s lot about language, history, law, and the civil society in these threads. Light years ahead of any high school or college class. H/t to all with great humility.

I think the AG will go for the En banc. Why submit to a hearing where you must now prove your experts testimony, review the testimony (remember we had an order of magnitude more supporters/testifiers then the Anti's did***) and be held to Strict Scrutiny?

The odds are better to go to an En banc and avoid new testimony, basing your case on the same old data that won you the case originally. They will only have to rehash the same old tripe that has been working elsewhere.

Or am I missing something?


Edit: *** This is why it is important to testify. Even if the GA ignores you, the courts may get a chance to review your testimony.
.

Like all muttered under your breath comments? Noooooo, say it ain't so?

If I were Frosh, that is what I would do too. Going for en banc is a no lose proposition for him. And he knows that he can't meet the strict scrutiny test. But he has a real problem. A "conflict" with other circuits over the standard is not the same thing as a conflict over the result. Theoretically he could win on remand. He can make all the same arguments in a second en banc petition if he loses after remand. Second, the panel majority is dead right that circuit precedent (Chester) requires strict scrutiny for "in the home" restrictions. So the panel is on sound ground there. So the split in the circuits on the standard is the pre existing split, not created by this decision. So that leaves SCT review and that's a long shot for him on a petition from interlocutory decision that merely ordered a remand. The SCT would rather rule on the basis of the full record created after remand, at least that is what I would argue in opposing cert. And yes, I would oppose cert., even though others would rather have a SCT decision on this now. Better to prove your case under strict scrutiny and then let *that* case go to the SCT after Frosh loses on remand.

Yep. Refresh my memory or pull the docket (I couldn't I don't have Pacer); did Chester go en banc? I assume it was at least requested.

Arrogance. Frosh is far from stupid.

Result is the same..

Sorry, I am tooting my own horn a bit and planting some fear into the hearts and minds of the enemy. Suck it BIOTCH!

Things are not going well for him at all on his own FB page. I'm actually surprised that the comments are not being deleted.

Give them time. Give them time.