gamer_jim
Podcaster
I hope he does. Let's settle the issue of "common use" once and for all.
frosh to appeal Kolbe decision
- Thread starter ohen cepel
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,087
Why do Frosh and his Maryland General Assembly desperately want to avoid having their actions strictly scrutinized? Do they have something to hide from the citizenry?
As Google's Eric Schmidt famously said of individuals, not their public servants: "If you don't want people to know what you're doing, maybe you shouldn't be doing it."
It shouldn't apply to individuals at all, but it certainly should apply to elected officials. Especially in one-party states like Maryland.
As Google's Eric Schmidt famously said of individuals, not their public servants: "If you don't want people to know what you're doing, maybe you shouldn't be doing it."
It shouldn't apply to individuals at all, but it certainly should apply to elected officials. Especially in one-party states like Maryland.
Honestly Frosh should recuse himself. He had a huge part in drafting this "law". He is politically tied to its fate. That said he benefits from it being upheld, not its constitutionality.
ohen cepel
Ultimate Member
Good point. However, given the fact that he lacks all intellectual integrity I think it is also safe to say that he lacks moral integrity also.
Yes, he has to go down with this ship of lib idiots I suppose. I would think it to be a gain if it kills his career, however, the libs will see him as a hero rather than and idiot.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Its more complicated than a one piece of paper. A notice of appeal is filed in district court to appeal a district court judgment to the court of appeals. If you want to seek further review from an adverse court of appeals judgment like Kolbe you either have to (1) file a petition for rehearing en banc (or panel rehearing) or (2) file a petition for cert from the SCT. A rehearing petition is 15 pages and is argument why it should be reheard by the court of appeals. A cert petition is even harder. Granting either petition is entirely discretionary with the court.
Ungermc
Uses Gun-oil Aftershave
Frosh is a whining bed wetter...I think we all knew he would appeal.
Frosh says there is case law of AWB and less than strict scrutiny was used in those cases. Do you know which cases he is referring too? If these cases exist then all he needs to do is cite them and explain why this case should use less scrutiny then the judges said apply. I don't have access to look up what Frosh is talking about.
We want Frosh to go the distance. With the state on the losing side, there is a better chance for the SCOTUS to join the fray, and put these AWB and mag limit laws to bed.
I'm not sure about that yet. It's all about en banc IMO. If the state were to just take their lumps back to the district, it'll leave a nice split regarding scrutiny on the table, and possibly leave another case to appeal to SCOTUS with a split in hand.
Obviously if en banc were denied then yes, by all means I want Frosh to appeal to SCOTUS.
EDIT: It appears NYSRPA will file for cert : http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15a646.htm
Matlack
Scribe
- Dec 15, 2008
- 8,557
The problem with "common use" is that it means you can progress no further than you currently are. So it should mean that "smart guns" should not be permitted to be used ever. Double edged sword I guess.
Doesnt matter if strict scrutiny wasnt used before. Strict scrutiny wasnt always used with 1A either. Its a new interpretation and the past doesnt matter. Same thing with any other law change via court interpretation. Just look at Jim Crow laws. They were legal for decades with judicial precedent. According to him they should all still be in affect.
Tomcat
Formerly Known As HITWTOM
This was part of the decision where the court pointed out why those were wrong. Would be hard for Frosh to say the other courts were right and this one is wrong.
Friedman and NYSRPA v. Cuomo. The talking point of Frosh and the dissenting judges always seems to be that they should follow lower courts, and not Heller.
Call me old fashioned, but "they" should not follow some political appointee in a black robe, but should follow this:
OrbitalEllipses
Ultimate Member
If Frau Hitlery gets in there, appoints another "wise Latina"to the SCOTUS, and this thing drags out long enough, then all this might just blow up in our faces!
Yep. I was talking about this last night with a buddy. Because the appellate court vacated and remanded, the timeframe for this gets stretched out. I assume arguments need to be reheard and then Judge Blake needs to rewrite her ruling. That process is going to take months, from 6-15 in my opinion. The state will most certainly lose at this level and appeal again, that will take another several months before arguments are heard. Another half year to get the ruling. Now what happens if the state loses at the appellate level again? If the makeup of the court has changed to favor the left, they will appeal to SCOTUS to make AWB law of the land. If the makeup of the court has changed to favor the right, there's a good chance they won't appeal to SCOTUS.
The question is if we lose at the appellate level and SCOTUS is biased to the left - will we appeal and risk making AWB law of the land?
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Those decisions are cited in the majority opinion in Kolbe, viz., Heller II (DC Cir.) and Friedman (7th Cir) and Fyock (9th Cir). Intermediate scrutiny was also applied in NYSRPA (2d Cir.). The court refused to follow them on grounds that Heller and circuit precedent demanded strict scrutiny. Frosh made the argument and he lost with this panel. He will make the argument again en banc, I am sure.
Frosh's only go forward position must be ALL IN .
He's immutably and forever tied to it.
I sincerely hope his epitaph is elegant in its simplicity:
"Loser"
He's immutably and forever tied to it.
I sincerely hope his epitaph is elegant in its simplicity:
"Loser"
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,280
If Frau Hitlery gets in there, appoints "Constitutional Scholar Obama"
FIFY
The coming election is VERY important!
Frosh specifically said that other AWB cases were tried using less strict scrutiny. Heller and McDonald are different as they were about handguns and firearms. This is a specific ban on assault weapons. I can't recall a case which challenged assault weapons, I'm not saying there are none, I just can't recall. So apples to apples what AWB cases is Frosh citing that supports his claim of less than strict scrutiny?
I'm not the most educated or intelligent man, but even I can see that if you are going to infringe on a right you better have a good reason. If Frosh says that the AR15 is commonly used in mass shootings then he is saying the AR15 is a common firearm. If he says that high capacity magazines means more victims, he's right. But that's like saying you can kill 10 but you have to reload if you want to kill more. Here is a fantastic idea, abolish gun free zones, allow public carry whether cancealed or open. Don't make deals with criminals who use a firearm in commission of a crime. Those few common sense changes are made, you won't need to ban assault weapons.
krucam
Ultimate Member
The Chester opinion (CA4) is thankfully binding and cited in Kolbe. Chester involved a douchebag wife beater being entitled Intermediate Scrutiny, going further saying Lawful citizens were entitled to more than Intermediate. 
NYSRPA v Cuomo is about "assault weapons" in the 2nd Cir and had IS applied.
The 4th circuit also mentions magazines -- which are also necessary for handguns. Handguns were explicitly mentioned as protected items in Heller.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Sign up on our online store and earn 1000 points- Started by J_Gunslinger
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
PG County getting some Liberty Doll love over a bill that would ban computers for minors- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 6