Kolbe en banc decision

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!
  • Nomad

    Member
    Feb 16, 2017
    6
    We've been had!

    I'm really disappointed after treading about the 4th Circuit Court decision. It seems like we really got screwed on this one, optimism is infectious and blinding. Getting bit by the bug makes the slam dunk all the more painful. It feels like we were slammed hard. Folks, we sat back and angrily stewed instead of voting while our culture was eroding and being taken from us piece by piece. The liberals kept at it until somewhere between Obama care and outright redistribution of wealth it hit us and we decided to fight back. The 2A battle really started in ernest after JFK was assassinated we just didn't feel is was "politically correct" to fight back with Mrs. Kennedy in tears with the President's blood still all over her; But, make no mistake it started then and still steams merrily along. We've been had, we stewed and fumed from post JFK assassination right on thru assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King. We accepted the GCA of 1968 without a fight because it wasn't proper to fight back in the wake of the losses of another Kennedy and Dr. King. After a lunatic shot President Reagan and unfortunate injury of Mr Brady the Antis went nuts and we finally pushed back and promptly went back to sleep. We slept and stewed and fumed, then somewhere between Obama care and outright theft under the guise of redistribution we decided it to do something - vote! We who have fought for and preserved our freedom and those who love God and principled life all voted. Now we have a friendly Congress and a bull of a President who shares our love of freedom and democracy American style no apologies please. We have to keep voting and keep speaking in a way too loud to ignore. We have a lot lost ground to recover.
    In the wake of the decision from the 4th Circuit is there any recourse, are we stuck with restrictions, bans, and requirements for qualification licenses?
     

    Boss94

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    6,945
    I'm really disappointed after treading about the 4th Circuit Court decision. It seems like we really got screwed on this one, optimism is infectious and blinding. Getting bit by the bug makes the slam dunk all the more painful. It feels like we were slammed hard. Folks, we sat back and angrily stewed instead of voting while our culture was eroding and being taken from us piece by piece. The liberals kept at it until somewhere between Obama care and outright redistribution of wealth it hit us and we decided to fight back. The 2A battle really started in ernest after JFK was assassinated we just didn't feel is was "politically correct" to fight back with Mrs. Kennedy in tears with the President's blood still all over her; But, make no mistake it started then and still steams merrily along. We've been had, we stewed and fumed from post JFK assassination right on thru assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King. We accepted the GCA of 1968 without a fight because it wasn't proper to fight back in the wake of the losses of another Kennedy and Dr. King. After a lunatic shot President Reagan and unfortunate injury of Mr Brady the Antis went nuts and we finally pushed back and promptly went back to sleep. We slept and stewed and fumed, then somewhere between Obama care and outright theft under the guise of redistribution we decided it to do something - vote! We who have fought for and preserved our freedom and those who love God and principled life all voted. Now we have a friendly Congress and a bull of a President who shares our love of freedom and democracy American style no apologies please. We have to keep voting and keep speaking in a way too loud to ignore. We have a lot lost ground to recover.
    In the wake of the decision from the 4th Circuit is there any recourse, are we stuck with restrictions, bans, and requirements for qualification licenses?

    Watch the Videos on post 169 and 163. Sounds like this will be heading to the supreme court.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I'm really disappointed after treading about the 4th Circuit Court decision. It seems like we really got screwed on this one, optimism is infectious and blinding. Getting bit by the bug makes the slam dunk all the more painful. It feels like we were slammed hard. Folks, we sat back and angrily stewed instead of voting while our culture was eroding and being taken from us piece by piece. The liberals kept at it until somewhere between Obama care and outright redistribution of wealth it hit us and we decided to fight back. The 2A battle really started in ernest after JFK was assassinated we just didn't feel is was "politically correct" to fight back with Mrs. Kennedy in tears with the President's blood still all over her; But, make no mistake it started then and still steams merrily along. We've been had, we stewed and fumed from post JFK assassination right on thru assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King. We accepted the GCA of 1968 without a fight because it wasn't proper to fight back in the wake of the losses of another Kennedy and Dr. King. After a lunatic shot President Reagan and unfortunate injury of Mr Brady the Antis went nuts and we finally pushed back and promptly went back to sleep. We slept and stewed and fumed, then somewhere between Obama care and outright theft under the guise of redistribution we decided it to do something - vote! We who have fought for and preserved our freedom and those who love God and principled life all voted. Now we have a friendly Congress and a bull of a President who shares our love of freedom and democracy American style no apologies please. We have to keep voting and keep speaking in a way too loud to ignore. We have a lot lost ground to recover.
    In the wake of the decision from the 4th Circuit is there any recourse, are we stuck with restrictions, bans, and requirements for qualification licenses?

    HQL is a seperate lawsuit not related to Kolbe. Besides, I'd be really surprised if Kolbe doesn't get appealed to SCOTUS. Of course it makes me nervous which direction it'll go if it does. I would not be surprised by a 4-4 split. Need a new justice on the court.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    On that we're in complete agreement, although it wasn't clear whether what you were talking about was an Article V Convention or a Constitutional Convention. The former is an already-defined method of amending the existing Constitution, with rules specifying ratification requirements and such, whilst the latter is a method of defining a new Constitution, with no rules defined for it whatsoever.

    I rather thought you'd been talking about the latter, which is a possibility in the aftermath of a civil war, but the former is something that should be done in order to prevent civil war.







    Yep.


    First. There are always rules. Second in legal terms amendments can not be limited and can strike the entire text.

    Third the only precident holds than any work product must be ratified by the several states.. that should be limit enough..


    With luck only the prospect of con con will be needed.
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    Who cares? It must be done..

    Any it must be done before the millennials take over.

    Article 5 convention is a horrible idea. I'd rather have a constitution written by the founders than the current state legislatures.

    We're on a glideslope towards a bad place, but historically, that trajectory doesn't change without a fall.
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    5,492
    Carroll County!
    Article 1.
    That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact
    only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the
    inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner
    as they may deem expedient.


    Your Maryland Constitution...
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Article 5 convention is a horrible idea. I'd rather have a constitution written by the founders than the current state legislatures.

    Either you go through an Article V Convention and risk the Constitution being rewritten in such a way as to eliminate liberty, and then get a civil war shortly thereafter if it is rewritten in that way, or you go straight to civil war, after which you either get a rewrite of the Constitution to better protect liberty, or the other side wins (since it's the present Constitution that has made it possible to get here in the first place).

    The former gets you a chance of a peaceful resolution. The latter guarantees armed conflict.


    Those are your only two choices. Which is it going to be?


    We're on a glideslope towards a bad place, but historically, that trajectory doesn't change without a fall.

    Yes, and that glideslope occurred with the Constitution as written. If you want a different trajectory, and you believe the Constitution matters to that at all, then you've no choice but to attempt to alter the Constitution so as to correct the trajectory.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    First. There are always rules.

    That doesn't mean a whole lot. In the case where there's civil war first and "alteration" (more realistically, a complete rewrite) of the Constitution after, the rules for that alteration will be made up on the spot. Making up rules on the spot is the equivalent of not starting off with any rules in the first place. The victors can choose to use the existing Article V rules, of course, but that is a choice. A rule which is optional is not really a rule, now is it?


    Second in legal terms amendments can not be limited and can strike the entire text.

    Well, yes, that much is clear, and I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. However, an Article V Convention would logically occur under the context where specific problems with the Constitution have been identified and the states are determined to address them. A Constitutional Convention occurs in the context where the rule of law has disappeared completely and the victors want to craft a set of rules for governing the country.

    If the latter yields something anything close to the same as the former, it will only be through a massive stroke of luck.


    Third the only precident holds than any work product must be ratified by the several states.. that should be limit enough..

    In the aftermath of a civil war, what makes you think there will be anything called "states"? The victors might well decide to eliminate the notion of distributed government entirely, seeing how it's primarily (some of) the states that are forcing a large portion of the issues in the first place.


    With luck only the prospect of con con will be needed.

    Yeah. It has to be tried. To refuse to try an available peaceful option before opening the ammo box is an unforgivable dereliction of duty, and amounts to a decision to kill people before there's no other choice.
     

    Rob00taws6

    Active Member
    Apr 4, 2013
    108
    There is nothing wrong with an article V convention of states. I am a "millennial" I support it and I'm a proud conservative. And while we're throwing around who's generation stinks I want to remind you who's generation is in the ruling class, and who's generation is actively restricting my liberty to carry a firearm, or even own one. First 2/3rds of the state delegates need to vote in favor of any amendment for it to pass, so "your" fears of a runaway convention are bogus. On top of that the spineless Republicans hold a majority of the states. Second off, it's the only shot any of us have to put term limits on these clowns in DC. Third, the only solid way of getting these judicial activists off the bench. And that's exactly what everyone is here wants. The congress could impeach judges and defund courts, but what is the likely hood of that happening, probably just as much as an ACA repeal or national reciprocity. This erosion of liberty has been a long game, we'll over 100 years, the only magic wand that has a chance at success is article 5.

    Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
     

    Mike

    Propietario de casa, Toluca, México
    MDS Supporter
    I'm really disappointed after treading about the 4th Circuit Court decision. It seems like we really got screwed on this one, optimism is infectious and blinding. Getting bit by the bug makes the slam dunk all the more painful. It feels like we were slammed hard. Folks, we sat back and angrily stewed instead of voting while our culture was eroding and being taken from us piece by piece. The liberals kept at it until somewhere between Obama care and outright redistribution of wealth it hit us and we decided to fight back. The 2A battle really started in ernest after JFK was assassinated we just didn't feel is was "politically correct" to fight back with Mrs. Kennedy in tears with the President's blood still all over her; But, make no mistake it started then and still steams merrily along. We've been had, we stewed and fumed from post JFK assassination right on thru assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King. We accepted the GCA of 1968 without a fight because it wasn't proper to fight back in the wake of the losses of another Kennedy and Dr. King. After a lunatic shot President Reagan and unfortunate injury of Mr Brady the Antis went nuts and we finally pushed back and promptly went back to sleep. We slept and stewed and fumed, then somewhere between Obama care and outright theft under the guise of redistribution we decided it to do something - vote! We who have fought for and preserved our freedom and those who love God and principled life all voted. Now we have a friendly Congress and a bull of a President who shares our love of freedom and democracy American style no apologies please. We have to keep voting and keep speaking in a way too loud to ignore. We have a lot lost ground to recover.
    In the wake of the decision from the 4th Circuit is there any recourse, are we stuck with restrictions, bans, and requirements for qualification licenses?

    My take is it started with the 'progressives' attempt at alcohol prohibition. Like today it was popularized by the MSM press of the day. Basically, an attempt to legislate morality. That lead to widespread flaunting of the law by the population. That lead to the opportunity for organized crime to move in and provide the contraband product. Which lead to massive political corruption, which lead to turf wars and shootings. Which said shootings were sensationalized by, again, the same MSM press. Which lead to a hew and cry 'to do something' to stop the carnage. Which lead to the The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934. Which directly traces to where we are today. If that cycle sounds familiar, I'd agree with you. This agenda is what the elitists have been pandering to for a very long time. Maybe an oversimplification, but the simple answer is usually the correct one, my 2¢
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    Either you go through an Article V Convention and risk the Constitution being rewritten in such a way as to eliminate liberty, and then get a civil war shortly thereafter if it is rewritten in that way, or you go straight to civil war, after which you either get a rewrite of the Constitution to better protect liberty, or the other side wins (since it's the present Constitution that has made it possible to get here in the first place).

    The former gets you a chance of a peaceful resolution. The latter guarantees armed conflict.


    Those are your only two choices. Which is it going to be?




    Yes, and that glideslope occurred with the Constitution as written. If you want a different trajectory, and you believe the Constitution matters to that at all, then you've no choice but to attempt to alter the Constitution so as to correct the trajectory.

    Give me an example from history which would be analogous to the solution you propose. There's none which I'm aware of.

    Tell me how our current state legislatures would re-write the (for example) 2A to be more explicit that what it says already. It's not possible.

    We're on the glideslope we're on not because of a fault with the Constitution, but because that is the nature of government. If things get worse before they get better (and I think they will), I'd rather do it now vice throwing some bondo on the Constitution so my kids can sort it out.
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    My take is it started with the 'progressives' attempt at alcohol prohibition. Like today it was popularized by the MSM press of the day. Basically, an attempt to legislate morality. That lead to widespread flaunting of the law by the population. That lead to the opportunity for organized crime to move in and provide the contraband product. Which lead to massive political corruption, which lead to turf wars and shootings. Which said shootings were sensationalized by, again, the same MSM press. Which lead to a hew and cry 'to do something' to stop the carnage. Which lead to the The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934. Which directly traces to where we are today. If that cycle sounds familiar, I'd agree with you. This agenda is what the elitists have been pandering to for a very long time. Maybe an oversimplification, but the simple answer is usually the correct one, my 2¢

    You're close with the prohibition comment, but off base IMO. Who lobbied for prohibition? What amendment was passed around that same time?
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    There is nothing wrong with an article V convention of states. I am a "millennial" I support it and I'm a proud conservative. And while we're throwing around who's generation stinks I want to remind you who's generation is in the ruling class, and who's generation is actively restricting my liberty to carry a firearm, or even own one. First 2/3rds of the state delegates need to vote in favor of any amendment for it to pass, so "your" fears of a runaway convention are bogus. On top of that the spineless Republicans hold a majority of the states. Second off, it's the only shot any of us have to put term limits on these clowns in DC. Third, the only solid way of getting these judicial activists off the bench. And that's exactly what everyone is here wants. The congress could impeach judges and defund courts, but what is the likely hood of that happening, probably just as much as an ACA repeal or national reciprocity. This erosion of liberty has been a long game, we'll over 100 years, the only magic wand that has a chance at success is article 5.

    Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

    Not sure who you're responding to, but you have a lot more faith in the state legislatures than I do. I'm not sure a third of the state legislatures give a crap about our inherent right to personal self defense. Term limits? 99% of them dream about moving up to the next level. If that's not enough, the thought of applying the same rule to the state legislatures would be enough to scotch any notion of writing it into the law. If you want to re-write the 2A into a useless 30pg document, an Article 5 convention is the way to go.
     

    Mike

    Propietario de casa, Toluca, México
    MDS Supporter
    You're close with the prohibition comment, but off base IMO. Who lobbied for prohibition? What amendment was passed around that same time?

    I know. I just was not going to go there. I think I said enough by naming prohibition in the first place. OTOH who let that amendment happen? (Not the prohibition amendment the other one).
     

    Rob00taws6

    Active Member
    Apr 4, 2013
    108
    Not sure who you're responding to, but you have a lot more faith in the state legislatures than I do. I'm not sure a third of the state legislatures give a crap about our inherent right to personal self defense. Term limits? 99% of them dream about moving up to the next level. If that's not enough, the thought of applying the same rule to the state legislatures would be enough to scotch any notion of writing it into the law. If you want to re-write the 2A into a useless 30pg document, an Article 5 convention is the way to go.

    I'm responding to everyone, but, I just have to say that with republicans holding 70% of the state legislative seats in the country now is the time to support an article 5 convention. Were not talking about throwing away the constitution and rewriting a new one, hell the liberals already do that. I think many of us think the entire country treats the 2A like Maryland, over 2/3rds of them do not. Many states are throwing away there CCW permit program for constitutional carry. The seconds amendment is safe in an article 5 conventions of states, 2/3rds of the states are not going to vote to repeal the second amendment. Another point, other things could be done to help the cause of liberty, one being term limits for congress, senate and judges. The repeal of the 17th amendment would also do some good. There is a lot of talk of a Nuclear option in the Senate, article 5 convention of states is the peoples nuclear option, and throwing that option away, with out studying it is a little silly.
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    I'm responding to everyone, but, I just have to say that with republicans holding 70% of the state legislative seats in the country now is the time to support an article 5 convention. Were not talking about throwing away the constitution and rewriting a new one, hell the liberals already do that. I think many of us think the entire country treats the 2A like Maryland, over 2/3rds of them do not. Many states are throwing away there CCW permit program for constitutional carry. The seconds amendment is safe in an article 5 conventions of states, 2/3rds of the states are not going to vote to repeal the second amendment. Another point, other things could be done to help the cause of liberty, one being term limits for congress, senate and judges. The repeal of the 17th amendment would also do some good. There is a lot of talk of a Nuclear option in the Senate, article 5 convention of states is the peoples nuclear option, and throwing that option away, with out studying it is a little silly.

    You trust (for example) the same Republican led NY state legislature which passed the SAFE act to ratify a new constitution (Everything is game to be rewritten in an article 5 convention)?

    I sure don't. Our politicians are the problem, not the Constitution. Trusting our politicians to fix the problem will just make it worse.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Give me an example from history which would be analogous to the solution you propose. There's none which I'm aware of.

    There is none that I'm aware of, either. That does nothing to assail the logic of the argument I'm putting forth, however.


    Tell me how our current state legislatures would re-write the (for example) 2A to be more explicit that what it says already. It's not possible.

    This may well be why you're skeptical about the outcome of such a Convention (as you should be).

    A rewrite of the 2nd Amendment would be worthless. Any declarative language would be in the face of a judiciary that insists on "interpreting" the Constitution to mean whatever it pleases.

    No, the changes needed here are structural, not declarative. Put simply, we got where we are because the present structure of government made it possible. It thus follows that what is needed is a structural change of government, and that can only be accomplished by altering the Constitution.

    Thus, logic inexorably leads towards an Article V Convention as the only means of addressing the deficiencies that have led us here.


    We're on the glideslope we're on not because of a fault with the Constitution, but because that is the nature of government.

    The entire point of the Constitution was to prevent the present glideslope by arranging the structure of government in such a way as to keep it from doing what it is now doing! But the authors of the Constitution were not engineers, and had no understanding of feedback systems.


    Consider this:

    1. In general, a law is a restriction upon liberty.
    2. A major purpose of the republic is to prevent tyranny of the majority. This is why a pure democracy was intentionally avoided.
    3. Rights of substantial majorities need no protection even with the present government structure, since those majorities are capable of dominating the political landscape and, thus, enacting the protections they seek. This is what has happened with the 1st Amendment.
    4. The people who are most interested in protecting the rights of minority populations (where a "minority population" is simply a group of people who share a common interest and who number less than 50% of the whole) are members of those minorities themselves.

    Put all that together, and the necessary structural change becomes obvious: it must be possible for sufficiently large minority populations to strike laws that they disagree with. To insist otherwise is to insist upon tyranny of the majority.

    That leads to the obvious question of how to do that. On that, I have an idea: when a court upholds a law (which, as I said, is generally a restriction upon liberty), if a sufficient minority calls for it, arrange for a vote of the citizen population within the jurisdiction of that court, and if a sufficient minority votes to overturn the court's decision, then the court is overridden and the law overturned.

    What's a "sufficient minority"? That's the real question. It needs to be large enough to prevent criminal populations from destroying the fundamental fabric of law, while being small enough to have the desired protective effects. My initial take is something like 10% of the population, but a higher value may be warranted (20%?).


    In any case, the point here is that it is mechanism that is needed to address the problems, not lofty words, and mechanism can be imposed only through alteration of the Constitution.


    If things get worse before they get better (and I think they will), I'd rather do it now vice throwing some bondo on the Constitution so my kids can sort it out.

    You mean if your kids survive, that is. You would willingly start killing people before exhausting your peaceful options? Really??? Because that is exactly what it means to go straight to civil war.

    Now, understand that I'm as skeptical as you are that the outcome of an Article V Convention will be a good one. I believe I've identified the structural flaws that needs to be addressed, but I'm skeptical that the outcome of such a Convention would actually address them.

    Nevertheless some chance is always better than no chance. The chance of a peaceful resolution is greater if an Article V Convention happens first than if we go straight to civil war (which obviously represents zero chance of peaceful resolution), and that's that.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    You trust (for example) the same Republican led NY state legislature which passed the SAFE act to ratify a new constitution (Everything is game to be rewritten in an article 5 convention)?

    3/4 of the other states would have to agree. The question isn't whether or not you trust any specific legislature, but whether you trust that there's unlikely to be agreement between 3/4 of them on anything other than that which at least 3/4 of them agree to be a real problem, and 3/4 of them would have to agree upon a solution for that solution to be implemented at all.

    But the text of Article V says:

    Article V of the United States Constitution said:
    when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof

    (emphasis mine).

    That suggests that the legislatures aren't necessarily going to be the ratifying bodies involved. It's not clear to me exactly what a "Convention" is in the above context. That would be worth looking into.


    I sure don't. Our politicians are the problem, not the Constitution. Trusting our politicians to fix the problem will just make it worse.

    Then propose a peaceful alternative. I'd love to know what options exist that don't involve shooting people.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    Consider this:

    1. In general, a law is a restriction upon liberty.
    2. A major purpose of the republic is to prevent tyranny of the majority. This is why a pure democracy was intentionally avoided.
    3. Rights of substantial majorities need no protection even with the present government structure, since those majorities are capable of dominating the political landscape and, thus, enacting the protections they seek. This is what has happened with the 1st Amendment.
    4. The people who are most interested in protecting the rights of minority populations (where a "minority population" is simply a group of people who share a common interest and who number less than 50% of the whole) are members of those minorities themselves.

    Put all that together, and the necessary structural change becomes obvious: it must be possible for sufficiently large minority populations to strike laws that they disagree with. To insist otherwise is to insist upon tyranny of the majority.

    That leads to the obvious question of how to do that.


    In any case, the point here is that it is mechanism that is needed to address the problems, not lofty words, and mechanism can be imposed only through alteration of the Constitution.

    This is the reason we have juries. They introduce the notion that the community can act to prevent abuse of justice by bad law, or wrong circumstance. If enough defendants are exonerated by jury nullification, enforcement is forced to take notice, and either stop enforcing laws that the community refuses to support, or act legislatively to remove such laws.

    This has the advantage of supporting the beliefs of a given community, and the disadvantage of jury selection being focused on empaneling morons.

    Sadly, lawyers and judges are forbidden to discuss the notion of jury nullification with the jury, and few juries are sufficiently informed to avail themselves of the option. It does happen, though, time to time.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,491
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom