Decision in Kolbe!

[erwos]

That is clearly incorrect. You'd think the NRA would know what is what.

NRA is a political organization... stretching the truth is not exactly out of bounds for 'em.

 

[K-Romulus]

That is clearly incorrect. You'd think the NRA would know what is what.

That's just what happens when Marketing folks try to do Legal's job. They probably know by now

 

[rockstarr]

On Facebook, the main NRA account linked to the WaPo article and posted this:

this is just another case of the nra attempting to take credit for something they really didn't have much to do with

 

[Jaybeez]

You know what I really like about reading this decision? I can see Baron von Frosh saying all of this stupid stuff, and love watching the Circuit piss all over him.

frosh statement

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2016/020416.htm

 

[fightinbluhen51]

this is just another case of the nra attempting to take credit for something they really didn't have much to do with

LOLWUT?!

 

[Dingo3]

frosh statement

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2016/020416.htm

I never realized that flatulence could be conveyed by the written word. Excuse me while I open the window and light a match after reading that.

 

[mrgnstrn]

Then how is a Beretta ARX a "copycat" of an AR-15? Not arguing with you, but if MSP can call an ARX a copy of an AR-15 then you can call me a copy of a sunflower.

Right.

In my read of the opinion, the court's problem was that the plaintiffs didn't provide an example of an ambiguous determination?
Seriously?
Does anybody know what happened in the original arguments with regard to this part of the suit?

Should we start a list of which rifles are ambiguous? (serious question) and list why they are ambiguous?

 

[babalou]

so the one newbie here who wants to fight using the issue using the equal protection challenge? Wasn't that shot down in this decision? Sort of corn-fused.

 

[esqappellate]

this is just another case of the nra attempting to take credit for something they really didn't have much to do with

I can assure you that the NRA had a great deal to do with the case. They absolutely get a ton of credit

 

[ar154u]

frosh statement

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2016/020416.htm

Lol, Frosh quotes the one judge who dissents ( minority ) who says the law passes muster. Yet, Frosh ignores the affirming judges ( majority ) who say no, strict scrutiny applies. Frosh then goes on to say that there is 2ndA case law banning assault weapons who used intermediate scrutiny. Frosh explains those cases make him and the dissenting judge right. What Frosh does not do is cite those cases which support his claim. Citing those cases will give him credibility and support his argument. Cite the laws Frosh so our taxpayer money can either be put to use or saved from a flawed maniac such as yourself.

 

[pcfixer]

frosh statement

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2016/020416.htm

Good luck with that Frosh!!!

 

[Mr H]

I never realized that flatulence could be conveyed by the written word. Excuse me while I open the window and light a match after reading that.

Please attempt in that order.

 

[stm]

Would it be appropriate for the plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary and/or permanent injunction at this point, given CA4's vacate and remand? Or even a motion for summary judgment?

 

[Shift]

What level of scrutiny did Blake apply

 

[Blaster229]

What level of scrutiny did Blake apply

Intermediate.

 

[mrgnstrn]

What level of scrutiny did Blake apply

Moonbat scrutiny

 

[Gryphon]

Haven't had a chance to read the decision, so am speculating, but if no en banc petition, or petition for cert (doubtful it would be granted IMO anyway) is filed, and the case goes back down on remand, I can't imagine Judge Blake would entertain another round of motions for injunctive relief. Even if she did I would expect they would be denied. Just think about the passage of time with no obvious harm. Anyway, that was already handled the first time through and denied. I suspect all Blake will do is set a supplemental briefing schedule given the 4th's determination that SS applies (to focus the arguments) and have another hearing for oral argument, and issue another summary judgment decision. I can't imagine Judge Blake would open the door to more evidence at this juncture. And even if she did what is the State going to show? That FSA 2013 reduced crime? That it stopped the use of the banned weapons in crimes? That the ban on magazines prevented rioting and 340+ murders? They have to show its narrowly tailored.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Haven't had a chance to read the decision, so am speculating a little, but if no en banc petition, or petition for cert (doubtful it would be granted IMO anyway) is filed, and the case goes back down on remand, I can't imagine Judge Blake would entertain another round of motions for injunctive relief. Even if she did I would expect they would be denied. Just think about the passage of time with no obvious harm. Anyway, that was already handled the first time through and denied. I suspect all Blake will do is set a briefing schedule given the 4th's determination that SS applies and have another hearing for oral argument, and another summary judgment decision. I can't imagine Judge Blake would open the door to more evidence at this juncture. And even if she did what is the State going to show? That FSA 2013 reduced crime? That it stopped the use of the banned weapons in crimes? That the ban on magazines prevented rioting and 340+ murders?

There you go, using some logic this time around.

 

[LargemouthAss]

Congrats guys! This looks great for Maryland!

 

[iCoder80]

OK, I can be dumb as a rock. Does anything actually change in Maryland today or does this just play out in another court for x number of years?