Decision in Kolbe!

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!
  • teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,866
    Bel Air
    Ok, so from a long-term strategy perspective, what's the anti-gun establishment's best bet? Do they roll the dice with the courts, and if they lose, they not only lose big in Maryland, but it has the possibility of creating national precedent, or do they actually repeal the law so they can approach it from another angle later?

    And which would be better for us? While SS looks great, is there a chance we could eventually still lose in the courts?

    We could most certainly still lose in the courts. This is just one Circuit. Not all are saying the SS needs applied to 2A cases, though if you look at which cases require SS, those dealing with the core of a Right most certainly do. Every time these idiots pass a law, they run the risk of it back-firing on them down the road.

    SS is going to be a very hard standard against which to pass an AWB. The State CANNOT show a compelling government interest. The decision was pretty clear on this. "Assault weapons" just aren't used in crimes, and the Judge also stated something to the effect that you cannot infringe upon a right based on what could be. I doubt the District Court can figure a way around this and I doubt the CA4 will overturn itself on this one. This precedent will stand unless SCOTUS agrees to hear it.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,866
    Bel Air
    Was the HQL even part of this litigation? I thought the equal protection issue was that LEO could continue to possess an Assault Weapon after they left the department even if the Assault Weapon was not possessed prior to 10/1/2013.


    No, the HQL was not part of it. MSI would like to file this, but doesn't have the funds. We have until 10/1/16 to file an HQL suit and barring some miracle, it won't happen.
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,740
    Glen Burnie
    Agreed, not that it's going to matter much in the courts, but it could give the media some bytes here and there that could paint us in an unfavorable light.
    Who cares? Are we going to run and hide even when we get a small victory?
    You raise a good point - it's just one of those things where I think sometimes we have to be mindful and prudent that the anti's, in an effort to get to know their enemy, read and monitor these sites, that's all.

    Personally, I'm pretty happy about how this has turned out - we thought that Kolbe was going to languish forever in court limbo, but we got one to come back in our favor, so it's definitely a win to be happy about.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,616
    SoMD / West PA
    I doubt the District Court can figure a way around this and I doubt the CA4 will overturn itself on this one. This precedent will stand unless SCOTUS agrees to hear it.

    Frosh doesn't have the balls to appeal the opinion to the SCOTUS!
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,514
    White Marsh
    No, the HQL was not part of it. MSI would like to file this, but doesn't have the funds. We have until 10/1/16 to file an HQL suit and barring some miracle, it won't happen.

    Any update on the funding?

    It was $12K back in mid-December. That's an unfortunate far cry from the $100K jumping off point.
     

    slybarman

    low speed high drag 9-5er
    Feb 10, 2013
    3,074
    Was the HQL even part of this litigation? I thought the equal protection issue was that LEO could continue to possess an Assault Weapon after they left the department even if the Assault Weapon was not possessed prior to 10/1/2013.

    Could be - As I stated in my early post, the HQL piece was just an assumption on my part. I didn't recall the factual basis of the equal protection claim.
     

    m4strmind

    Active Member
    Nov 14, 2006
    607
    Frosh facebook
     

    Attachments

    • frosh.PNG
      frosh.PNG
      21.1 KB · Views: 514

    Peaceful John

    Active Member
    May 31, 2011
    239
    SO, by vacating the District Court's decision, it still leaves the law as is - correct?

    Years ago, in high school, I got so tired of hearing "Yes, I love you. But not that way". That was my introduction to how the interpretation of words can entirely change their meaning. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

    IANAL, but it looks like today's decision now requires this law to be interpreted under strict scrutiny. Yesterday it could have been interpreted any way the judge saw fit ("Yes, but not that kind of gun"), but today there is suddenly a very difficult interpretive standard that must be met. So the words of the law haven't changed but what the words mean certainly has. In that sense the law is much changed.
     
    Last edited:

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Was the HQL even part of this litigation? I thought the equal protection issue was that LEO could continue to possess an Assault Weapon after they left the department even if the Assault Weapon was not possessed prior to 10/1/2013.

    Sorry my bad... busy time at work.. disregard... yes that claim had merit...

    Sorry.for the confusion...mine that is..;)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,727
    Messages
    7,292,895
    Members
    33,503
    Latest member
    ObsidianCC

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom