Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

[MDFF2008]

The law would revert back to Sept 30th 2012.

 

[Mr H]

Silly rainbow and unicorn question... Couldn't Hogan put his hand on Frosh's shoulder and say..."Son, there will be no need to appeal that decision..."?

I like the question.

 

[dblas]

so then all sporting rifles will be cash and carry?
If the decision comes out after 4/13 they can't do anything till next year unless Hogan calls them back?

Not just sporting rifles, all those EBRs that have been feared for years.

UZIs (the 29 inch law will be tossed also) with folding stocks will be cash and carry

See my posts above, no cash and carry of sporting rifles, it goes back to what the law was before the change.

 

[swinokur]

thank you for answering. I assume there was no wording in FSA 2013 that rescinded the old law, so it would then revert?

What wording would allow the old statute to be back in effect, ie 77r, etc.?

 

[dblas]

If SB281 will be found unconstitutional, there is no law to interpret.

The only things Frosh can do are: request an appeal, and/or a stay.

This is not all of SB281, just the AWB and magazine capacity. And there is law to interpret, the law that was on the books pre-Oct 2013.

 

[Mr H]

thank you for answering. I assume there was no wording in FSA 2013 that rescinded the old law, so it would then revert?

What wording would allow the old statute to be back in effect, ie 77r, etc.?

The wording "BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments" is about a process. If struck, the process ends up reversed, thereby putting things back as they were for those sections.

 

[Inigoes]

The wording "BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments" is about a process. If struck, the process ends up reversed, thereby putting things back as they were for those sections.

You guys are bursting my pipe dream!

 

[swinokur]

The wording "BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments" is about a process. If struck, the process ends up reversed, thereby putting things back as they were for those sections.

so no repeal and no amendments if I understand you.

 

[jimbobborg]

Since this is just about the AWB and magazine ban parts of FSA 2013, and those parts are struck (not the whole bill of goods) then the parts striking the old law will still be there.

 

[ChannelCat]

The wording "BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments" is about a process. If struck, the process ends up reversed, thereby putting things back as they were for those sections.

I'm not a lawyer, but, the law is funny, and when something gets overturned, it is not necessarily reverses 100%. For example, if the voice of reason and logic prevails, the "assault weapon" part of this abomination of a law might be repealed, but this stupid handgun qualification permit nonsense might remain...

 

[Jaybeez]

We knew going into the Circuit court that she was probably going to rule against us, and she was advised that is would be appealed to the 4th Circuit regardless of her ruling. So she accommodated both sides by expediting the case and getting to the 4th Circuit as fast as possible.

Is that good jurisprudence? I would say no. But it furthers our goals in a quicker fashion and that is ultimately SCOTUS. Which this case will be appealed to regardless of the ruling of the 4th Circuit. The only question is, will there be a beef detour through en banc or not.

I totally see him rolling the dice with en banc. thats worth a shot, the odds are slightly in his favor, maybe.

but appealing to scotus, with what could very well be a very strong decision from Traxler... with the same Heller 5 on the bench... my opinion today is that if md loses in the 4th there will be no appeal. frosh's ego be damned. bloomberg cannot risk frosh screwing it for his final solution.

 

[swinokur]

I'm not a lawyer, but, the law is funny, and when something gets overturned, it is not necessarily reverses 100%. For example, if the voice of reason and logic prevails, the "assault weapon" part of this abomination of a law might be repealed, but this stupid handgun qualification permit nonsense might remain...

I believe the HQL portion is the subject of a separate suit.

 

[dblas]

Silly rainbow and unicorn question... Couldn't Hogan put his hand on Frosh's shoulder and say..."Son, there will be no need to appeal that decision..."?

Nope, Frosh does not report to Hogan.

 

[dblas]

I doubt that, the legislature deliberately struck provisions of the old law for SB281.

It would be up to the legislature to reenact them by passing another law.

And those provisions that were struck, would be "un struck" because the new law would be found unconstitutional. If that happens it would be as if the new law had never been written. Thus back to pre-Oct 2013 law. Yes, the legislature can come back and try to rewrite is again when all is said and done, but will they? I highly doubt it.

 

[dblas]

so no repeal and no amendments if I understand you.

That is correct...Sorry to hurts your pipe dream....

 

[dblas]

I'm not a lawyer, but, the law is funny, and when something gets overturned, it is not necessarily reverses 100%. For example, if the voice of reason and logic prevails, the "assault weapon" part of this abomination of a law might be repealed, but this stupid handgun qualification permit nonsense might remain...

That is correct because we have not challenged the HQL with this lawsuit, just the AWB and the magazine capacity. The HQL lawsuit was another issue and has been shelved for now.

 

[plinkerton]

Nope, Frosh does not report to Hogan.

He answers to the people who elected him, Baltimore City, MoCo, and PG County.

The rest of the state he ignores.

 

[swinokur]

That is correct...Sorry to hurts your pipe dream....

not a dream, just musings.

 

[dblas]

I totally see him rolling the dice with en banc. thats worth a shot, the odds are slightly in his favor, maybe.

but appealing to scotus, with what could very well be a very strong decision from Traxler... with the same Heller 5 on the bench... my opinion today is that if md loses in the 4th there will be no appeal. frosh's ego be damned. bloomberg cannot risk frosh screwing it for his final solution.

It depends on how the ruling is written, if all three justices agree (and there is very optimistic reason to believe this) then they would be stupid to request en banc, as the the court, more often than not, would support the entire panel.

If, however, the panel is split, then we might see a request for en banc review.

 

[dblas]

The state got hammered on the magazine issue, the comment was made that there were roughly 750,000,000 "standard" capacity magazines in circulation and in use by for lawful purposes by law abiding citizens. If 750,000,000 isn't in common use, then what number is?