Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

[DC-W]

Government 101: Governor = Executive, AG = Judicial, MGA = Legislative

 

[esqappellate]

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.

Unless there is an urgent reason to get the issue to the SCT (and there wouldn't be here), Frosh loses nothing by seeking en banc. If decision is unanimous, that just makes it harder to get en banc, but not impossible and not stupid. For example, even if he doesn't get it, he might a dissent from the denial which would be useful in any cert petition. If I were Frosh, I would definitely seek en banc first before filing for cert. If you seek en banc first, you have two shots, one with the CA4 and one with the SCT.

 

[dblas]

Fader also made a fatal error (in my opinion) by stating that the ban is not an issue because there are other firearms available to be used. I believe Justice King brought him up short with the SCOTUS ruling in Heller, when DC used the same argument. He basically told fader, if SCOTUS found that argument to be a non starter in Heller why should you get to use it here? (paraphrasing)

 

[Applehd]

Government 101: Governor = Executive, AG = Judicial, MGA = Legislative

Gee that's funny... O'mallothead seemed to control them all... didn't he?

 

[dblas]

Unless there is an urgent reason to get the issue to the SCT (and there wouldn't be here), Frosh loses nothing by seeking en banc. If decision is unanimous, that just makes it harder to get en banc, but not impossible and not stupid. For example, even if he doesn't get it, he might a dissent from the denial which would be useful in any cert petition. If I were Frosh, I would definitely seek en banc first before filing for cert. If you seek en banc first, you have two shots, one with the CA4 and one with the SCT.

Good points....

 

[esqappellate]

Government 101: Governor = Executive, AG = Judicial, MGA = Legislative

No, the AG is part of the executive branch, not the judiciary. The courts comprise the judiciary. The AG is just that part of the executive branch that represents the Ex. Br. in court.

 

[swinokur]

DC-W-what grade did you get in Govt 101?

 

[DC-W]

Gee that's funny... O'mallothead seemed to control them all... didn't he?

Goose steppers...

DC-W-what grade did you get in Govt 101?

No, the AG is part of the executive branch, not the judiciary. The courts comprise the judiciary. The AG is just that part of the executive branch that represents the Ex. Br. in court.

I just failed 101

 

[swinokur]

 

[aquaman]

Either way, I'll bet this case takes a couple years to resolve. Courts are slow on purpose, they are gov't workers after all.

 

[Applehd]

... and I learned from watching schoolhouse rock...

ETA... when they weren't re-runs...

 

[esqappellate]

Gee that's funny... O'mallothead seemed to control them all... didn't he?

That's because the Dems controlled the GA and he controlled the Dem. Party and thus could make life difficult for dem legislators. Much more difficult now, with the Gov. in the opposing party's hands. As to the judiciary, the Gov. does not control them. They are just liberals.

 

[dblas]

Either way, I'll bet this case takes a couple years to resolve. Courts are slow on purpose, they are gov't workers after all.

60 - 90 days for a ruling, then enbanc review (7 months to be heard) - 60 - 90 days for that ruling, then request cert from SCOTUS, so that potentially puts us in the 2016 SCTUS schedule with a 2017 ruling.

 

[rockstarr]

so ill be applying for AARP before this is over...

 

[DC-W]

As Shannon put it, "These cases move slower than molasses."

 

[esqappellate]

Goose steppers...






I just failed 101[/QUOTE]

Common error. People also mistakenly believe that DOJ is part of the judiciary for the same reason

 

[esqappellate]

As Shannon put it, "These cases move slower than molasses."

This case: six months, tops.

 

[esqappellate]

Good points....

And the case for en banc would get even better under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the panel opinion expressly disagrees with the DC Circuit in Heller II, which, you will recall, upheld the DC ASW ban. So, did Heller II come up during the argument?

 

[esqappellate]

Fader also made a fatal error (in my opinion) by stating that the ban is not an issue because there are other firearms available to be used. I believe Justice King brought him up short with the SCOTUS ruling in Heller, when DC used the same argument. He basically told fader, if SCOTUS found that argument to be a non starter in Heller why should you get to use it here? (paraphrasing)

Dan: Quick point for future reference: all judges in the lower federal courts are "judges" not justices. Only SCT judges are "justices"

 

[tc617]

If we prevail, the AWB and magazine capacity law are gone and those two provisions of FSA 2013 go back to what they were pre Oct 2013. Regulated, 77R, 7 day wait, no copycat listing.

20 round magazines.

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?

Could the court rule that ANY AND ALL magazine capacity limits are unconstitutional? Why would one magazine capacity limit be anymore constitutional than another?

If the FSA'13 magazine 10 round limit is struck down, would it require another law suit the strike down the previous 20 round limit?