Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014

[rem87062597]

The fight is now without merit now CA4 will affirm this disaster and SCOTUS will have no reason to take it without a split. Just like Stalingrad we must know that any further fighting will be futile . What must be decided is where to pull back to instead of being like the Germans and be massacred



with the current makeup of the courts yes I can see how it will go. I must of learned my fortune telling from here as some thought our other option would A) fail B)that failure would influence the court

It's not like it can get worse in CA4. Worst case scenario they keep banning stuff without worrying about 2A like they have been doing, this case will either be a win or it'll be the MD status quo.

 

[Norton]

Misc unhelpful nonsense removed.

 

[EL1227]

A sad day for Maryland. Today I'm closing on my house in Colorado, but I feel your pain.

You'd better hope that the sheriffs prevail in CO and oust Hickenlooper or you'll be feeling your own pain once you're settled there. Make like a Democrat ... 'Vote Early and Vote Often'.

Colorado governor backpedals on gun-control laws he signed

The pedaling is set on reverse these days in Gov. John Hickenlooper’s office after he told a group of Colorado sheriffs last week that he regretted not fully vetting the state’s gun-control laws — measures he once championed...

 

[gswayne]

Misc unhelpful nonsense removed.

Thank you Norton

 

[trickg]

Difference between this case and others: we got stuff into the record that others did not. It's there and available for further review.

Here's a question - pardon my ignorance of the finer points of the court when it comes to this kind of thing - but part of the reason she didn't allow for the plaintiff's point of view was because according to her, we didn't provide evidence to support our assertions. Are we going to be able to go back and fill in those blanks when this gets pushed forward, or do we have to lie in the bed we made?

 

[fabsroman]

I thought that this one was interesting.


I mean, is that even close to being statistically accurate? Most of the people I know who have ARs only have one of them.


I see where he's going with this, and as it now sits, with the way this was worded, we now have a legal judgment in the United States that declares that ARs and mags holding more than 10 rounds are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. We have no choice but to push this forward, so let's say it goes all the way to the SCOTUS and we lose there, it paves the way for any state in the United States to ban ARs, and opens the door to another Federal gun ban.

The weapons were banned in 1994 and nobody pushed the matter back then. Now, states are doing it on a local level and the question is whether it is Constitutional. Maryland passed the law. Either we live with it for the sake of the other states and not take it all the way, or we take it all the way. Plus, there is nothing stopping the other states from passing these types of laws IF nobody is willing to challenge them. The antis cannot get this done on a federal level because there are still plenty of citizens in other states that will not put up with it.

 

[rwbow1969]

It was pretty much a given from the beginning that this case would be moving up the ladder. Next stop, 4th Circuit.

There has been a lot of good testimony and as Patrick mentioned we did get things on the record.

Now we wait for the next date.

I know this is not the instant gratification that some wanted but, it was the smart approach.

 

[fabsroman]

I know that the "common use" terminology came from the Heller ruling, but it seems that relying too much on that would allow future bans of new technology before they have a chance to develop into common use.

Would it not make sense to also plead that the core of self-defense implies "fighting" arms.

You may have a need to fight to protect yourself. Wouldn't it make logical sense then to look not just at what other citizens have "in common use", but also what the police respond with to a call.

30 years ago if you called the police they showed up with a revolver and a shotgun. Today they come with a pistol with a >10 round magazine and and AR15 with 30 round mags.

Do they ever leave the AR15's in the trunk because there's only one bad guy barricaded in the house? No. Do they ever say "the perp only has a knife, so just grab the 10 round mag"? No.

Citizens face exactly the same threats as the police, and usually first and alone. Suggesting they should have less effective firearms is outrageous.

"Common use" seems to me to be similar to the "in the home" comments in Heller. Meaning that the DC law being overturned was so extreme as to be ridiculous. "We don't know where the line is on the 2A, but it most definitely applies in your house" and "arguing that handguns aren't appropriate for self defense is crazy because that's what most people use" seem similar to me.

This doesn't even take into account if the citizens ever needed to fight tyranny or a foreign threat. Also, I used the term "perp" like on tv

Yep. Common use is complete BS. It takes time for something to be in "common use". Maybe that is one standard that SCOTUS can use, and then add some additional standards as to what is an acceptable firearm. Personally, I think anything short of machine gun should be acceptable. Actually, I think machine guns fall squarely under the "arms" category of the 2nd Amendment. Our forefathers should have included cannons in there too so we could have artillery, mortars, tanks, etc. at our disposal. Sadly, they could not envision back then that man would eventually fly, so they could not have even thought to include F-16 aircraft and the like.

 

[teratos]

Yep. Common use is complete BS. It takes time for something to be in "common use". Maybe that is one standard that SCOTUS can use, and then add some additional standards as to what is an acceptable firearm. Personally, I think anything short of machine gun should be acceptable. Actually, I think machine guns fall squarely under the "arms" category of the 2nd Amendment. Our forefathers should have included cannons in there too so we could have artillery, mortars, tanks, etc. at our disposal. Sadly, they could not envision back then that man would eventually fly, so they could not have even thought to include F-16 aircraft and the like.

I agree with the bolded statement (as if you needed my approval ). I think that arms in use by the military are what is protected.

 

[jpo183]

I try to look at arguments from the other side. It helps when you argue against them.

1) Heller specifically addressed inside the home

2) There is no "scientific" evidence that shows an AR is used over a handgun, shotgun, etc in self defence (in the home). I would also say that there is no evidence supporting the difference.

3)The expert testimony decision is quite interesting. Without reading the entire disposition again she simply states that the Plaintiff (us) cherry picked what we wanted and mischaracterized his research. Her opinion of this in my non legal opinion is quite telling. If indeed this was the argument about Koper being an expert, it is quite laughable. Her opinion states that the end conclusion does not necessarily dictate an expert or not but the research, past experience, etc, etc. She even states that Kope essentially left "a way out" for inaccuracy in all his studies and she cites it. If this is the case then it was very sloppy and grasping at straws on our end, in which she pretty much summarizes.

This section IMO is incredibly important to the argument. The bases of the argument of "fact" was...its opinion. Based on the cited cases, that is not true and I am not even a lawyer....

4) The argument for Webster is really like SERIOUSLY GUYS... did you fall asleep in law school. She defines what an expert witness can do and cant do based on case law. Webster falls right into those categories....again SMH..

5) The argument of Vince (and again I have not read the case for awhile) is again laughable. This was easy. Shes like umm guys...there is nothing in the law that used the ballistics opinion in the case so its a non issue. It seems like this was something that was deemed as "stupid" on our part.

6) The Allen argument....how did I miss this in the original read......she used NRA information and we tried throwing it out. Yikes......


These parts alone are mind blowingly stupid. Sorry. They seem very...."green".

Now for her opinions in which patrick quoted earlier...I believe that is good for us.

Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.


Turning to the record in this case, Maryland’s ban on assault long guns and LCMs survives intermediate scrutiny. The evidence demonstrates that assault weapons have several military-style features making them especially dangerous to law enforcement and civilians.

I see these conclusions as very "opinion" and not "court" based if that makes sense. Also she referenced the old Heller which states inside the house vs outside. With the slam dunk in DC I find this to be a very good split and the best thing we can hope is that this appeal takes time that we can use the DC case as precedent.

The rest of the opinion is standard anti gun stuff. I am BLOWN AWAY though at the opinion of the judge over the expert witnesses and I sure hope she took what was said/written and twisted it. It seems VERY VERY VERY VERY inexperienced if the things she said were true and we tried arguing them.

 

[babalou]

Quote:
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.


huh?

 

[danb]

I agree with the bolded statement (as if you needed my approval ). I think that arms in use by the military are what is protected.

I would say: Arms in use by government employees with police powers.

 

[babalou]

I think she may have given us a gift.



She hasn't done her homework.

I also differ with her on self-defense in the home being "the core" of the 2A. While self-defense is a God-given Right, the true core of the 2A is to preserve Liberty. That means The People reserve the Right (and the power) to overthrow the government.

Sorry, I did not see this prior to posting.

 

[aquaman]

Color me unsurprised

 

[redeemed.man]

I try to look at arguments from the other side. It helps when you argue against them.

1) Heller specifically addressed inside the home

2) There is no "scientific" evidence that shows an AR is used over a handgun, shotgun, etc in self defence (in the home). I would also say that there is no evidence supporting the difference.

3)The expert testimony decision is quite interesting. Without reading the entire disposition again she simply states that the Plaintiff (us) cherry picked what we wanted and mischaracterized his research. Her opinion of this in my non legal opinion is quite telling. If indeed this was the argument about Koper being an expert, it is quite laughable. Her opinion states that the end conclusion does not necessarily dictate an expert or not but the research, past experience, etc, etc. She even states that Kope essentially left "a way out" for inaccuracy in all his studies and she cites it. If this is the case then it was very sloppy and grasping at straws on our end, in which she pretty much summarizes.

This section IMO is incredibly important to the argument. The bases of the argument of "fact" was...its opinion. Based on the cited cases, that is not true and I am not even a lawyer....

4) The argument for Webster is really like SERIOUSLY GUYS... did you fall asleep in law school. She defines what an expert witness can do and cant do based on case law. Webster falls right into those categories....again SMH..

5) The argument of Vince (and again I have not read the case for awhile) is again laughable. This was easy. Shes like umm guys...there is nothing in the law that used the ballistics opinion in the case so its a non issue. It seems like this was something that was deemed as "stupid" on our part.

6) The Allen argument....how did I miss this in the original read......she used NRA information and we tried throwing it out. Yikes......


These parts alone are mind blowingly stupid. Sorry. They seem very...."green".

Now for her opinions in which patrick quoted earlier...I believe that is good for us.



I see these conclusions as very "opinion" and not "court" based if that makes sense. Also she referenced the old Heller which states inside the house vs outside. With the slam dunk in DC I find this to be a very good split and the best thing we can hope is that this appeal takes time that we can use the DC case as precedent.

The rest of the opinion is standard anti gun stuff. I am BLOWN AWAY though at the opinion of the judge over the expert witnesses and I sure hope she took what was said/written and twisted it. It seems VERY VERY VERY VERY inexperienced if the things she said were true and we tried arguing them.

One small note about Heller. It did not limit to the home, it specifically discussed protecting "sensitive areas" aka schools and government buildings but recognized the right to be armed in case of confrontation. If the decision is read the way SCOTUS likely intended for it to be read it allows for carry. It has been severely twisted by lower Federal Courts ever since the decision was issued.

 

[Jaybeez]

did she bother to address why retired law enforcement need ar-15s in their homes?

 

[hodgepodge]

Not unexpected, but I'm shaking my head at some of the conclusions.

 

[montoya32]

I think she may have given us a gift.



She hasn't done her homework.

I also differ with her on self-defense in the home being "the core" of the 2A. While self-defense is a God-given Right, the true core of the 2A is to preserve Liberty. That means The People reserve the Right (and the power) to overthrow the government.

Didn't Scalia say it extended to outside the home? I am getting confused with all of these cases and judges name.

 

[Mr.B]

Can't wait to be disappointed when this fails in the 4th circuit, seems like we can't catch a break

 

[Mr H]

It was pretty much a given from the beginning that this case would be moving up the ladder. Next stop, 4th Circuit.

There has been a lot of good testimony and as Patrick mentioned we did get things on the record.

Now we wait for the next date.

I know this is not the instant gratification that some wanted but, it was the smart approach.

People should not forget that part of this equation, long term, is changing the electoral landscape.

Getting as many of the grabbers out this fall will help backstop anything that comes out of CA4, in either direction.