Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

SCOTUS will not review Kolbe v. Hogan


Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996

Recommended Posts

Today the Supreme Court let stand the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Kolbe v. Hogan

 

Excerpt

 

Quote

While Kolbe v. Hogan was but one of four circuit court decisions to have upheld state or local bans on semi-automatic rifles, this case differed greatly from its predecessors. In Kolbe, a case challenging Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban, the full Fourth Circuit held that the AR-15 and the semiautomatic AR47 (and other banned semi-automatic rifles) are “not constitutionally protected arms” because they are “weapons that are most useful in military service.” Conversely, the Second, Seventh, and DC circuits all held semi-automatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment, yet bans were still justified by the governmental interest supposedly advanced.

emphasis added

 

SCOTUS should have heard the case because the decisions of the lower courts are inconsistent

 

See also Washington Examiner article same topic

 

See also Newsweek: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Assault Rifles Used in Las Vegas and Texas Shootings

 

Annex 1

Gun Law 101: National Firearms Act of 1934

 

Annex 2

History of Gun Control Legislation

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

the full Fourth Circuit held that the AR-15 and the semiautomatic AR47 (and other banned semi-automatic rifles) are “not constitutionally protected arms” because they are “weapons that are most useful in military service.”

 

 

That contradicts Miller.

 

Quote

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

That contradicts Miller.

 

Excellent point.   

 

Demagogues argue that we need "years of scholarly research" -- to figure out what the Second Amendment means.   The Second Amendment -- as part of the Constitution -- is Constitutional Law -- not Public Law.   As such it applies to the government -- not to the people.

 

With this in mind anyone who can read can get a full understanding in about 10 seconds.

 

but this is why I included that reference to the History of Gun Control.   The courts are going to twist this and distort it as suits their purpose in whatever the Time of the Day seems to call for.    The obvious hazard here is that some semi-auto rifles may be classified as Type III Destructive Devices -- like sawed of shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

 

Will existing items be made to require a tax stamp?    who knows.    hang onto your hat here.

Link to comment

When discussing the 2nd there are two things that jump to mind for me.   The wording is clear - the right of the people.  Not the right of the State to arm a militia.  Not the right of members of the organized militia.  The right of the people.  The same people who in the 1st have the right to peaceably assemble and in the 4th have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.  The same people who the 9th says have rights not enumerated, and in the 10th have rights retained.  If "the people" in the 2nd means the state or the militia, then in those other amendments it means the state or the members of the militia.

The other thing is this SCOTUS ruling that says all of our rights are off the political table:


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

Link to comment

The Second Amendment is addressed to the government and applies to the government.

 

to me, as soon as i recognized that the intent and meaning were perfectly clear: the government may not disarm the people.

 

I like to think of the Bill of Rights as "Rx for Tyranny"

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

When discussing the 2nd there are two things that jump to mind for me.   The wording is clear - the right of the people.  Not the right of the State to arm a militia.  Not the right of members of the organized militia.  The right of the people.  The same people who in the 1st have the right to peaceably assemble and in the 4th have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.  The same people who the 9th says have rights not enumerated, and in the 10th have rights retained.  If "the people" in the 2nd means the state or the militia, then in those other amendments it means the state or the members of the militia.

The other thing is this SCOTUS ruling that says all of our rights are off the political table:


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

 

This is the perfect summary. 

 

 

Link to comment

remember while your're thinking about this: 2A applies to the Federal Gov't

 

last I knew the courts had not tested whether 2a was extended to the states by way of the 14th --

 

I found this--

Does the Second Amendment Bind the States?

 

and this, --

An Easy Guide to the Bill of Rights for Kids

 

so far though I've not found a clear, authoritative reference to answer the question.    any help -- will be greatly appreciated !!

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

McDonald 2010 incorporated it against the states.

thanks :)

I did find this summary:

SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE

 

to me this is critical and I'm thinking of reading the entire ruling.    

here is an excerpt from the above cite:

 

Quote

In a five-four split decision, the McDonald Court held that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is incorporated and applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

 

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

remember while your're thinking about this: 2A applies to the Federal Gov't

 

last I knew the courts had not tested whether 2a was extended to the states by way of the 14th --

 

I found this--

Does the Second Amendment Bind the States?

 

and this, --

An Easy Guide to the Bill of Rights for Kids

 

so far though I've not found a clear, authoritative reference to answer the question.    any help -- will be greatly appreciated !!

 

5 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

McDonald 2010 incorporated it against the states.

 

 

Pretty clear to me if the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to the states then it should be without question that the 2nd does as well.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Pretty clear to me if the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to the states then it should be without question that the 2nd does as well.

seems that way to me--

I'm reading McDonald V Chicago decision.   it's tough going but it seems clear that's what the court said:

Quote

We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

 

so,-- we'll have to see what happens next

 

thanks to the SubDeacon for directing me to this case :)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

 

 

Pretty clear to me if the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to the states then it should be without question that the 2nd does as well.

 

I've never quite understood how, when just about every state constitution has a clause in it that says that the US Constitution is the law of the land, every amendment must be ruled by the Court to apply to the states.

 

 

2 hours ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

seems that way to me--

I'm reading McDonald V Chicago decision.   it's tough going but it seems clear that's what the court said:

 

so,-- we'll have to see what happens next

 

thanks to the SubDeacon for directing me to this case :)

 

My pleasure.   Information is supposed to be shared. 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.