Kolbe v. O’Malley

Uncategorized

A Win In The 4th Circuit (Updated)

February 5, 2016 by 4 Comments

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has not been too good for gun rights in the past few years. However, a case involving Maryland make signal a change. Kolbe v. Hogan (formerly Kolbe v. O’Malley) challenged Maryland’s ban on certain semi-auto firearms and standard capacity on Second Amendment and Equal Protection Clause grounds. The District Court for Maryland agreed with the state’s arguments and found the bans were constitutional using intermediate scrutiny.

Today, the 4th Circuit overturned that decision in part and remanded it back to the District Court to be reconsidered using strict scrutiny. The court affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the Equal Protection claims involving retired law enforcement and the vagueness claims that “copies” of certain firearms were not specific enough.

From the synopsis of the decision:

TRAXLER, Chief Judge, wrote the opinion for the court as to
Parts I, II, and III, in which Judge Agee joined.

In April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act
(“FSA”), which, among other things, bans law-abiding citizens,
with the exception of retired law enforcement officers, from
possessing the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly
kept by several million American citizens for defending their
families and homes and other lawful purposes. Plaintiffs raise
a number of challenges to the FSA, contending that the “assault
weapons” ban trenches upon the core Second Amendment right to
keep firearms in defense of hearth and home, that the FSA’s ban
of certain larger-capacity detachable magazines (“LCMs”)
likewise violates the Second Amendment, that the exception to
the ban for retired officers violates the Equal Protection
Clause, and that the FSA is void for vagueness to the extent
that it prohibits possession of “copies” of the specifically
identified semi-automatic rifles banned by the FSA. The
district court rejected Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenges,
concluding that the “assault weapons” and larger-capacity
magazine bans passed constitutional muster under intermediate
scrutiny review. The district court also denied Plaintiffs’
equal protection and vagueness claims.

In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of
the Second Amendment—“the right of law-abiding responsible

citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008), and we are
compelled by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.
742 (2010), as well as our own precedent in the wake of these
decisions, to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict
scrutiny is the applicable standard of review for Plaintiffs’
Second Amendment claim. Thus, the panel vacates the district
court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims and
remands for the district court to apply strict scrutiny. The
panel affirms the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Equal
Protection challenge to the statutory exception allowing retired
law enforcement officers to possess prohibited semi-automatic
rifles. And, the panel affirms the district court’s conclusion
that the term “copies” as used by the FSA is not
unconstitutionally vague.

 The decision from the 4th Circuit was not unanimous and contains dissents, concurrences, and multiple parts. Indeed, the full decision is 90 pages long. Needless to say, it will take some time to read and digest this decision. That said, having the case sent back to the District Court to apply strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment claims is a definite win.

It will be interesting to see what legal legerdemain that Judge Catherine C. Blake will employ to assert that Maryland can still ban the most popular firearm in common use in America today even if strict scrutiny is applied.

UPDATE: Sebastian has more on this case at Shall Not Be Questioned. He is correct in saying that the ban on semi-auto rifles and standard capacity magazines still remains in place. The 4th Circuit didn’t find the law unconstitutional. It merely said that it needs to be reheard using the correct level of scrutiny. This is a win but not a complete win.

UPDATE II: Attorney Andrew Branca (Law of Self Defense) has his take on the case here.

UPDATE III: Gun rights scholar and attorney David Kopel examines the case in detail in the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog. As he notes, the Second Amendment protections should extend to gun parts (magazines) and that strict scrutiny is appropriate in this case.

UPDATE IV: Dave Hardy weighs in on Kolbe. He makes note of the dissent and the response from Judge Traxler to it.

Uncategorized

Maryland AG Reacts As Expected

February 5, 2016 by 4 Comments

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D-MD) served a combined 28 years in the Maryland House and Senate before being elected Attorney General. He says in his bio that, “He shepherded landmark legislation on gun safety”, through the Maryland Senate. That legislation was the Maryland Firearm Safety Act which banned the sale of ARs. AKs, their clones, and standard capacity magazines.

Given that background, it is no surprise that he is not happy with the judges of the 4th Circuit after yesterday’s ruling in Kolbe v. Hogan. As he states in the press release below, he intends to request an en banc review of the case or, failing to get that, he will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Baltimore, MD (Feb. 4, 2016) –Attorney General Brian E. Frosh issued the following statement on today’s ruling by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Maryland Firearm Safety Act:

“The Maryland Firearm Safety Act is a common-sense law designed to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. It remains the law in Maryland.

The 2-1 decision handed down today by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals returns the case to the district court for further proceedings, and it also conflicts sharply with rulings of other federal appellate courts.

Those courts have uniformly upheld assault weapons bans and limits on large capacity magazines. Those courts have not imposed the standard of review adopted by the 2-judge majority today, but instead follow a standard that gives greater deference to the public safety and health concerns that led the legislature to enact this law. As a dissent by Judge King notes: ‘There is sound reason to conclude that the Second Amendment affords no protection whatsoever to the assault rifles and shotguns, copycat weapons, and large-capacity detachable magazines that are banned by the State of Maryland.’

As Attorney General, I remain fully committed to defending Maryland’s law, and to defending the courageous votes taken by the Maryland General Assembly so that we can continue to protect public safety and reduce the risk of deadly gun violence.

Rest assured, the Office of the Attorney General will seek further review of the majority decision, either by the full Fourth Circuit sitting en banc, or by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Those other circuits to whom he refers are the notoriously anti-gun 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. As a resident of the 4th Circuit I have been consistently disappointed in its rulings on the Second Amendment. I have long wished that they would start ruling more like the 7th Circuit but my wishes have not been granted. Starting with US v Masciandaro (2011) and continuing with their overturning of the District Court win in Woollard v. Gallagher (2013), the 4th Circuit has not sure much due respect for Second Amendment rights.

Of note is that dissent in Kolbe came from Judge Robert King, a Clinton appointee, who wrote the opinion in the Woollard case. You’d have thought a born, bred, and educated West (by God!) Virginian would have had more respect for the Second Amendment. Sadly, that is not the case.

Uncategorized

NSSF Responds To The 4th Circuit Ruling

February 4, 2016 by

The National Shooting Sports Foundation was an organizational plaintiff in Kolbe v. Hogan. As you can imagine they are very pleased with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the District Court erred in going with intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny.

Appeals Court Remands Decision for ‘Strict Scrutiny’ of Second Amendment

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today overturned a federal district court decision that had upheld the 2013 State of Maryland Firearm Safety Act as constitutional under intermediate scrutiny review.

Writing for the three-judge appellate court panel that heard the case, Kolbe v. Maryland, Chief Judge William B. Traxler wrote: “In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — ‘the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,635 (2008), and we are compelled by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), as well as our own precedent in the wake of these decisions to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard or review for Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim.”

The court vacated the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ claims and remanded the case to the lower court, ordering that it apply the appropriate strict standard of review.

“We are greatly heartened by the Fourth Circuit panel’s ruling today,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), one of the lead plaintiffs in this case. “As this important case goes forward, NSSF will continue to work with our co-plaintiffs to ensure that our citizens’ Second Amendment rights are protected and that the lawful commerce in firearms is restored in support of this constitutional protection.”

Uncategorized

The NRA Responds To Today’s 4th Circuit Decision

February 4, 2016 by 1 Comment

The NRA is very pleased with the 2-1 ruling in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan.

National Rifle Association Statement on 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling in Kolbe v. Maryland

Fairfax, Va.— Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued the following statement in reaction to today’s ruling by the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kolbe v. Maryland case. The case challenges the legality of Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The 2-1 decision sends the gun-control law back to a lower court for review because it “implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment.”

“The Fourth Circuit’s ruling is an important victory for the Second Amendment. Maryland’s ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines clearly violates our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The highest level of judicial scrutiny should apply when governments try to restrict our Second Amendment freedoms.” – Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action

You can find my earlier post on the case here.

Uncategorized

The Most Common Rifle In America Not Protected By The Second Amendment

August 13, 2014 by 16 Comments

In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake, a Clinton appointee, said that AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47s were not protected by the Second Amendment. Her opinion came in a Maryland case, Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al, in which the plaintiffs were challenging the state’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013.

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.

First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.

The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.

Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.

Plaintiffs in the case included the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Maryland Licensed Firearm Dealers Association, a number of businesses, and individuals Stephen Kolbe and Andrew Turner. The defendants included Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Attorney General Douglas Gansler (D-MD), and the Maryland State Police.

In reaching her conclusions, Judge Blake relied extensively on the testimony of such anti-gun stalwarts as Prof. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Christoper Koper of George Mason University, the Violence Policy Center, and Lucy Allen of NERA. She even accepted as valid a database maintained by Mother Jones Magazine. She refused the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude their testimony as flawed.

Judge Blake clearly indicates by her footnote on page 24 that she does not understand the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. Indeed, she considers the AR-15 to be more dangerous.

The Supreme Court indicated in Heller I that M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual. 554 U.S. at
627. Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s—and arguably more
effective—the same reasoning would seem to apply here.

Applying intermediate scrutiny to the case, Judge Blake concludes:

In summary, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment
of this State’s legislature and its governor, seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law
enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault
weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in
protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court
has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to
use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be
upheld.

In looking at this ruling, it is time to call a spade a spade. This is a bullshit ruling by an extremely biased, anti-gun judge. It should and must be appealed.