No.

14-1945


In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit


STEPHEN KOLBE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

MARTIN J. OMALLEY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees



On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland
No. 1:13-cv-02841-CCB (Hon. Catherine C. Blake)


PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY TRADI-
TIONALIST YOUTH NETWORK, LLC FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE
AS AMICUS CURIAE


John Parker Sweeney
T. Sky Woodward
James W. Porter, III
Marc A. Nardone
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
1615 L Street N.W., Suite 1350
Washington, D.C. 20036
P (202) 719-8216
F (202) 719-8316
JSweeney@babc.com
Attorneys for Appellants
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pg: 1 of 6
1

Pursuant to the Courts September 25, 2014, Order, Plaintiffs-Appellants
hereby oppose the Motion of Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC (TYN) for
Leave To Participate in this appeal as amicus curiae. As set forth below, TYNs
brief will not be helpful to the Courts consideration of this appeal. TYN appears to
be using its brief to advocate positions that are far beyond the scope of this appeal.
TYN is urging this Court to ignore the Supreme Courts controlling decision in
Heller and render a far more expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment;
relief Plaintiffs-Appellants have not requested.
ARGUMENT
Though there are a myriad of complex legal issues (constitutional and
otherwise) in this appeal, at its heart, this is a very straightforward case. In its
seminal Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.
570 (2008), the Supreme Court held, among other things, that it is constitutionally
impermissible to ban firearms commonly possessed for lawful purposes by
responsible, law-abiding citizens. Plaintiffs-Appellants demonstrated in the trial
court that the firearms and magazines banned by Marylands Firearms Safety Act
of 2013 were commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding
citizens. Accordingly, such a ban is per se unconstitutional under Heller. Plaintiff-
Appellants seek only to purchase the popular firearms and magazines of their
choice for self defense in the home, among other legitimate purposes.
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pg: 2 of 6
2

Appellants oppose TYNs proposed participation in this appeal as amicus
curiae because TYNs brief does not assert matters that are relevant to the
disposition of this case and will not be helpful to the Court. Fed. R. App. P.
29(b)(2) (amicus curiae must demonstrate why its participation is desirable and
why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case).
TYNs proposed brief adds nothing relevant for the Courts consideration.
TYNs sole legal argument is that the district court erred when it failed to conduct
a strict-scrutiny review. See Proposed Br. at 4-19. The parties summary judgment
papers address the applicable standard of review and level of scrutiny at great
length, and their briefs in this Court no doubt will do the same. See, e.g., Doc. 44-1
at 37-54; Doc. 55-1 at 25-38. More importantly, however, the arguments presented
by TYN do not relate to the issues actually involved in this appeal. While
ostensibly arguing in favor of strict scrutiny review in this case, TYN is actually
advocating wide-ranging political positions that are beside the point of the issues in
this appeal.
This appeal relates to the scope of the Second Amendments protections as
applied to popular semi-automatic long guns and magazines with a capacity greater
than ten rounds. Appellants contend that these firearms and magazines are
protected by the Second Amendment as it was interpreted by the Supreme Court in
Heller, supra, 554 U.S. 570, and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pg: 3 of 6
3

(2010).
TYN makes clear that its interests lie far beyond these narrow issues. On
pages 19-20 of its proposed brief, TYN declares: if the Second Amendment was
[sic] interpreted as it should be, then individual American citizens reserve the right
to possess automatic rifles and submachine guns, hand grenades, shoulder-fired
rocket and grenade launchers, antipersonnel mines, trench mortars, anti-aircraft
and anti-tank guns . . . . None of these modern-day military weapons are at issue
in this appeal. Nor are Plaintiffs-Appellants arguing that they should be. TYN is
arguing for relief beyond the scope of this appeal.
This appeal does not involve a prohibition on owning any of the weapons
TYN references. Rather, this case involves only the complete prohibition on
popular firearms and magazines that are commonly possessed by law-abiding
citizens for lawful purposes; it simply does not involve the possession of military-
grade firearms. Thus, the arguments put forth by TYN are not germane to this
appeal.
By requiring that a prospective amicus explain why the matters asserted are
relevant to the disposition of the case, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
make clear the requirement that an amicus brief actually address issues that are
before the Court. Because TYNs proposed amicus brief does not meet this
requirement, its motion to participate as amicus curiae should be denied.
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pg: 4 of 6
4

TYN never sought consent to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of
Plaintiffs-Appellants. Had their consent been sought, Plaintiffs-Appellants would
have declined. Plaintiffs-Appellants now expressly decline the nominal support
being offered by TYN on appeal in this matter and urge this Court to deny TYNs
motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the motion of TYN for
leave to participate in this appeal as amicus curiae.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John Parker Sweeney
John Parker Sweeney
T. Sky Woodward
James W. Porter, III
Marc A. Nardone
Attorneys for Appellants
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP
1516 L Street, NW, Suite 1350
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 393-7150
jsweeney@babc.com
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pg: 5 of 6
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 6, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
of such filing to the following:
Matthew John Fader
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
200 Saint Paul St
Baltimore, MD 21202
mfader@oag.state.md.us

Jennifer L. Katz, Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
200 Saint Paul Place
20th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
jkatz@oag.state.md.us

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the docu-
ment to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
Mr. Mark Holdsworth Bowen, Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
1201 Reisterstown Road
Pikesville, MD 21208


s/ John Parker Sweeney
John Parker Sweeney


Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pg: 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN V. KOLBE, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) Case No.: 14-1945
)
v. )
)
MARTIN OMALLEY, et al., )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )

APPELLEES RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE
Pursuant to the Courts September 25, 2014 request (Dock. No. 21) for a response
to the motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae on behalf of the Plaintiffs-
Appellants filed by the Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC (Dock. No. 18), the
Defendants-Appellees do not object to the request for leave to file.
Respectfully submitted,
DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
Attorney General of Maryland

/s/ Matthew J . Fader
MATTHEW J . FADER (Fed. Bar #29294)
J ENNIFER L. KATZ (Fed. Bar #28973)
Assistant Attorneys General
200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
410-576-7906 (tel.); 410-576-6955 (fax)
mfader@oag.state.md.us

Dated: October 7, 2014 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/07/2014 Pg: 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I certify that on _________________ the foregoing document was served on all parties or their
counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by
serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below:













___________________________ ________________________
Signature Date
October 7, 2014
/s/ MatthewJ . Fader
10/07/2014
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/07/2014 Pg: 2 of 2
FILED: October 7, 2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 14-1945
(1:13-cv-02841-CCB)

___________________

STEPHEN V. KOLBE; ANDREW C. TURNER; WINK'S SPORTING GOODS,
INC.; ATLANTIC GUNS, INC.; ASSOCIATED GUN CLUBS OF BALTIMORE,
INC.; MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INC.; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC.; NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS
FOUNDATION, INC.; MARYLAND LICENSED FIREARMS DEALERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.

Plaintiffs - Appellants

and

SHAWN J . TARDY; MATTHEW GODWIN

Plaintiffs

v.

MARTIN J . O'MALLEY, Governor, in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of Maryland; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the State of Maryland; MARCUS L. BROWN, Colonel, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Department of State Police and Superintendent of the
Maryland State Police; MARYLAND STATE POLICE

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 25 Filed: 10/07/2014 Pg: 1 of 2
___________________

O R D E R
___________________
Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to file an amicus
curiae brief, the court grants the motion and accepts the amicus brief filed by
Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC.
For the Court--By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk
Appeal: 14-1945 Doc: 25 Filed: 10/07/2014 Pg: 2 of 2