Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Yes, but Google indexes by the number of mentions. It's a density thing. The less we mention the name, the less it is indexed. It is reverse Search Engine Optimization.
Capiche?
Be nice to your brothers, y'all...
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Capiche?
Be nice to your brothers, y'all...
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I don't think they intended to issue any permits. They thought the, "we'll get back to you" was going to work, but really don't know that gun carriers really understand how to read regs. If not, we'd all be in jail.
So Applicant X shows up asking for his (legally required) permit, and they come up with a delaying tactic figuring he'd just roll over like the rest of the lemmings. But he does not. He knows the regs.
Then they panic.
By the way I read the docs, they filed the notice only after (or while) Gura ran up the courthouse steps. I think DC fully intended to just sit more days before requesting a stay. They wanted to draw out the clock, but got blind sighted and had to file before they intended.
I think DC brought in external counsel for this. In my opinion, they are doing a great job.
The bad thing is Gura mentions him by name in the contempt request.
Except DC staked this whole scheme on being like NY, NJ, and MD. What they're counting on is winning at the appeals court and SCOTUS denying cert, just like the others. If we win at the DC Circuit, it certainly seems a big question if DC appeals to SCOTUS, no doubt the Bradys and Bloombergs will be begging DC to NOT appeal.
gamer_jim
Podcaster
Did DC mention MD by name?
If this goes to Circuit could we then still use a victory there?
DC's memory is so short they will forgot about Heller.
onward and upward.
onward and upward.
DC did mention MD as an example to bolster their claim that their may issue scheme, has withstood constitutional scrutiny in other circuits
Unfortunately a ruling from the DC circuit doesn't help us since we're bound by the 4CA ruling in Woollard.
IANAL
Unfortunately a ruling from the DC circuit doesn't help us since we're bound by the 4CA ruling in Woollard.
IANAL
gamer_jim
Podcaster
Can someone please repeat what Woollard said?
Did it say that State of Maryland was right? or just that they didn't want to hear the case?
Mr H
Banana'd
CA4 sided with MD, SCOTUS denied Cert.
Yes, the 4CA overturned Judge Legg's original ruling saying may issue wasn't constitutional.
IOW-we lost.
SCOTUS denied CERT so we're done as far as appeals go. Now if the DC case gets to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rules against DC, things will change a lot as that will be the law of the land.
IANAL
IOW-we lost.
SCOTUS denied CERT so we're done as far as appeals go. Now if the DC case gets to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rules against DC, things will change a lot as that will be the law of the land.
IANAL
danb
dont be a dumbass
You forgot the kicker: Surely it was because LGOC is legal right here in MD.
... actually that was only 50% snark. Other cases gave the judges some outs to make them feel better. Drake which was the most extreme, got relisted.
Maybe that means something. D.C. does not have any "LGOC is legal here" outs in the event the court finds there is a right to bear arms in public.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
It ackowledged that the 2A is an individual right that applies to the states, and that the right exists outside of the home. However, it also said the good and substantial requirement passed intermediate scrutiny (the wrong test IMO). Notably, as bad as that sounds, it did not prohibit the current MSP superintendent from implementing his own definition of G&S, or the HGPRB from exercising its own statutory discretion.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Maestro Pistolero
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2012
- 876
Though I completely understand your point and its context, every once in a while the absurdity of any idea to the of an indoor-bound right to bear arms comes clear . . . like the concept of an entirely indoor militia, for example.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Though I completely understand your point and its context, every once in a while the absurdity of any idea to the of an indoor-bound right to bear arms comes clear . . . like the concept of an entirely indoor militia, for example.
Right, but that's kinda the point: The concept of an indoor bound right to self defense is totally absurd. So the question is, if the D.C. circuit finds the right outside the home, how can D.C. residents exercise it? What is their fallback? As someone noted: D.C. is playing checkers, Gura is playing chess.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
Well...and as it relates to DC...they already conceded that the right exists outside the home in Palmer. Now, we are down to arguing can they limit a right to special individuals? Rights are not based on "need" which is what the G&S reason attempts to judge.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Gura has the advantage of having done this a few times and put them in a tiny little box, IMHO. It will be interesting to see what they argue on appeal. Assuming they appeal. The smartest thing they can do is not appeal. There is always some chance they Get Smart.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
Oh please, there are VIPs that need protection, they'll never give up.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Really. IMHO, fat chance.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Immediate administrative stay is DENIED.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (1 Viewer)- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
The Economic Impact of the Firearm and Ammunition Industry- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 0