Maryland Shall Issue Inc et al. v. Anne Arundel County - Bill 108-21

[Stoveman]

From the Sun article:

That’s why requiring local firearms dealers to distribute and display a pamphlet developed by the local health department warning of this risk, along with information on mental health and conflict resolution, would seem like a modest but important public health measure. Is anyone pro-suicide? In favor of settling scores by gun? Opposed to gun safety measures? Of course not; or at least they shouldn’t be. And so, an ordinance requiring just that was unanimously approved by the Anne Arundel County Council and signed into law by County Executive Steuart Pittman in early January.

Note the bolded part above and vote accordingly this November.

 

[Ecestu]

*Cough cough* Reader mode *cough cough*

Or kill the page from loading before it finishes.

 

[DC-W]

More press: https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1067744

 

[DC-W]

 

[DC-W]

This is a good case to read on compelled speech from within the 4th Circuit.

Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc.v.Mayor and City Council of Baltimore​

https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/Baltimore-CA4-decision.pdf

 

[DC-W]

Anne Arundel County has moved to have three attorneys from Everytown to be admitted to this case. You can read the motions here: https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/counselor-s-corner/msi-v-anne-arundel-bill10821

 

[KJackson]

I found this comment from the Sun commentary interesting: "That’s why requiring local firearms dealers to distribute and display a pamphlet developed by the local health department warning of this risk, along with information on mental health and conflict resolution, would seem like a modest but important public health measure."

What do you think the response would be to an attempt to require abortion providers to provide a pamphlet describing alternatives to everyone seeking an abortion from them?

 

[esqappellate]

I found this comment from the Sun commentary interesting: "That’s why requiring local firearms dealers to distribute and display a pamphlet developed by the local health department warning of this risk, along with information on mental health and conflict resolution, would seem like a modest but important public health measure."

What do you think the response would be to an attempt to require abortion providers to provide a pamphlet describing alternatives to everyone seeking an abortion from them?

Let me guess. Hysterical outrage ?

 

[Matlack]

I found this comment from the Sun commentary interesting: "That’s why requiring local firearms dealers to distribute and display a pamphlet developed by the local health department warning of this risk, along with information on mental health and conflict resolution, would seem like a modest but important public health measure."

What do you think the response would be to an attempt to require abortion providers to provide a pamphlet describing alternatives to everyone seeking an abortion from them?

Wasn't that attempted and blocked for the same reason as this suit?

 

[ironpony]

I found this comment from the Sun commentary interesting: "That’s why requiring local firearms dealers to distribute and display a pamphlet developed by the local health department warning of this risk, along with information on mental health and conflict resolution, would seem like a modest but important public health measure."

What do you think the response would be to an attempt to require abortion providers to provide a pamphlet describing alternatives to everyone seeking an abortion from them?

In some cities the pamphlet comes with a free environmentally responsible crack pipe …

 

[DC-W]

Wasn't that attempted and blocked for the same reason as this suit?

Not an abortion provider, but a religious-based family planning center that did not provide abortion services. Baltimore City had an ordinance that was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional by the 4th Circuit that required centers like theirs to provide information on where abortions could be obtained.

 

[KJackson]

Wasn't that attempted and blocked for the same reason as this suit?

I seem to remember it being tried somewhere, but without any citations, I didn't want to make the claim. Either way, I am sure it was met with the typical shrieking and wailing about how ANYTHING at all except for immediate treatment is a burden on their right to kill unborn children, um. I mean their right to proper health care.

 

[Matlack]

Not an abortion provider, but a religious-based family planning center that did not provide abortion services. Baltimore City had an ordinance that was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional by the 4th Circuit that required centers like theirs to provide information on where abortions could be obtained.

I believe that is what I was thinking of.

Edit: Actually, I think it's older than that case. I remember something about it from when RvW was decided. I thought states tried doing something similar where they tried to provide information about development and it was shot down. I could be wrong and thinking specifically about the above.

 

[ICW2019]

I found this comment from the Sun commentary interesting: "That’s why requiring local firearms dealers to distribute and display a pamphlet developed by the local health department warning of this risk, along with information on mental health and conflict resolution, would seem like a modest but important public health measure."

What do you think the response would be to an attempt to require abortion providers to provide a pamphlet describing alternatives to everyone seeking an abortion from them?

Public health measures sounds like Covid all over again.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

From the Sun article:



Note the bolded part above and vote accordingly this November.

Perfectly said, Paul.

 

[Inigoes]

https://www.courthousenews.com/maryland-county-defeats-gun-shops-first-amendment-suit/

https://webservices.courthousenews.com/sites/Data/AppellateOpinionUploads/2023-22-3--11-23-09-ca206bca-42d9-467f-80ae-fedce136626a.pdf

 

[swinokur]

MSI is appealing

 

[Tower43]

I mean if the county supplies it AND it stays limited to suicide prevention and non violent conflict resolution....is this the right hill to be dying on?

Sure Im not fond of any gun laws... however as our esteemed Esqappellate has said in regards to SB1, we have to pick and choose which battles to fight.

This seems to be a waste of finances. IMO.

 

[TheBert]

I mean if the county supplies it AND it stays limited to suicide prevention and non violent conflict resolution....is this the right hill to be dying on?

Sure Im not fond of any gun laws... however as our esteemed Esqappellate has said in regards to SB1, we have to pick and choose which battles to fight.

This seems to be a waste of finances. IMO.

The need to fight things like this is to ensure that there isn't any incremental interference between the county and businesses in the future. Its the old just the tip, if you did that then why can't you do this, If it saves just one life. Where does it stop.

Why fight SB1 when it is being fought in other states. Get a split in two circuits outside of the 4th and let them take it to the SCOTUS.

 

[Bertfish]

Both answers are right...

Fight incrementalism

We have bigger fish to fry