MD AG files Amicus Brief for RI mag limit

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!
  • swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,489
    Westminster USA
    Of course he did.


    3, 2023
    Media Contacts:
    press@oag.state.md.us
    410-576-7009​
    Attorney General Brown Joins Brief Supporting Rhode Island’s Restrictions on Large-Capacity Magazines
    Coalition of Attorneys General Defend Constitutionality of Reasonable Gun Safety Laws to Protect Public Safety

    BALTIMORE, MD – Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a coalition of 18 Attorneys General in filing an amicus brief defending Rhode Island’s restrictions on large-capacity firearm magazines. In the brief, which was filed on June 28 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the states argue that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits states to enact reasonable firearms regulations, including those that restrict the size of firearm magazines, which protect public safety, prevent crime, and reduce the harm caused by gun violence.
    The coalition filed the brief in Ocean State Tactical, LLC, et al. v. State of Rhode Island, a lawsuit filed by Rhode Island gun shop owners seeking to overturn a 2022 Rhode Island law restricting magazines to a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition. The brief urges the First Circuit to affirm a District Court ruling that Rhode Island’s limitation on the size of ammunition magazines should stand while the case proceeds on the merits.
    “I firmly believe that we can safeguard both the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of every citizen to live in peace, free from the constant threat of mass shootings made possible by high-capacity firearms. In mere seconds, lives are shattered, families are torn apart, and communities are forever scarred by senseless acts of violence,” said Attorney General Brown. “By supporting reasonable measures, like Rhode Island's restrictions on large-capacity magazines, we take a step forward towards a safer and more secure future, no longer plagued by the devastating toll of mass shootings .”
    Rhode Island and other states have enacted laws restricting magazine capacity to protect residents from gun violence and to reduce the number of casualties and fatalities from potential mass shootings. Several states, including Maryland, have enacted similar laws banning large-capacity magazines, and those laws have been widely upheld by federal courts as consistent with the Second Amendment. In Maryland, no one may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.
    In the brief, the coalition argues that Rhode Island’s large-capacity magazine law is a constitutionally permissible restriction because:
    • The Second Amendment does not prevent states from enacting common-sense gun regulations: States have widely adopted reasonable restrictions on firearms and firearm accessories to address the conditions within their borders and protect public safety. Restricting access to large-capacity magazines is a reasonable restriction because it reduces firearm injuries and deaths while leaving many other options open for individuals who wish to exercise the core Second Amendment right to self-defense.
    • Rhode Island’s law is consistent with a historical legal tradition of regulating and imposing restrictions on new and distinctively dangerous forms of weaponry: Historical gunpowder storage laws and other rules and regulations were explicitly intended to prevent threats to public safety by limiting the aggregation of arsenals far beyond what would be sufficient for self-defense. Many state and federal laws throughout American history have also regulated specific dangerous weapons or accessories used for criminal and other violent purposes, such as machine guns or short-barreled shotguns.
    Joining Attorney General Brown in filing the brief are the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
    https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/press/2023/070323a.pdf
    Stay Connected with the Maryland Attorney General:​



    The pdf link takes you to the car max settlement because they are morons
    GovDelivery logo
     
    Last edited:

    SPQM

    Active Member
    May 21, 2014
    302
    Is there a way for a common citizen of Maryland to file a response to this specific letter by the MD AG?
     

    Apd09

    Active Member
    May 30, 2013
    978
    Westminster, MD
    Is there a way for a common citizen of Maryland to file a response to this specific letter by the MD AG?

    What I think we should do is have an letter written up about why the ban is not constitutional and once it along with Maryland’s unconstitutional ban is struck down we expect a public mea culpa to the citizens of Maryland for the waste of money used on these cases.
    And we have people mailing the same letter to him every week. So it’s just a constant bombardment of these letters.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Boats

    Broken Member
    Mar 13, 2012
    4,123
    Howeird County
    I'm sorry, the MD attorney general should concern himself with Maryland. This is a waste of taxpayers money.

    Federal fraud waste and abuse complaint?
     

    RFBfromDE

    W&C MD, UT, PA
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 21, 2022
    12,750
    The Land of Pleasant Living
    “…leaving many other options open for individuals who wish to exercise the core Second Amendment right to self-defense.”

    That is an ancillary right. The core 2A right is anti-tyranny.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    31,006
    What I think we should do is have an letter written up about why the ban is not constitutional and once it along with Maryland’s unconstitutional ban is struck down we expect a public mea culpa to the citizens of Maryland for the waste of money used on these cases.
    And we have people mailing the same letter to him every week. So it’s just a constant bombardment of these letters.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    You've failed to grasp the fact that he does not work for the people of MD. Their job is to pay the taxes that pay him; his job is to follow the dictates of those who control the Democratic Party.

    You can send letters until the postage bankrupts you. No one in charge gives a rat's arse about your opinions or concerns, because your concerns are not theirs.
     
    Last edited:

    sleev-les

    Prestige Worldwide
    Dec 27, 2012
    3,153
    Edgewater, MD
    I love that they say they had laws about limiting powders and storage yet cannot site a single fact supporting their nonsense. Plus stars don’t have the right to enact restrictions on rights in COTUS. They are really grasping at straws.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,955
    Marylandstan

    The Governor, the AG all must re read this in Bruen ( According to this "public safety" IS a government interest that extressly rejected by the SCOTUS)

    As the foregoing shows, Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. Whether it came to defining the character of the right (individual or militia dependent), suggesting the outer limits of the right, or assessing the constitutionality of a particular regulation, Heller relied on text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.

    Moreover, Heller and McDonald expressly rejected the application of any “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.’” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at 689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion)
    (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess
    14 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN Opinion of the Court
    the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.
     
    Last edited:

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,955
    Marylandstan
    All- I put this file on my desktop to reference this kindofcrap from State or Federal idiots.
     

    Attachments

    • 20-843 NYvBruen_7j80.pdf
      1.2 MB · Views: 39

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,955
    Marylandstan
    Another stupid law. Because just about everyone has standard capacity magazines for All rifles & pistols.
    Even the criminals don't obey this law.

    ""In Maryland, no one may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.""


    OWN them, Yes and not illegal.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,613
    Messages
    7,288,496
    Members
    33,489
    Latest member
    Nelsonbencasey

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom