Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[G O B]

I moved to Texas in'15. Have not had a single regret. People here are like Maryland was 50-60 years ago. FRIENDLY!

 

[MattFinals718]

I’ve no doubt Maryland will continue its downward course. AWB going away? I doubt it will. The “cool” thing for the left in g*^€*rment, is to intentionally do what they know is against the rights of the people.

In the long term, it has to, because it is unconstitutional. How long it takes to get there, I do not know. But FSA 2013 will be found unconstitutional at some point.

Maybe it's my BGOS talking, but in the context of this year's trend towards state AWBs, Maryland is fortunate that it already has FSA 2013, because (1.) the law is so flawed that it doesn't really achieve what it was intended to do (i.e., ban tactical rifles), and (2.) if MD didn't already have FSA 2013, it’s very likely that it would be joining the trend of blue states ignoring Bruen and attempting AWBs this year. Obviously, I want FSA 2013 gone some day, but right now, its existence might actually be keeping things from being a lot worse than they already are*.




* Of course, the moment that there's a mass shooting in MD with a weapon that wasn't banned under FSA 2013, I am sure that the Governor will immediately look at making our lives worse.

 

[FZRracer400!]

In the long term, it has to, because it is unconstitutional. How long it takes to get there, I do not know. But FSA 2013 will be found unconstitutional at some point.

Maybe it's my BGOS talking, but in the context of this year's trend towards state AWBs, Maryland is fortunate that it already has FSA 2013, because (1.) the law is so flawed that it doesn't really achieve what it was intended to do (i.e., ban tactical rifles), and (2.) if MD didn't already have FSA 2013, it’s very likely that it would be joining the trend of blue states ignoring Bruin and attempting AWBs this year. Obviously, I want FSA 2013 gone some day, but right now, its existence might actually be keeping things from being a lot worse than they already are*.




* Of course, the moment that there's a mass shooting in MD with a weapon that wasn't banned under FSA 2013, I am sure that the Governor will immediately look at making our lives worse.

Even if the awb gets dropped, it’s only a short matter of time before Moore mouths off more stupidity of his mental superiority over the masses including the SC. This will never end in my opinion. The precedent has been set, and will be a perpetually swinging pendulum. Is VA the permanent answer? Not likely, but it’s the best answer for me at this stage of my life/career, and far better than what I’ll ever get in MD……..aside from firearms laws. The ability to get more of what I want and my own range and dirt bike track outside my back door are major bonuses

 

[jc1240]

I guess living with the Freedom Suppression Act of 2013 I live around it. For me the new permit BS is a bigger target. If it's strictly a time thing (FSA older, so it's further down the pipe) that's fine. The permit-holder punishment act of 2023 needs to go before it's even signed in my book.

 

[lazarus]

In the long term, it has to, because it is unconstitutional. How long it takes to get there, I do not know. But FSA 2013 will be found unconstitutional at some point.

Maybe it's my BGOS talking, but in the context of this year's trend towards state AWBs, Maryland is fortunate that it already has FSA 2013, because (1.) the law is so flawed that it doesn't really achieve what it was intended to do (i.e., ban tactical rifles), and (2.) if MD didn't already have FSA 2013, it’s very likely that it would be joining the trend of blue states ignoring Bruen and attempting AWBs this year. Obviously, I want FSA 2013 gone some day, but right now, its existence might actually be keeping things from being a lot worse than they already are*.




* Of course, the moment that there's a mass shooting in MD with a weapon that wasn't banned under FSA 2013, I am sure that the Governor will immediately look at making our lives worse.

You and I have had the exact same thought. Beyond there already being one, I suspect MGA was too busy on their place, training, and manner of carry bills. But even if they weren't, I suspect they would actually be reluctant to poke the tiger with Bianchi GVR'd to the appeals court and a hearing that did not seem to go very well for the state at the appeals court.

Washington state had to virtue signal something. MD? Republicans can just point out in campaign adds that MD already has an AWB. Why do we need ANOTHER one. Especially when it is about to be found unconstitutional.

 

[lazarus]

I guess living with the Freedom Suppression Act of 2013 I live around it. For me the new permit BS is a bigger target. If it's strictly a time thing (FSA older, so it's further down the pipe) that's fine. The permit-holder punishment act of 2023 needs to go before it's even signed in my book.

I think sensitive places is going to be decided before the ultimate unconstitutionality of AWBs is decided. I have no clue where AWBs are in terms of which will hit SCOTUS again first. I suspect MD and Bianchi as I think others were remitted to the district court level? Or was NJ's back to the appeals court also?

At any rate, NJ, NY, and now MD have gone SO far with the Sensitive places to be patently unconstitutional based on Bruen even to most liberal judges. They can still pussyfoot with AWBs and call them unusually dangerous weapons until SCOTUS smacks them upside the head. Because there is some historical traditions to limiting unusually dangerous weapons. Not really much on BANNING them. And it is hard to call the most manufactured and possessed single model of rifle in America is unusual. But they'll keep trying to claim that until SCOTUS tells them to stop.

Bruen still opens a lot more judges to realize AWBs are unconstitutional. But you'll have plenty of Judge Jenkins out there that claim otherwise and spout interest tests and that they are unusually dangerous (when it actually was unusual AND dangerous).

Flat bans to carry basically anywhere outside of the home even with a permit, pre-1900 not a single state did such a thing. NJ and NY have now. MD is playing "just the tip" with that.

I doubt we will get a decision this term on sensitive places. I'll be slightly surprised if NY or NJ don't make it there next term and extremely surprised if it takes longer than the term after next. So decision next summer, or at the latest the following summer.

AWB's I think are going to be at least 2 or 3 terms from now. Maybe faster, but even if we get a good read from the appeals court soon, I am positive MD will en banc it. I suspect it'll be granted. I figure optimistically that'll take a year. I think the appeals court will overturn FSA2013, but I also think they'll stay the decision and the full court will uphold the stay. No clue how the full court will rule. But, like I said, at best I think there might be an en banc decision late next year and I doubt SCOTUS will take it up during that term.

This stuff is coming, but courts work slowly.

 

[Apd09]

SCOTUS seems to be taking notice of these suits with their comments in NY and just now a comment about IL on an emergency request.
At what point does MSI go to SCOTUS and say we’ve been patient so far but it is running out. We feel we deserve a response from the GVR.

Gun rights advocates ask Supreme Court to block Illinois assault weapons bans

Challengers of state and local bans on assault weapons in Illinois asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the Supreme Court on Monday to block the bans, saying that courts are ignoring last year's ruling that expanded Second Amendment rights.

amp.cnn.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Allen65]

At what point does MSI go to SCOTUS and say we’ve been patient so far but it is running out. We feel we deserve a response from the GVR.

Well, 9CA sat on a decision in Young v. Hawaii for ~10 years and never got called on the carpet for it.

https://www.kitv.com/news/business/...cle_05ab400e-f8f6-11ec-b91f-0fffd828b4a8.html

 

[delaware_export]

They sat on the stun gun case too… I posted before. Forget the exact dates off hand but something like case decided in 2016? And the first stun guns for sale in Hawaii in jan 1 2022.

and that’s with a specific case saying they were protected.

and agree with the point of young. The 9th was hoping he, young, would die before Bruen changed things. Haven heard from wolf wood .. one article made it sound like he eventually got a permit. Not sure if OC or CC.

Well, 9CA sat on a decision in Young v. Hawaii for ~10 years and never got called on the carpet for it.

https://www.kitv.com/news/business/...cle_05ab400e-f8f6-11ec-b91f-0fffd828b4a8.html

 

[Apd09]

But this is a post Bruen world where twice now SCOTUS has been asked for help and although they’ve declined to help, they have made straight forward evaluations and demands of the states which are slow walking compliance.

It would stand to reason that states do not want to keep poking the bear and and that SCOTUS wants to move on but if they keep needing to clarify and provide direction they will get pissed.

So I go back to my question of why are we not pushing this because it should not take this long and SCOTUS is demanding proof from Illinois in a matter of days. Maryland has had months if not almost a year, so they are in open defiance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Muleskinner]

There is, it's called voting.

Haha.. someone who still thinks elections matter. Come on Dan.

thing is, they've now proven they buy/fix the vote, so how do you fix that?

I was going to ask the same thing. The Democrats appear to know how to rig any election at any level of government.

 

[Muleskinner]

But this is a post Bruen world where twice now SCOTUS has been asked for help and although they’ve declined to help, they have made straight forward evaluations and demands of the states which are slow walking compliance.

It would stand to reason that states do not want to keep poking the bear and and that SCOTUS wants to move on but if they keep needing to clarify and provide direction they will get pissed.

So I go back to my question of why are we not pushing this because it should not take this long and SCOTUS is demanding proof from Illinois in a matter of days. Maryland has had months if not almost a year, so they are in open defiance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has to be a bear to poke. While the supreme Court can give an opinion or send a decision back to a lower court for them to effectively change it what would happen if a state or even the federal government decided not to abide by the court's decision? What would happen? Not a blessed thing. The supreme Court has no enforcement division. They would rely on the department of Justice and right now who's in charge of the department of Justice? The same man who sent federal agents into Catholic churches to spy on them because the paranoid leftists believe that domestic threats are coming from Christians, veterans, Patriots and GUN OWNERS.

If a state or the federal government decided to ignore the ruling of the court there is absolutely nothing anyone could do about it legally.

And although I would like to think at that point Patriots would take up arms and use the second amendment for the real reason it was written into our Constitution but unfortunately I don't believe that would ever happen. Oh sure there might be some pushback but not with the numbers that would be needed to actually remove the impediment and cure the liberal disease that is infesting this country. Nope not a damn thing. That's what tyranny looks like. In case you were wondering

 

[jcutonilli]

Well, 9CA sat on a decision in Young v. Hawaii for ~10 years and never got called on the carpet for it.

https://www.kitv.com/news/business/...cle_05ab400e-f8f6-11ec-b91f-0fffd828b4a8.html

Technically they sat on it for about 5 years. https://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/ I believe a number of cases impacted the timeline including Peruta and the 2 NY 2A SCOTUS cases

 

[Bob A]

There has to be a bear to poke. While the supreme Court can give an opinion or send a decision back to a lower court for them to effectively change it what would happen if a state or even the federal government decided not to abide by the court's decision? What would happen? Not a blessed thing. The supreme Court has no enforcement division. They would rely on the department of Justice and right now who's in charge of the department of Justice? The same man who sent federal agents into Catholic churches to spy on them because the paranoid leftists believe that domestic threats are coming from Christians, veterans, Patriots and GUN OWNERS.

If a state or the federal government decided to ignore the ruling of the court there is absolutely nothing anyone could do about it legally.

Yeah, this ^^^ is a problem that I hope we will never have to deal with.

Trouble is, the Dem/Progs are at present going after the legitimacy of SCOTUS, doing their best to sh!tcan Justice Thomas and undermine the Court's credibility. And it's working, as the unthinking mob is taking this BS to heart, and polls seem to show it - if any one trusts polls any more.

We're well on the way to the Weimar/Third Reich re-enactment. Germany went downhill fast once they got a demagogue into high office. Meanwhile, they're working overtime to trash the currency, the economy, and the credibility of anyone with a Conservative bent. One more fixed election, and it'll be over by 2028. The only saving grace is that we here have more Conservatives, that Germany had Jews.

I've got maybe 15 years left, and I suspect my last days will be sooner than that. I'm not likely to survive a re-education camp.

Arbeit Macht Tod.

 

[Allen65]

Technically they sat on it for about 5 years. https://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/ I believe a number of cases impacted the timeline including Peruta and the 2 NY 2A SCOTUS cases

I stand corrected.

So when is it appropriate to seek a Writ of Mandamus against a court that appears to play passive-aggressive by refusing to issue an opinion in a case where it knows the law requires a finding the court finds repugnant?

 

[Naptown52]

Do I buy a 5.56 AK now (Ive found some available at a reasonable price point) or do I wait to hear the decision is? All things being equal, Id rather get a real 7.62 AK, and I dont mind waiting a little while, but if its going to get stretched out for months (or more) Ill just settle.

 

[Garet Jax]

Do I buy a 5.56 AK now (Ive found some available at a reasonable price point) or do I wait to hear the decision is? All things being equal, Id rather get a real 7.62 AK, and I dont mind waiting a little while, but if its going to get stretched out for months (or more) Ill just settle.

2 more weeks.

Honestly, no one knows.

 

[Mike1690]

Do I buy a 5.56 AK now (Ive found some available at a reasonable price point) or do I wait to hear the decision is? All things being equal, Id rather get a real 7.62 AK, and I dont mind waiting a little while, but if its going to get stretched out for months (or more) Ill just settle.

I'd go ahead and get it. The 4th Circuit just decided a case that was heard in Sept of 2021. Also there is the inevitable appeal to hear the case en banc and then possibly the SCOTUS.

 

[redsandman6]

Do I buy a 5.56 AK now (Ive found some available at a reasonable price point) or do I wait to hear the decision is? All things being equal, Id rather get a real 7.62 AK, and I dont mind waiting a little while, but if its going to get stretched out for months (or more) Ill just settle.

i was waiting on this ruling as well for an ak in 7.62. i decided to get a 5.56 now and when this finally gets through the courts i will get the 7.62. probably be a couple of years as mike1690 has said

 

[coinboy]

i was waiting on this ruling as well for an ak in 7.62. i decided to get a 5.56 now and when this finally gets through the courts i will get the 7.62. probably be a couple of years as mike1690 has said

You all could just get the pistol too.