SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12
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:
- Status
Dogabutila
Ultimate Member
- Dec 21, 2010
- 2,359
I don't believe that a court victory will do anything that a legislature passing a bill wouldn't. You guys point out that they could just repeal/modify the law. Sure. But they could also ignore court orders, outright ban ccw like Illinois, etc etc.
Or scotus could decide in the future that there is no right to carry and everybody bans carry again. Then what do you do?
Relying on the legislature isn't bad anymore then relying on the courts is bad, and they aren't taking anything you aren't giving up. Nullify. We take our rights back.
Or scotus could decide in the future that there is no right to carry and everybody bans carry again. Then what do you do?
Relying on the legislature isn't bad anymore then relying on the courts is bad, and they aren't taking anything you aren't giving up. Nullify. We take our rights back.
faze
Ultimate Member
I thought Illinois unbanned CCW?
faze
Ultimate Member
Al Norris
Spud Head
I don't know how many remember, but when Parker v. D.C. was decided, the NRA lobbied pretty heavily for the Congress to get involved and pass a bill that would have in effect, nullified the D.C. handgun laws.
This was before D.C. appealed to SCOTUS. The NRA, like many of us just knew that D.C. would appeal and the NRA was deathly afraid of what the Court might do. The NRA backed off and scuttled their own efforts when it became obvious that the vast majority of their own members were crying foul (not an indictment of the NRA here, they had good reason to fear what the Court might rule).
The upshot is that regardless of whatever happens in the future, D.C. v. Heller settled for all time, the issue of collective v. personal right. It also settled the question of keeping arms in your home.
Those two questions will not be overturned, however else the Court ultimately decides the scope of the right.
This is what Wollard (and other cases) is about. To expand that right to outside the home, to the public sphere.
By having a legislative action moot this case, it removes this chance at the SCOTUS from ruling that the core right of self defense exists outside the home. That's what all these cases are about.
It's not about licensing or permitting. They are just a vehicle to expand the definition.
This was before D.C. appealed to SCOTUS. The NRA, like many of us just knew that D.C. would appeal and the NRA was deathly afraid of what the Court might do. The NRA backed off and scuttled their own efforts when it became obvious that the vast majority of their own members were crying foul (not an indictment of the NRA here, they had good reason to fear what the Court might rule).
The upshot is that regardless of whatever happens in the future, D.C. v. Heller settled for all time, the issue of collective v. personal right. It also settled the question of keeping arms in your home.
Those two questions will not be overturned, however else the Court ultimately decides the scope of the right.
This is what Wollard (and other cases) is about. To expand that right to outside the home, to the public sphere.
By having a legislative action moot this case, it removes this chance at the SCOTUS from ruling that the core right of self defense exists outside the home. That's what all these cases are about.
It's not about licensing or permitting. They are just a vehicle to expand the definition.
faze
Ultimate Member
No, I'm pretty sure this is a restriction.
krucam
Ultimate Member
AG Office felt bored and decided to inform Judge Legg of the NJ District decision, Supplemental Authority...on the former Muller v Maenz, currently called Piszczatoski v. Filko.
pfft....
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.49.0.pdf
pfft....
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.49.0.pdf
Silver lining in that dark cloud is: Gansler's asking Juge Legg to crap or get off the pot
annihilation-time
MOLON LABE
Silver lining in that dark cloud is: Gansler's asking Juge Legg to crap or get off the pot
Maybe the judge will wipe with the AG's submission.
MDresident
Active Member
- Sep 22, 2010
- 126
This state will never become shall issue.
It will not abide by any SCOTUS ruling.
Not in my lifetime.
What I plan is to carry under my constitutional right and deal with the concequeces when, and if "caught". I do not have to do ANYTHING to enjoy my 2nd A right.
It will not abide by any SCOTUS ruling.
Not in my lifetime.
What I plan is to carry under my constitutional right and deal with the concequeces when, and if "caught". I do not have to do ANYTHING to enjoy my 2nd A right.
You do know the "consequences" will involve you loosing the right to own a gun for the rest of your life.
We don't encourage breaking the law here.
But we do have a group that works hard to change the law. We have to win the war of public opinion. When people get educated; they will begin to ask for the right.
It's tedious, hard work, fraught with set backs, but it's much more rewarding than breaking the law and loosing your rights when you get caught.
Join MSI; and volunteer to come to gun day, or the Open Holster Rallys, or the various table events we do throughout the year.
Klunatic
Ultimate Member
New Filings!
Whats this about? Item 49 on docket but no downloadable documents
Whats this about? Item 49 on docket but no downloadable documents
krucam
Ultimate Member
See above, Post 3988.
PACER/RECAP "flummoxed" again...$ to Al Norris. Link exists but is not on the Docket.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
LOL...different circuit too!
Pretty sure that that amounts to unicorns and rainbow poop.
brain juice
Member
Is there any data to refute this claim? That CC leads to less public safety? I recall it being the reverse.
brain juice
Member
That is the argument these guys should be making. NJ, NY,CA and MD are just going to say more guns = more crime, which is apparently false.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
NYC and StunGuns: maybe caetano ban was ok, if you use different “reason”
- Started by delaware_export
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
