AG opinion

[t84a]

I got to the end of the third page of the .pdf and my eyes glazed over. Maybe Fabs will give us abbreviated cliff notes of it.

Doesn't help that I got my eyes dilated at noon either. Hard to fricken read anything right now.

Lol

 

[Bob A]

Apparently the AG's office believes that severability applies, so the rest of the law stands. We are not yet allowed Constitutional Carry.

 

[Occam]

Apparently the AG's office believes that severability applies, so the rest of the law stands. We are not yet allowed Constitutional Carry.

Of course the letter itself says not to take it seriously since Frosh didn’t write/sign it. Pages of guidance followed by, “But don’t treat this like official advice.” FFS.

 

[PapiBarcelona]

No one wants be the last elected politician to say May Issue is over, here you have the hot potato next

 

[Bob A]

Of course the letter itself says not to take it seriously since Frosh didn’t write/sign it. Pages of guidance followed by, “But don’t treat this like official advice.” FFS.

Aren't they cute?

House of Cards in Judicial Slo-Mo collapse.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

I got to the end of the third page of the .pdf and my eyes glazed over. Maybe Fabs will give us abbreviated cliff notes of it.

Doesn't help that I got my eyes dilated at noon either. Hard to fricken read anything right now.

Go shoot your 9mm, even with dilated pupils, it is guaranteed to blow the lungs out of whoever you shoot.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

With regards to the LETTER. I have yet to see a "violent gun" that "committed Gun Violence" Frishie boy, Show us one gun that violently either shot itself suicide style or one that shot at humans with intent to commit a crime, or murdered any humans.

The Attorney General has made clear that he
disagrees with the Court’s decision and that, in his view, the decision will lead to “more
deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence.

 

[AssMan]

To be clear, this advice letter does not address the wisdom of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Attorney General has made clear that he disagrees with the Court’s decision and that, in his view, the decision will lead to “more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence.”

what a clown.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

More of The Letter... yadda yadda yadda.

To be clear, however, the “good and substantial reason” requirement is the only
statutory prerequisite for the issuance of a public-carry permit that has been rendered
unconstitutional by Bruen.

Here is where Froshole is launching his FU's to us.


As the Supreme Court made clear in its opinion, states may
still enforce requirements designed to ensure that “those [individuals] bearing arms in the
jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’” Bruen, slip op. at 30 n.9
(citation omitted). In particular, the Court emphasized that “nothing in [its] analysis”
should be understood as calling into doubt requirements, such as background checks and
firearm safety training, that are included under the so-called “shall-issue” permitting
regimes that apply in most other states (and that also apply in Maryland). Id.; see also id.
(Kavanaugh, J., concurring), slip op. at 1-2 (explaining that “[t]he Court’s decision...

Indeed, the General Assembly itself has reiterated that presumption
by declaring that “[t]he finding by a court that part of a statute is unconstitutional or void
does not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the statute, unless . . . the remaining
valid portions alone are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with
legislative intent.”

Thus, the Department must continue to apply all other requirements governing the
qualifications to obtain public-carry permits. For example, among other qualifications, the
Department must still deny a permit to an applicant who has “been convicted of a felony...

Similarly, with certain limited exceptions, the Department
must still deny a permit to an applicant who has not completed a “firearms training course
approved by the Secretary.” PS § 5-306(a)(5). And, as another example, the Department
must still deny a permit to an individual if, “based on an investigation,” the Department
finds that the individual has “exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may
reasonably render the person’s possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to
another.” PS § 5-306(a)(6)(i).
It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court’s decision does not require the State
of Maryland to allow for the public carry of firearms in every type of location in the State,
without any limits. Rather, the Court in Bruen explicitly reaffirmed that states may still
prohibit carrying firearms in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,”
though it did not “comprehensively define” every location that would (or would not)
qualify as a “sensitive place[].”
Bruen, slip op. at 21-22 (citation omitted). That means
that even those individuals with a public-carry permit remain prohibited from carrying
firearms in certain sensitive places, such as schools, where doing so is prohibited by law.
See, e.g., CL § 4-102(b) (“A person may not carry or possess a firearm . . . on public school
property.”); Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 2-1702(e) (generally prohibiting firearms in
State legislative buildings); COMAR 04.05.01.03B (generally prohibiting firearms in buildings.)

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

So the Court of Special Appeals made a super secret ruling that the "Good and Substantial" requirement is not Constitutional. 5 Days later Hogan sets aside G&S and another day later the MSP sees fit to declare it is Un-Constitutional.

So does this mean when I, and all non felonious convict(otherwise known as law abiding citizens) who apply for our permits, no longer need to even say, The reason I need my permit is.... Self Defense, 2A says so, Bruen etc.?

Just the fact I am a human is why I need my permit should be good enough. Protecting my life is Good enough reason ( if we Constitutionally need even give a reason)

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Cocksuckers at MSP denied his renewal and it appears that he fought it up through the COSP. Good for him, not all heroes wear capes.

Good one, Stove.

Apparently the AG's office believes that severability applies, so the rest of the law stands. We are not yet allowed Constitutional Carry.

I omitted the Severability in my posting portions of the "Letter" But the parts I did post illustrate this point. Sever THIS...

Constitutional Carry or Bust.

 

[jrumann59]

More of The Letter... yadda yadda yadda.

To be clear, however, the “good and substantial reason” requirement is the only
statutory prerequisite for the issuance of a public-carry permit that has been rendered
unconstitutional by Bruen.

Here is where Froshole is launching his FU's to us.


As the Supreme Court made clear in its opinion, states may
still enforce requirements designed to ensure that “those [individuals] bearing arms in the
jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’” Bruen, slip op. at 30 n.9
(citation omitted). In particular, the Court emphasized that “nothing in [its] analysis”
should be understood as calling into doubt requirements, such as background checks and
firearm safety training, that are included under the so-called “shall-issue” permitting
regimes that apply in most other states (and that also apply in Maryland). Id.; see also id.
(Kavanaugh, J., concurring), slip op. at 1-2 (explaining that “[t]he Court’s decision...

Indeed, the General Assembly itself has reiterated that presumption
by declaring that “[t]he finding by a court that part of a statute is unconstitutional or void
does not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the statute, unless . . . the remaining
valid portions alone are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with
legislative intent.”

Thus, the Department must continue to apply all other requirements governing the
qualifications to obtain public-carry permits. For example, among other qualifications, the
Department must still deny a permit to an applicant who has “been convicted of a felony...

Similarly, with certain limited exceptions, the Department
must still deny a permit to an applicant who has not completed a “firearms training course
approved by the Secretary.” PS § 5-306(a)(5). And, as another example, the Department
must still deny a permit to an individual if, “based on an investigation,” the Department
finds that the individual has “exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may
reasonably render the person’s possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to
another.” PS § 5-306(a)(6)(i).
It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court’s decision does not require the State
of Maryland to allow for the public carry of firearms in every type of location in the State,
without any limits. Rather, the Court in Bruen explicitly reaffirmed that states may still
prohibit carrying firearms in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,”
though it did not “comprehensively define” every location that would (or would not)
qualify as a “sensitive place[].”
Bruen, slip op. at 21-22 (citation omitted). That means
that even those individuals with a public-carry permit remain prohibited from carrying
firearms in certain sensitive places, such as schools, where doing so is prohibited by law.
See, e.g., CL § 4-102(b) (“A person may not carry or possess a firearm . . . on public school
property.”); Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 2-1702(e) (generally prohibiting firearms in
State legislative buildings); COMAR 04.05.01.03B (generally prohibiting firearms in buildings.)

Yes that is why its key to get those applications in before they move the goal posts.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Yes that is why its key to get those applications in before they move the goal posts.

True, True, or pull a LUCY football move on us Charlie Browns

 

[E.Shell]

Unreported Opinions | Maryland Courts

www.courts.state.md.us

Thank you for that Inigoes!

I still don't understand this unreported opinion thing, and how the decision cannot be cited...WTF?

 

[teratos]

Thank you for that Inigoes!

I still don't understand this unreported opinion thing, and how the decision cannot be cited...WTF?

I’d bet it’s a non-binding opinion by a judge. Kind of like a “curbside consult” in medicine. If I’m dealing with a GI tract and I have a question, I text shootin’ the breeze. He gives me an answer. If I mess things up, he’s not on the hook. He told me how he’d approach it, though.

 

[Inigoes]

Thank you for that Inigoes!

I still don't understand this unreported opinion thing, and how the decision cannot be cited...WTF?

In this instance the Governor and AG were looking for an out, because they did not want to be the first to acknowledge NYSRPA v Bruen.

If they were to wait for Whalen or Call, they would come under enormous pressure to be the first.

They searched high and low and came up with this out of the way decision for a fella. The judge made it an unpublished opinion so no one else could use it as precedent. The decision is unique onto the defendant.

This was perfect for the AG's Office and the Governor, they were not the first and it can't be used to further the reinstatement of the 2A.

We must wait for Whalen or Call to drive the last nail into the Good and substantial reason coffin, so there will not only be precedent at the federal level, but as the state as well.

 

[BurtonRW]

I’d bet it’s a non-binding opinion by a judge. Kind of like a “curbside consult” in medicine. If I’m dealing with a GI tract and I have a question, I text shootin’ the breeze. He gives me an answer. If I mess things up, he’s not on the hook. He told me how he’d approach it, though.

Not exactly. It’s a formal opinion and perfectly official and binding… in that case. It can’t be cited as precedent because the court either intended to rule very narrowly or isn’t ready to make a policy (legal interpretation, etc.) decision on a subject yet.

A party to a case can petition the court to publish the unpublished opinion if they want to. Basically, convincing the court that the decision is important and will be useful to other litigants and lower courts in deciding future cases… for reasons.

It’s not a secret order thing and there’s no subterfuge here.

In this case, exactly what Inigoes said above.

-Rob

 

[teratos]

Not exactly. It’s a formal opinion and perfectly official and binding… in that case. It can’t be cited as precedent because the court either intended to rule very narrowly or isn’t ready to make a policy (legal interpretation, etc.) decision on a subject yet.

A party to a case can petition the court to publish the unpublished opinion if they want to. Basically, convincing the court that the decision is important and will be useful to other litigants and lower courts in deciding future cases… for reasons.

It’s not a secret order thing and there’s no subterfuge here.

In this case, exactly what Inigoes said above.

-Rob

Huh. Thanks for the thorough explanation. I learned something today!

George.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

"...controlling Supreme Court precedent"...is that anything like Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority"?

 

[Abuck]

A party to a case can petition the court to publish the unpublished opinion if they want to. Basically, convincing the court that the decision is important and will be useful to other litigants and lower courts in deciding future cases… for reasons.

IMHO I would think we hope that is exactly what they do. The more legal decisions on our side, the better. I can understand just being happy to get their permit at this point, and not wanting to incur more costs, but wouldn’t this be another big 2A win to have officially on record, and not as “unreported?”