krucam
Ultimate Member
Another great quip from the NJFO/SAF brief
New NJ and NY carry cases filed
- Thread starter wolfwood
- Start date
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:
I think the Maryland legislators or trying to do the same thing with this:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/hb/hb0236F.pdf
This law would require a minimum five year sentence for using a gun in a violent crime or any felony. It's the"any" that is disturbing. If the legislators make a separate law that says possessing x currently legal firearm is a felony, this law could put a lot of good, law abiding people in jeopardy.
danb
dont be a dumbass
This one has attracted a lot of attention. Counsel of record for NJ Rifle and Pistol, David Thompson, is the same counsel that won in Wrenn for Pink Pistols. 
In my wild dreams they simply distribute for conference and grant without asking NJ for a response, because the NJ AG was supremely arrogant here waiving the response, lol. Of course they wont, but when you dream, dream big.
In my wild dreams they simply distribute for conference and grant without asking NJ for a response, because the NJ AG was supremely arrogant here waiving the response, lol. Of course they wont, but when you dream, dream big.
Just a sidenote - this is actually Governor Hogan's bill.
When reading Maryland Legislation, look at the Sponsor. The first sponsor on the list is the actual requesting party. All other sponsors are, in most cases, "blue backs" - they signed on AFTER the bill was initially drafted/requested.
- If you see either "Speaker - By Request Of" or "President - By Request Of", you are looking at a change in law requested by the Executive Branch. The Speaker and President offices "sponsor" the legislation as a "courtesy".
- If you see "<Committee> Chair - By Request <Department>", you are looking at a change in law requested by a specific Department within the Executive Branch. The Committee Chair acts as the "Sponsor" as a "courtesy".
- If you see "<County> Delegation/Senators", you are typically seeing a request for legislative change from the named County Council. The Delegation or Senators are acting as the proxy Sponsor.
Thank you for clarifying this.
The governor should drop the "any" language and this would get my support. Use a gun in the commission of a violent crime or felony and bye bye. No issues there.
But if simple possession of currently legal firearms or firearm components or parts becomes a felony this is something that could put a substantial number of good people at risk.
Thanks again for clarifying the sponsor. I'll pay closer attention next time.
danb
dont be a dumbass
This is not a thread for MD politics. How about if we stay on NY and NJ carry legislation. Use the "new thread button" or one of the other threads about MD legislation elsewhere.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Heard on the street related to NY (gun) culture: The NY reload has become the NY freeload.
Pope414
Active Member
I am hoping the SCOTUS grants Cert. Being in my mid 50s I truly believe this is the last chance in at least in my lifetime. I had high hopes for both drake and perulta so I am a little gun shy . I really hope Justices Thomas and Gorsuch calling the court out as cowards moves them to find their balls ( no chance at the liberal wing) ......we will see.....
Kharn
Ultimate Member
IIRC a request for response can come before or after the conference, so lets see how long it takes until Thomas reads the cert pool's notes on the case.
IIRC a request for response can come before or after the conference, so lets see how long it takes until Thomas reads the cert pool's notes on the case.
Yes I have seen them come after the conference.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Response requested, due March 21st.
It will be very entertaining to see what kind of fictional bullship they conjure up in the response.
I wonder if NJ will be arrogant enough to simply cut and paste the same nonsense they wrote last time
It will be very entertaining to see what kind of fictional bullship they conjure up in the response.
I wonder if NJ will be arrogant enough to simply cut and paste the same nonsense they wrote last time
Odarlin1
Ultimate Member
NRA paying for Paul Clement too. They're putting some big $$$$ in.
Read the briefs. Excellent. I pray the SCOTUS does the right thing.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Hmm, RBG was back in the Court today. Must have been her...
So we WERE supposed to go to Conference 2/22 without a NJ Response. Response due 3/21 now, time for Amici, easily into April for the first eligible Conference.
Pope414
Active Member
Hmm, RBG was back in the Court today. Must have been her...
So we WERE supposed to go to Conference 2/22 without a NJ Response. Response due 3/21 now, time for Amici, easily into April for the first eligible Conference.
everyone knew their refusal to respond was nothing but a stall tactic . wouldn't it be funny if because of their delay they lost one of the liberal bloc after cert
Hmm, RBG was back in the Court today. Must have been her...
So we WERE supposed to go to Conference 2/22 without a NJ Response. Response due 3/21 now, time for Amici, easily into April for the first eligible Conference.
And Gould should be filing for cert in April.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Had the NJ AG asked for an extension on time to file, they would have received one. They also filed the response waiver Jan 28th after NY State Rifle and Pistol vs NYC was granted Jan 22nd.
So insofar as a stall tactic, I doubt it. If they were trying to stall, they did not really try that hard.
The waiver of response in the face of a clear circuit split and The Supreme Court taking NY Rifle and Pistol vs NYC was pure unadulterated arrogance.
Their arrogance bled through into their response last time in Drake. I have no right to be optimistic, but now that a response has been requested, I am wildly optimistic. We will see what the AG comes up with. In my opinion, their best chance of avoiding a cert grant is to point out all the procedural or trial court deficiencies (bad facts or lack of facts) that would make this a bad case to grant. Maybe "Please go for the remand after NY State Rifle and Pistol". That would be the smart way to go, what I would do if I were NY AG.
However, their arrogance tells me that they will go with the same dumb arguments as Drake - no right to carry, no real circuit split, Wrenn was wrongly decides, and/or NJ "long" tradition of ignoring the constitution. If they go the arrogant route, I am wildly optimistic.
So insofar as a stall tactic, I doubt it. If they were trying to stall, they did not really try that hard.
The waiver of response in the face of a clear circuit split and The Supreme Court taking NY Rifle and Pistol vs NYC was pure unadulterated arrogance.
Their arrogance bled through into their response last time in Drake. I have no right to be optimistic, but now that a response has been requested, I am wildly optimistic. We will see what the AG comes up with. In my opinion, their best chance of avoiding a cert grant is to point out all the procedural or trial court deficiencies (bad facts or lack of facts) that would make this a bad case to grant. Maybe "Please go for the remand after NY State Rifle and Pistol". That would be the smart way to go, what I would do if I were NY AG.
However, their arrogance tells me that they will go with the same dumb arguments as Drake - no right to carry, no real circuit split, Wrenn was wrongly decides, and/or NJ "long" tradition of ignoring the constitution. If they go the arrogant route, I am wildly optimistic.
The best wish come true in any fight is to have an adversary that willingly cooperates in their own defeat.
Oh I know what they'll say. They'll say you (SCOTUS) passed on Drake so Drake is "settled law".
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I am feeling a bit vindicated, now that the Court has requested a response. https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=5460599&postcount=109 Now that the NJ can't waive, I can't help but wonder what they will say. The NJ AG ought to be removed from office for incompetence. Their response will probably prove that.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (1 Viewer)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
-
