Mr H
Banana'd
We'll just have to disagree.
Yes, they are functionally 'regulated', but in the statutory sense, they are 'banned'
No worries.
Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014
- Thread starter Patrick
- 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:
We'll just have to disagree.
Yes, they are functionally 'regulated', but in the statutory sense, they are 'banned'
No worries.
annihilation-time
MOLON LABE
This is 100% true. Firearms banned from sale, transfer, and so on are still regulated.
annihilation-time
MOLON LABE
They didn't confiscate regulated long guns; therefore, they still exist.
beretta_maven
Free Thinking Member
Excellent start...sure hope this goes well!
I'm not agreeing to disagree when you can't even be bothered to go read the law I linked to. You go quote me in the law where regulated long guns ceased to be regulated. You won't find it, because that simply didn't happen in SB281. In fact, the regulated long guns DO come into play when out of state residents move in - they need to register them.
Without going back and reading the entire case, the lawsuit is against assault long guns and says nothing about assault pistols. Read the footnote on page 12.
dlmarion
Active Member
But the regulated list will be much shorter with the vagueness of "copy".
However, there is no penalty for failure to register the regulated firearm.
annihilation-time
MOLON LABE
They also can come into play through inheritance.
Very good point. OTOH, if the judge rules that bans are bad, we may get a blanket ruling on all bans in the law.
Correct. My point was more that regulated long guns still exist in some form as simply regulated, even today.
Missed that one.
dlmarion
Active Member
Is this the other side of the argument?
http://marylanderstopreventgunviolence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MPGV-Amicus.pdf
http://marylanderstopreventgunviolence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MPGV-Amicus.pdf
6pack
MSI BOD Member
Nice case. Time for another donation to MSI/AGC/MSRPA...
TxAggie
Ultimate Member
Not only a kick in their nads, but also Bloomberg's nads because Dr. Daniel Webster's credibility has been called into question for his cursory reference to a non-existent expert opinion while testifying in front of the MD legislature.
I guess donating $1.1B and having the entire School of Public Health named after you doesn't necessarily buy academic rigor and honesty.
^^^^THIS!!!
I thought the same thing. Also, I'd love to see Vinny's face upon reading this. Good thing it's St. Paddy's Day, have them cover for the alcohol consumption!
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Regulation of certain long guns would still exist. The reason it was not fully excised was not being smart on their side - it was because one of the options was to use the "feature tests" to expand the regulated list, instead of causing a ban. It was mostly marked up that way in the House Judiciary Committee until O'Malley, Busch and Miller made damn sure they got a "big win" on gun control.
By that time, it was too hard to excise some law and add more. Too many drafts had been made and they were barely getting what they got. Getting everything just right would have taken too long, and time was always our friend in that fight. They rammed it through and figured they'd fix it in regulation or this session. Then they lost steam as gun control turned out to be a national loser.
Keep in mind O'Malley will never be President. Neither will Malloy (CT Gov). These are relatively young politicians who could come back post-2016. But at this rate, gun control is the anchor that will sink them forever. Dems run from it nationally and will be reticent to revisit it past Hillary, especially considering that our largest growth area is in traditionally liberal demographic sets. Young and urban are more into guns than their parents, and women are the fastest growing segment. Within that group, African American Women are spiking, as well. Keep up the trend and 4-8 years from now it'll be a big deal.
The point is that more people who Dems rely on are moving toward our side of the pendulum. It doesn't need to be massive, just a noticeable trend. Politicians watch trends, and O'Malley is on the wrong side of that one.
By that time, it was too hard to excise some law and add more. Too many drafts had been made and they were barely getting what they got. Getting everything just right would have taken too long, and time was always our friend in that fight. They rammed it through and figured they'd fix it in regulation or this session. Then they lost steam as gun control turned out to be a national loser.
Keep in mind O'Malley will never be President. Neither will Malloy (CT Gov). These are relatively young politicians who could come back post-2016. But at this rate, gun control is the anchor that will sink them forever. Dems run from it nationally and will be reticent to revisit it past Hillary, especially considering that our largest growth area is in traditionally liberal demographic sets. Young and urban are more into guns than their parents, and women are the fastest growing segment. Within that group, African American Women are spiking, as well. Keep up the trend and 4-8 years from now it'll be a big deal.
The point is that more people who Dems rely on are moving toward our side of the pendulum. It doesn't need to be massive, just a noticeable trend. Politicians watch trends, and O'Malley is on the wrong side of that one.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
No that is an amicus (friend of the court) brief that interested parties not affiliated with any of the parties file. The NRA filed one on behalf of the plantiffs on 3/17.
The other sides argument can be found here
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...upport-of-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment__44.pdf
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Not only a kick in their nads, but also Bloomberg's nads because Dr. Daniel Webster's credibility has been called into question for his cursory reference to a non-existent expert opinion while testifying in front of the MD legislature.
I guess donating $1.1B and having the entire School of Public Health named after you doesn't necessarily buy academic rigor and honesty.
If you had fact, logic, reason and the constitution on your side, you would not need to spend 1.1 Billion to buy a troubled institution's (formerly) good name to pimp your own version of "science".
It doesn't matter what nanny-state dream Bloomberg has, the fact is the only way it gets traction is with buckets of cash drawing attention to his causes. He doesn't quite understand politicians don't really like his ideas, all they see is the money. And even that is getting toxic in some quarters. Buying MDA for MAIG was a move to resuscitate a toxic brand (hear much from MAIG lately?). Ever hear a serious move to ban soda before Bloomberg?
Attach any label or name you want. It won't work. It's not the acronyms or the Hopkins name, it's the product they sell.
TxAggie
Ultimate Member
So basically they are once again trying to mince words and say that AR's are not "common." Interesting that they would compare their numbers to "machine guns" saying that MG's aren't common. Well no shit, Sherlock, since the sale of MG's is highly restrictive and there are now a set number in circulation, of course they aren't "common."
It's also almost insulting that they state "Because the gun industry is not required to report on the quantity of firearms by model, it is impossible to say with certainty just how many assault weapons are in private hands. " in Maryland, they know exactly what this number is because every sale of previously regulated firearm goes thru the state. Plus they know that some "assault rifles" such as HBAR's, SCAR's and Tavors have been sold as cash and carry.
These idiots really insult my intelligence, and that's saying a LOT coming from an Aggie.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Double WOW!!!... and I'm just a truck driver...
It doesn't seem to me that they are blasting the other court's level of scrutiny... to me, it sounded more like they were showing no matter what level of scrutiny was used, the Defendant's would still have lost their argument... JMHO... like I said... I'm just a truck driver.
Bingo.. this bill fails Rational Basis.. and we need full IS regardless..
Getting these guys on record is priceless either way.
TxAggie
Ultimate Member
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Thanks. I was thinking they were overcome by the new language...
Now, I am bummed out
Even if you were correct, there would be a stay until the MGA could fix it.
I am not sure how this would play since it was a repeal of existing law it not clear to me that MSP would have the legal authority to impose the old process.
But it would be moot since no court will allow a free for all.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (3 Viewers)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
