fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
I hope you never have a mishap.
That makes two of us, so obviously, I'll take a lot of precautions.
I hope you never have a mishap.
The argument states "it is enough to observe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is the right to carry them in public", as fact. It is now up to MD to argue against that claim. If they do not, they risk appearing that they stipulate to its validity.
Even if MD fights this with "no court has found in favor of public carry as a fundamental right", it starts the argument. We had ideas of the Gansler arguments based on analysis, and yesterday verified by his arguments in Williams (see other thread). So there won't be any real bombshells in his arguments. But he has to make them before we can see things progress. And to keep pushing Younger, he'll need to open at least some of them to debate. And this argument underpins the primary complaint we have.
I have not listened to the oral arguments but I do want to know what the LEO saw him doing "near the woods" and why he had places his gun in the "bushes." Assuming, of course, that article was accurate
[PROPOSED] ORDER
This matter came before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
Upon reviewing the pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a valid claim
upon which relief may be granted, for which they have standing to pursue, and abstention is
unavailable.Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Defendants are ordered to answer the Complaint within ten days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Did anyone see this?
So MD cant use younger any more right?
10/07/2010 9 RESPONSE in Opposition re 8[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss filed by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Raymond Woollard. Replies due by 10/25/2010.
That is the PROPOSED ORDER that SAF kindly provided the Judge, just to help them save on some work. That is obviously what we want, but it is not an official edict from the Court...yet...
What WAS in Doc 9 was this:
We may get one more salvo from the State, but I think it more likely we will get a ruling from the Judge on the MTD.
Well, this is a different case, not supreme court level yet (and you may agree with the action or not) but it is about a violation of constitutional rights. Talking about the Federal Judge striking down the military 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Just see how the words of the ruling could apply on Maryland firearms rights:
In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. "Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," the judge wrote.
No wiggle room for 'compelling interest' here. Something to keep in mind as a valid argument.
Liberty means freedom to do as you wish. The Bill of Rights does not protect you from being offended.
Amen. This explains why you need somewhat thick skin to really stand "in the middle" of the current US political spectrum; you have to be willing to accept others' freedom to do whatever they want, even if you don't like what they're doing.
And I guess some could argue that guns are also part religion. At least around here.
if they can have a church of body modification why not a church of the 2a
if they can have a church of body modification why not a church of the 2a
Then shooting ranges could be consedered churches and we would no longer be able to take guns there.
if they can have a church of body modification why not a church of the 2a
Then shooting ranges could be consedered churches and we would no longer be able to take guns there.
Or the Church of Monday Night Football.
If there is going to be a new church, it should be called "The Church of RKBA".