Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 6th, 2011, 08:23 AM #41
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
Defendants Sheriff Prieto/County of Yolo replied 3/3/ in response to their MSJ.

http://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/ite...91626.67.0.pdf

Funny how the Defendants still think an unloaded open carry (UOC) policy qualifies. and that:
EVEN IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXTENDS BEYOND THE HOME, IT DOES NOT EXTEND SO FAR AS TO INCLUDE PUBLIC CARRY OF LOADED CONCEALED WEAPONS.

Plaintiffs need only to prove that UOC doesn't qualify as a functional firearm, right up there with a trigger-lock, for the purpose of self defense and this ones over...
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2011, 08:38 AM #42
EL1227's Avatar
EL1227 EL1227 is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,573
EL1227 EL1227 is offline
MSI Executive Member
EL1227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpk1md View Post
I for one am of the belief that most of these big cases are little more than a dog and pony show that were determined when said justices were appointed.
Yep, and I still call our airport BWI ... if you get my drift.
__________________
“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
- C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man ...

Proverbs 17:27-28

NRA Life Member
GOA Member, NAGR Member
SAF Life Member, JPFO Member
NSSF Member, MSRPA Member
MSI Executive Member
MD Designated Collector, Utah CCW

The Patriot Picket
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
EL1227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2011, 08:46 AM #43
EL1227's Avatar
EL1227 EL1227 is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,573
EL1227 EL1227 is offline
MSI Executive Member
EL1227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post

CA is a few years ahead of MD when it comes to these cases.
Maryland ... California in Miniature.

You name it; from 2A issues, to gay marraige, to sanctuary states, to $B budget shortfalls ... as CA goes, so goes MD.
__________________
“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
- C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man ...

Proverbs 17:27-28

NRA Life Member
GOA Member, NAGR Member
SAF Life Member, JPFO Member
NSSF Member, MSRPA Member
MSI Executive Member
MD Designated Collector, Utah CCW

The Patriot Picket
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
EL1227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2011, 05:38 PM #44
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
The Oral Arguments were held yesterday and fingers/toes are crossed...positive vibes coming from the Left Coast. A few excerpts were in the Woollard thread, but I'll copy/paste shamelessly here

From the Calguns discussion, particularly from Gene Hoffman who was there:
Quote:
Note that the judge explicitly asked Gura if restricting carry to inside the home was a permissible TPM regulation and he quoted several occurrences of the phrase “inside the home” from the Heller decision as support. Gura's response re: Heller was his case and he only challenged in-the-home regulations seemed persuasive.
Also from Calguns was a Twitter feed in miniature (since arguments lasted 30 minutes, we'll really need some transcripts):

H/T to Calguns' bigtoe416
BTW, AG=Alan Gura, not Attorney General

Quote:
Here's the entire twitter coverage:

In session.
Oral argument starts with a question from Judge England regarding the interpretation of Heller. How does an ability to carry come out?
AG asserts no right to bear in Yolo.
Judge England asks why the County doesn't allow the right to bear by allowing the right to keep.
Judge seems focused on the concealed nature of carry in California.
Are you arguing that a local agency can't regulate?
AG They can, but the process has to be compliant with constitutional safeguards.
Asking Yolo: does Heller hold a right to carry a concealed weapon? No.
Yolo: Concealed regulations are constitutional, but that means that the ban on loaded open carry is unconstitutional.
Is it possible that Prieto is applying the law in an unconstitutional manner?
AG: Sacramento can apply this statute Constitutionally?
Yolo has distinct from Sacramento...
Edit "has distinct problems from Sacramento" they have less officers and more crime apparently.
Yolo, first amendment framework doesn't apply, AG: courts are using the 1A, McDonald held that the 2A is not an inferior right
One thing Yolo has in common with Sacramento and all Counties is that the 14A and the 2A applies
J. England says, not a right to have any firearm, any place.
AG: we don't disagree
J England, isn't an entire ban on concealed be considered a reasonable regulation. Loughner - what if there were 5 CCWers there?
AG: the state made a decision to not allow loaded open carry. Prieto is bound by that.
J England: It only held in the home. AG that's my case and we only challenged in the home
AG we concede you can ban concealed carry. We concede you can require permits. However, that assumes loaded open carry.
Yolo: No court has held that there isn't a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon.
AG: Once there is a license regime it has to be constitutional.
Yolo: Peruta should show our policy is legit.
Judge England: Southern district isn't binding. I have a 12050 permit from Sacramento County. This case will be decided on it's merits.
Case submitted.
Have to like that 1) The case will be decided on the merits, and 2) The Judge (England) in the case has a CCW. We shall see...
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2011, 09:22 AM #45
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,495
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,495
What does TPM mean? They keep using it on Calguns, but I can't find a definition,
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2011, 09:32 AM #46
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
What does TPM mean? They keep using it on Calguns, but I can't find a definition,
Time, Place, Manner re Carry Restrictions...
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2011, 02:37 AM #47
ezliving's Avatar
ezliving ezliving is offline
Besieger
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Undisclosed Secure Location
Posts: 4,532
ezliving ezliving is offline
Besieger
ezliving's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Undisclosed Secure Location
Posts: 4,532
NOTICE OF NEWLY DECIDED AUTHORITY

http://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/ite...91626.71.0.pdf
__________________


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” DC v. Heller (2008.)
ezliving is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2011, 05:21 AM #48
Dogabutila Dogabutila is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,261
Send a message via AIM to Dogabutila Send a message via Skype™ to Dogabutila
Dogabutila Dogabutila is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,261
Send a message via AIM to Dogabutila Send a message via Skype™ to Dogabutila
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezliving View Post
^

For all you lazy people, that pretty much says this:

Dear Yolo,

You lose.

Love,
Alan.
Dogabutila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2011, 10:32 AM #49
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,079
That was a short, yet sweet read.

"And under Nordyke, the various crime and safety related concerns asserted in defense of the challenged practices are largely, if not completely, irrelevant."

Crime Statistics, Safety 'Concerns'...see 'ya....no longer compelling enough.
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2011, 11:43 AM #50
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
I'm waiting for the defense to respond. It'll say something like: "Maybe, but Nordyke also says that the determination of whether guns impact crime and the other issues are relevant to the law are best made by the legislature. So yeah...we agree. No need to study it. We voted. You lost."

Or something like that.

The entire discussion over heightened scrutiny for core 2A activities is a slight of hand meant to kill the right piecemeal. Heller didn't do that, and neither should these courts.

"Categorical" is the word of the day.
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service