CITIZEN GROUPS UNITE TO CHALLENGE MARYLAND FIREARMS BAN IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT

[lx1x]

Guys.. Give it time..



Two weeks..lol

 

[Threeband]

If the State Police get slapped with a restraining order, will U.S. Marshals (or County Sheriffs) swoop down on the Barracks and seize all their guns?

 

[Blacksmith101]

According to the news report

The case is Doe v. O’Malley, 13-cv-2861, U.S. District Court, Maryland (Baltimore).

Yesterday’s complaint is Tardy v. O’Malley, 13-cv-2841, U.S. District Court, Maryland (Baltimore).

 

[Mr H]

Guys.. Give it time..

This.... x1909099900000

I don't give a rat's right nutsicle in February what anyone wants........

Stick to factual minimums.

 

[DC-W]

 

[Bolts Rock]

For now, let's relax and wait rather than speculate.....

Dude, it's Friday, my old company effed up the direct deposit for my last week worked for them so I wait until Monday for an actual check; the first check from my new company is an actual check before direct deposit kicks in, I went with a buddy to Bollinger's right after work to do papers on some lowers and didn't get the mail with the new company's check until 8 PM........I got nothing to do BUT relax for now.

 

[teratos]

I heard from a reliable source....

This is round 2.

 

[Jaybeez]

AGC started a new thread, just in case you weren't hitting "new posts" every ten seconds.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=133403

 

[andimorony]

Epic Hair and Reliable Sources...does it get any better?

 

[Bolts Rock]

I heard from a reliable source....

This is round 2.

I'm thinking Tuesday will be one hell of a stonk!

Epic Hair and Reliable Sources...does it get any better?

His hair has an epic devoted to it?

 

[NY Transplant]

saf announced this evening it filed suit against the mag loading limits in the n.y. safe act

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=455

I don't understand why they didn't go after the entire "Safe Act" instead of pieces of it.

 

[tomh]

Anyone who looks at this lawsuit being a slam dunk, we get a hearing and the law goes away, has not been following constitutional law cases. Neither side will give up on this until it goes all the way to the top and all the possibilities exhausted. This is just the opening shot of a case/cases that will be moving through the courts for years an years.

Any legal experts care to give an opinion of when this may be ultimately resolved? Three years/ Five/ More?

Still waiting for the fat lady to sing on Woollard.

Almost certainly before this gets to the Supremes some of the people of the court will have changed. That is why the next presidential election is vital.

True, the fat lady hasn't sung YET, but without a lawsuit and progress towards that end, it wouldn't happen at all.

This may be the beginning of the end for either side.

It will likely take several years to be able to draw any conclusions.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I'm thinking Tuesday will be one hell of a stonk!

His hair has an epic devoted to it?

Will we laugh or cry at the Red, Hot & Blue???

It's is very shiny after all.

 

[TxAggie]

Yeah, remember the spreadsheet I mentioned in keeping track if the lawsuits?

Someone better get one started. (I suck at spreadsheets.)

 

[dblas]

The CORE right of 2A, self defense in the home, is not up for rational basis or even intermediate scrutiny. Strict scrutiny only.

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Narrowly tailored??? SB281????

LMAO.

So, do I read the above as "we have no definition for it, but we know it when we see it?"

Sorry...I had to....

 

[dblas]

What is depressing is that the administration will use our tax dollars against the plaintiffs which most of us support in one form or another.

While it is our money, do not forget that it is the liberal's money as well. And for now, there are more of them than there are of us in MD, so they are picking up the bulk of the tab.

 

[Jim Sr]

While it is our money, do not forget that it is the liberal's money as well. And for now, there are more of them than there are of us in MD, so they are picking up the bulk of the tab.

How many of those liberal voters are "Tax Payers or welfare sponges or illegal ?"

 

[Knuckle66]

I just finished reading this thread. I need to take some speed reading courses. lol

Thanks to everyone working behind the scenes. I know we are in good hands.

On a side note I just sent MSI another $50.

 

[Kilroy]

Seems like a pretty strong lawsuit, especially the part about retired law enforcement. Excellent work by all involved parties.

 

[Hi-Power81]

Does anybody know when this case will be heard?