Colion talks Maryland

[Minor]

Be ready to defend yourself in Maryland? From the politicians! Have you seen this yet? -

 

[jt2100r]

Come on now , we know the govt will protect us......................NEVER

 

[Bikebreath]

"State House Democratic leaders consider public safety a priority."

This is the most incredible LIE. If there was a ounce of truth to this they would trace the murder weapons from all the killings in baltimore to the source, or they would put violent criminals in jail for extended periods. They would also embrace the law abiding citizens right to protect themselves from the violence they allow. IDIOTS, ALL!

 

[RFBfromDE]

Yes.

YooToobs said I may want to see it and they were right!

 

[cmb]

This is the most incredible LIE. If there was a ounce of truth to this they would trace the murder weapons from all the killings in baltimore to the source, or they would put violent criminals in jail for extended periods. They would also embrace the law abiding citizens right to protect themselves from the violence they allow. IDIOTS, ALL! "State House Democratic leaders". They need to share with us,what they find so "Democratic" about the DEMOCRAT party and it's members....we'll wait.

 

[Sirex]

@0:56, "If people don't feel safe, nothing else matters"

Uh, hello. Baltimore. Rising crime. 2020 social unrest. What if I don't feel safe, being unarmed in public because leftist politicians have neutered the police?

 

[pcfixer]

Be ready to defend yourself in Maryland? From the politicians! Have you seen this yet? -

Bill of Rights- 1st A and 2 A ARE restrictions on the government- NOT We The People.

The Bill of Rights — Or The Bill of Restrictions?

the Bill of Restrictions. Call it what you may, but ensure people in government understand its purpose, that it applies to them and is enforced by you.

thepoliticalspectrum.net

 

[jc1240]

Bill of Rights- 1st A and 2 A ARE restrictions on the government- NOT We The People.

The Bill of Rights — Or The Bill of Restrictions?

the Bill of Restrictions. Call it what you may, but ensure people in government understand its purpose, that it applies to them and is enforced by you.

thepoliticalspectrum.net

This. I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand. Some even go so far as to say "the people" refers to individual citizens for all BUT the 2A and with that one, "the people" magically becomes the gov.

 

[PeteW]

I like Colion but on this one I'd have liked to have seen his legal opinion. This is just a complaint video. But I will say it's nice to see a big name YouTuber bringing this into national spotlight.

 

[pcfixer]

Bruen quoted
” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at 689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess 14 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN Opinion of the Court the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny).
We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—

Pretty damned clear- Maryland AG and governor pay attention.

 

[PeteW]

Bruen quoted
” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at 689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess 14 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN Opinion of the Court the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny).
We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—

Pretty damned clear- Maryland AG and governor pay attention.

Exactly. I think one of the opinions expressly calls out "public safety" specifically if I'm not mistaken.

 

[KingClown]

I like Colion but on this one I'd have liked to have seen his legal opinion. This is just a complaint video. But I will say it's nice to see a big name YouTuber bringing this into national spotlight.

Jared from Guns and Gadgets did one on this too and a few others. I think Brayden from Langly Outdoors did too. Four Boxes Diner gave his legal opinions which tool 23 minutes to give 2 minutes worth of info and there are atleast 6 others I am forgetting.

 

[pcfixer]

Exactly. I think one of the opinions expressly calls out "public safety" specifically if I'm not mistaken.

Government interest in public safety isn't of any use. This on page 7 of Alito-concurring.

quoted
"The first is the Second Circuit’s decision in a case the Court decided two Terms ago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 590 U. S. ___ (2020). The law in that case affected New York City residents who had been issued permits to keep a gun in the home for selfdefense. The city recommended that these permit holders practice at a range to ensure that they are able to handle their guns safely, but the law prohibited them from taking their guns to any range other than the seven that were spread around the city’s five boroughs. Even if such a person unloaded the gun, locked it in the trunk of a car, and drove to the nearest range, that person would violate the law if the nearest range happened to be outside city limits. The Second Circuit held that the law was constitutional, concluding, among other things, that the restriction was substantially related to the city’s interests in public safety and crime prevention. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. New York, 883 F. 3d 45, 62–64 (2018). But after we agreed to review that decision, the city repealed the law and admitted that it did not actually have any beneficial effect on public safety."

 

[Boats]

Guys....This bill, and this concept, is an attempt to spin a landmark supreme court decision that defends rights into a defacto voluntary gun registry.

Have a carry permit, but can't carry anywhere but your home, which is already in state law?

How about "My screen says you have a carry permit. I have probable cause to check for firearms now, since you are most likely carrying illegally"

 

[Micktaco]

Guys....This bill, and this concept, is an attempt to spin a landmark supreme court decision that defends rights into a defacto voluntary gun registry.

Have a carry permit, but can't carry anywhere but your home, which is already in state law?

How about "My screen says you have a carry permit. I have probable cause to check for firearms now, since you are most likely carrying illegally"

As a former LE, don't ever consent to a search, regardless of what the cop tells you. I don't think that probable cause will hold up in court (not a lawyer).

 

[PeteW]

Government interest in public safety isn't of any use. This on page 7 of Alito-concurring.

quoted
"The first is the Second Circuit’s decision in a case the Court decided two Terms ago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 590 U. S. ___ (2020). The law in that case affected New York City residents who had been issued permits to keep a gun in the home for selfdefense. The city recommended that these permit holders practice at a range to ensure that they are able to handle their guns safely, but the law prohibited them from taking their guns to any range other than the seven that were spread around the city’s five boroughs. Even if such a person unloaded the gun, locked it in the trunk of a car, and drove to the nearest range, that person would violate the law if the nearest range happened to be outside city limits. The Second Circuit held that the law was constitutional, concluding, among other things, that the restriction was substantially related to the city’s interests in public safety and crime prevention. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. New York, 883 F. 3d 45, 62–64 (2018). But after we agreed to review that decision, the city repealed the law and admitted that it did not actually have any beneficial effect on public safety."

I knew I had read it in one of them. My man with the receipts

 

[Ponder_MD]

The MGA and the governor govern outside of the law. Outside of the Constitution.
NY and Illinois have essentially given SCOTUS the middle finger on Bruen. Expect Maryland to follow close behind.

It is unique in my lifetime that state and Federal government have flat-out ignored or contradicted a Supreme Court decision. Usually there is a lot of posturing and statements to the press but the government complied with the ruling, however grudgingly. We're way beyond that now.

 

[Allen65]

The MGA and the governor govern outside of the law. Outside of the Constitution.
NY and Illinois have essentially given SCOTUS the middle finger on Bruen. Expect Maryland to follow close behind.

It is unique in my lifetime that state and Federal government have flat-out ignored or contradicted a Supreme Court decision. Usually there is a lot of posturing and statements to the press but the government complied with the ruling, however grudgingly. We're way beyond that now.

You must be too young to remember the Civil Rights Movement. There were still racist jerks still putting up "Whites Only" signs on public facilities into the early 70's, well after Brown v Board of Ed. Eventually it got stamped out and governments complied, but it took a long time and lots of court battles for each and every individual instance to get final compliance.

On the other side of the political spectrum, while Roe v Wade was in effect, there was a constant trickle of anti-abortion legislation that needed to be fought in court each and every time a bill passed or regulations were promulgated.

Quixotic governmental virtue signaling to favored constituencies is never-ending, and the legal fight to support Bruen 2A will be ongoing. Hopefully the individual fires that need to be put out will get smaller as fewer opponents choose to waste time and political goodwill on near-certain court losses.

 

[Ponder_MD]

You must be too young to remember the Civil Rights Movement.

Correct, I'm only 50. Question: Were the "jerks" putting up Whites Only signs moronic individual citizens or were they gov't officials? If gov't officials, that's obviously wrong.

Yes, there was a trickle of anti-abortion legislation and every time it got swatted down, state governments respected the ruling and tried again. Abortion clinics remained open.

We're beyond that now. States and cities actively block ICE and CBP from enforcing written immigration law while passing grossly unconstitutional speech and arms laws and completely ignoring SCOTUS rulings.

 

[pcfixer]

As a former LE, don't ever consent to a search, regardless of what the cop tells you. I don't think that probable cause will hold up in court (not a lawyer).

And IF a search warrant comes knocking then......?
An “anticipatory” warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as there is probable cause to believe that the condition precedent to execution of the search warrant will occur and that, once it has occurred, “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a specified place.” United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 95 (2006), quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). “An anticipatory warrant is ‘a warrant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of a crime will be located at a specified place.’” 547 U.S. at 94.

I'm not a lawyer either.