Equal Protection question

[C-17Load]

I'm reading through the new bill and the first thing that comes to mind is Military members moving to Maryland. I see no exception for military PCSing to MD. So if a person is stationed in say Arkansas, and legally purchases and owns an AR15 and then gets orders and moves to Marlyand after 1 Oct 2013, now it is illegal to own said gun in MD.

Doesn't this violate equal protection for verterans under the 14th Amendment and arguably a regulatory taking under the 5th by deny the property owner any economically viable use of the property?

I'm not constitutional expert. Maybe some lawyers on the board can shed some light on this.

E

 

[Shift]

I do believe this bill was aimed to infringe on every possible right they could

 

[6-Pack]

I don't see a 14th Amendment claim here because the law applies equally to everyone - so equal protection won't come into play.

The 5th Amendment is possible, but weak at best. Nothing has been "taken" you just can't own it here (you still own the firearms, but you are temporarily dispossessed from them).

This is yet another reason we need to push referendum (read the thread).

 

[MadCat0911]

I tried bringing this info up on the fort meade facebook page hoping SoundOff would go with it. It got completely ignored.

 

[Mr H]

I'm reading through the new bill and the first thing that comes to mind is Military members moving to Maryland. I see no exception for military PCSing to MD. So if a person is stationed in say Arkansas, and legally purchases and owns an AR15 and then gets orders and moves to Marlyand after 1 Oct 2013, now it is illegal to own said gun in MD.

Doesn't this violate equal protection for verterans under the 14th Amendment and arguably a regulatory taking under the 5th by deny the property owner any economically viable use of the property?

I'm not constitutional expert. Maybe some lawyers on the board can shed some light on this.

E

IMO, this has been an Equal Protection issue from the start.

Fees, training costs, licensing... you name it.

 

[C-17Load]

I don't see a 14th Amendment claim here because the law applies equally to everyone - so equal protection won't come into play.

The 5th Amendment is possible, but weak at best. Nothing has been "taken" you just can't own it here (you still own the firearms, but you are temporarily dispossessed from them).

This is yet another reason we need to push referendum (read the thread).

But it doesn't treat everyone the same. It discriminates against people that move in to the state after 1 October, even if the gun was purchased before 1 October. People with the exact same gun purchased on the same date would be treated differently because one person moved to Maryland after the ban. It directly discriminates against the military as they don't have a choice whether they move to MD.