mxrider
Former MSI Treasurer
please explain.
Just so the justices could discuss similar type cases at one time versus over two different conferences.
please explain.
Just so the justices could discuss similar type cases at one time versus over two different conferences.
“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
― Aristotle
My 2 cents. If this law is overturned the MGA will legislate another as soon as possible. We are seeing how easy it is to write a bad law and how difficult it is to overturn it.
The only way to break the cycle is to educate the populace so they don't elect folks who want to legislate gun control.
So. Your advocating that we be happy with the law as is and shouldn't be fought?This is the big problem. The MD law is troubled because it ban specific firearms by name. There are holes in this that have allowed many of us to purchase firearms that meet our needs and desires (HBAR AR-15s). If the law is struck down as it is written, it does not necessarily mean that the "evil feature" based laws in CA and Mass will be found unconstitutional. These laws are worse than what we have in MD and this state won't hesitate to adopt the same language and make our lack of freedom even worse. Moreover, a loss in this case related to the 10 round mag rule will likely bolster CA's case for taking property away from law abiding citizens and embolden MD to do something similar.
So. Your advocating that we be happy with the law as is and shouldn't be fought?
Sent from the 3rd Rock
please explain.
As you may well know by reading the threads, ALL 3 of the 2A cases up at SCOTUS have all had unusual delays before their 1st conference. Someone's taking a hard look.......
So. Your advocating that we be happy with the law as is and shouldn't be fought?
Sent from the 3rd Rock
No, my point is that the fight needs to be more broad than the MD ban. If the MD ban is found unconstitutional because it bans guns in common use, that the BIG fight is going to be over "evil feature" bans. This is also dictated by what the actual ruling is by the court, they could offer a ruling that covers both. Fundamentally, I'm trying to point out that this is far more complicated than simply getting the SC to hear that case and rule against MD.
THat all depends on how they rule, if they take the case. As to risks associated with the case, IMHO, the Antis cannot be appeased, they can only be opposed at every step. A ruling against MD will make their lives more complicated and create apprehension and uncertainly among the Antis. That is a good thing.
I'm far from an expert on this but I'd be a lot more comfortable if SCOTUS waited on any 2A cases until Trump gets another appointee confirmed.
I'm far from an expert on this but I'd be a lot more comfortable if SCOTUS waited on any 2A cases until Trump gets another appointee confirmed.
that would require mr im gonna retire but never do or miss im never gonna retire to actually retire.
Could the delay be in fact due to Kennedy's pending retirement? Do you think the conservative justices are delaying in order to see how this retirement talk pans out?