How can I participate as a plaintiff in a potential lawsuit? Would I have to be in physical possession of a handgun, or would I just need my carry permit and my HQL?
Maryland SB1 2023
- Thread starter cyberalex
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Easiest way is to donate to Maryland Shall Issue.
I'll donate to MSI tomorrow. Thank you for your suggestion.
Biggfoot44
Active Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 27,589
When Mark needs Plaintiffs of a particular profile and set of facts , he'll put out a call here and the MSI website .
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
They have to pass it and it go in to effect first
Just in time to drum up propaganda support for SB1...
Gun violence prevention experts research mass shootings, how to stop them
Nothing new. Just the same old and tired talking points.
Gun violence prevention experts research mass shootings, how to stop them
Nothing new. Just the same old and tired talking points.
So how do you stop gun violence prevention experts from researching mass shootings?
You don't. That's 1A territory. But look where he's from: BLOOMBERG. And look at what he says: Same old stuff; license gun owners and assault weapon ban. Absolutely nothing new. He's fishing for next year's grants.
Awesome! Thank you.
This is good news. March 23rd at the 2nd circuit, huh? Justice turns slowly. I just hope that Brandon doesn't try and pack the SCOTUS before the New York (and soon, the Maryland) nonsense gets overturned...
He can try. He won't succeed. If FDR couldn't succeed, there is no way FJB would get the job done. It takes a literal act of congress.
- Mar 22, 2019
- 1,801
In the video interview about SB1 below two assertions by Sen. GunstriKKKer are unintentionally revealing.
Both comments demonstrate “her/his“ overwhelming contempt for us, which of course “they” cannot hide.
The first comment, beginning after the 1:50 minute mark, she/he is deliberately insulting and showing their genuine contempt for Sen. Ready - - and for all of us - - with this childish, petulant and useless remark:
”We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”
This is Her/His Royal Highness, the King of Kensington’s very own version of Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” comment about us.
Guess what?
We can carry, demonstrate and chew gum at the same time.
Stay chewable, my friends!
Both comments demonstrate “her/his“ overwhelming contempt for us, which of course “they” cannot hide.
The first comment, beginning after the 1:50 minute mark, she/he is deliberately insulting and showing their genuine contempt for Sen. Ready - - and for all of us - - with this childish, petulant and useless remark:
”We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”
This is Her/His Royal Highness, the King of Kensington’s very own version of Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” comment about us.
Guess what?
We can carry, demonstrate and chew gum at the same time.
Stay chewable, my friends!
Last edited:
- Mar 22, 2019
- 1,801
The second comment, just after the 2:20 minute mark of this same interview State Sen-actor George Wallacestreicher, channeling an old-timey Southern-style racist Democrat, reveals the truth:
SB1 is not about public safety, it’s actually about “addressing the Bruen decision … that was a terrible and wrong decision coming down from the Supreme Court.”
Again, Sen. George Wallacestreicher says the quiet part out loud here.
She/he reveals they always intended to stand in the courthouse door: the unconstitutionality of his bill is intentional.
Note: Claiming that MD’s own Sen. George Wallacestreicher is standing in the “courthouse door” is likewise intentional.
In American Civil Rights History the Dem’s model legislator George Wallace stood in a “schoolhouse door” but as Mark Twain observed:
“History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
SB1 is not about public safety, it’s actually about “addressing the Bruen decision … that was a terrible and wrong decision coming down from the Supreme Court.”
Again, Sen. George Wallacestreicher says the quiet part out loud here.
She/he reveals they always intended to stand in the courthouse door: the unconstitutionality of his bill is intentional.
Note: Claiming that MD’s own Sen. George Wallacestreicher is standing in the “courthouse door” is likewise intentional.
In American Civil Rights History the Dem’s model legislator George Wallace stood in a “schoolhouse door” but as Mark Twain observed:
“History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Diane Feinstein pushing for concealed carry nationwide? Nope, you guessed it, another AWB! (1 Viewer)- Started by Sirex
- Replies: 15
-
-