MD to sue over new gun bill

[svana]

Just curious, but why hasn't MOM signed the bill yet?

 

[Merlin]

And what's up with MOM hasn't signed the bill just yet. I'm sure that it has everything to do with him and his team of legal consultants strategy as they consider their options of when to sign it depending on what they think the 2A community will do. We are not victims until he signs it?

 

[grayson71]

The court injunction will be going through Federal court. It will raise enough Constitutional concerns to pass muster in Federal Court. At the VERY LEAST, the Judge will give time to MD to submit a brief on why he/she shouldn't grant the injunction now and wait for the rest of the Federal Court Judges to hear the case (similar to New York). I know that Gura and the NRA are planning to file a lawsuit along with an injunction. Whether they will be working together on this is currently unknown.

Another attorney and I are also planning to file an injunction and challenge if the "Big Boys" don't do anything. NRA says they will challenge in Federal Court so that would include an injunction as well. If they file, we won't file ours; there would be no point since the court will probably consolidate our case with the NRA's and we would end up duplicating efforts for no real gain.

Thank you for the clarification, I was thinking that this would be filed in a State court.

 

[OnTarget]

Just curious, but why hasn't MOM signed the bill yet?

I'm glad you asked this, because its been on my mind this week. These are outside ideas, but he may be counting future votes, especially when seeing how the Gun Bills took a beating at the Federal level yesterday. I know this is way out there, but he could conceiveably determine that it's not in his best interest to sign it. Again, I know it's a left field idea, but I wouldn't be surprised. He could go under the premise that he sees too many technicalities or that it violates the 2A to some degree or another.

 

[wesser1]

From what I understand, it is already going to become law whether he signs it or not. The signing is apparently just a photo op and no longer a necessary part of making it the law. I don't remember where I read this, I think it was on these forums somewhere.

 

[grayson71]

So to be clear, you have so little ties here in MD that you can move your family to another state because you do not like the outcome of the most recent gun Bill. And rather leave instead of stay to help us fight these bastards? Just asking.

I do not like the outcome either, but I want to stay in their face and fight them. Not male things easier for them by leaving.

As I have mentioned in other threads. I am planning to leave the State in favor of Va, not because of sb281, that was merely the straw that broke my back. It the taxes and fees that keep getting heaped onto the working class people. Its bleeding me dry.

I do however plan to stay until the election so I can make my DINO vote count, if nothing else, maybe we can unseat some of these SOBs

 

[Merlin]

The court injunction will be going through Federal court. It will raise enough Constitutional concerns to pass muster in Federal Court. At the VERY LEAST, the Judge will give time to MD to submit a brief on why he/she shouldn't grant the injunction now and wait for the rest of the Federal Court Judges to hear the case (similar to New York). I know that Gura and the NRA are planning to file a lawsuit along with an injunction. Whether they will be working together on this is currently unknown.

Another attorney and I are also planning to file an injunction and challenge if the "Big Boys" don't do anything. NRA says they will challenge in Federal Court so that would include an injunction as well. If they file, we won't file ours; there would be no point since the court will probably consolidate our case with the NRA's and we would end up duplicating efforts for no real gain.

I think I can speak for everyone here when I say thank you very much for being on top of this.

 

[rockstarr]

As I have mentioned in other threads. I am planning to leave the State in favor of Va, not because of sb281, that was merely the straw that broke my back. It the taxes and fees that keep getting heaped onto the working class people. Its bleeding me dry.

I do however plan to stay until the election so I can make my DINO vote count, if nothing else, maybe we can unseat some of these SOBs

Im right there with you as far as reasoning. im exploring my options with PA and VA myself. they both have downsides as well with regard to taxes and fees

 

[LeadSled1]

Now for the crazy question. We get a injunction and the law is paused as it goes through the court systems. Someone is able to buy a firearm that is on the list after the cutoff date as it is not the law at that point. If the law somehow gets upheld, what happens to that person and the firearm?

 

[RoccoRP87]

Did anyone post this..... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/04/17/opponents-of-md-gun-control-bill-plan-to-sue/

Gun opponents will sue over the new gun law and they WILL NOT petition it for the 2014 ballot. Can't they just do both?

A referendum will not end well, the Democrats will bus in people to vote 2 or 3 times with the promise of food or something. Kinda like how code pink bused people into the anti-gun rally in Annapolis, promising them free food, to make it look bigger than it was.

Also, we are a republic ruled by laws and representation not direct democracy. Things like referendums are sloppy and lead to mob rule, we are not nor should we hope to be a direct democracy.

 

[madness3120]

So it's looking like either way, this bill is going to go in effect Oct 1.

 

[PJDiesel]

If the law somehow gets upheld, what happens to that person and the firearm?

If it were to move as dreadfully slow as the Woollard case, it would be round about 2016 until you had to worry about that.

But, since we seem to get fvcked at every turn lately, there will probably be confiscation.

 

[Glock_Fireman]

Now for the crazy question. We get a injunction and the law is paused as it goes through the court systems. Someone is able to buy a firearm that is on the list after the cutoff date as it is not the law at that point. If the law somehow gets upheld, what happens to that person and the firearm?

Nothing they can not do anything because the law still had not gone into effect yet.

 

[Glock_Fireman]

If it were to move as dreadfully slow as the Woollard case, it would be round about 2016 until you had to worry about that.

But, since we seem to get fvcked at every turn lately, there will probably be confiscation.

I would like to see them try I don't see half the cops enforcing it at all!!

 

[madness3120]

Nothing they can not do anything because the law still had not gone into effect yet.

Couldnt they still go back and say if you brought one of those rifles after Oct 1 you are in illegal possession of it? I wouldn't put it pass them

 

[Glock_Fireman]

Couldnt they still go back and say if you brought one of those rifles after Oct 1 you are in illegal possession of it? I wouldn't put it pass them

No because legally there was an injunction on the law which stopped it from going in to effect so legally their hands are tied the courts is the best way to mitigate this issue.

 

[Stratman60]

The voters that voted for these idiots didn't see it coming I think. I teach hunter safety and if the parents of the kids knew that their kids could not buy ammo, travel with ammo or a gun,that this would make them criminals they would be irate. They don't understand what has happened. But when their kids start getting arrested because they wanted to go to grandmas farm and hunt. You don't mess with peoples kids.

 

[eruby]

Just curious, but why hasn't MOM signed the bill yet?

I'm glad you asked this, because its been on my mind this week. These are outside ideas, but he may be counting future votes, especially when seeing how the Gun Bills took a beating at the Federal level yesterday. I know this is way out there, but he could conceiveably determine that it's not in his best interest to sign it. Again, I know it's a left field idea, but I wouldn't be surprised. He could go under the premise that he sees too many technicalities or that it violates the 2A to some degree or another.

I'm gonna presume he's waiting until hussein can come to Maryland and present MOM with his offical 'hussein corn-eater's club' membership card.

 

[Glock_Fireman]

I'm gonna presume he's waiting until hussein can come to Maryland and present MOM with his offical 'hussein corn-eater's club' membership card.

More like official "hussein club" membership card

 

[dlmcbm]

I'm glad you asked this, because its been on my mind this week. These are outside ideas, but he may be counting future votes, especially when seeing how the Gun Bills took a beating at the Federal level yesterday. I know this is way out there, but he could conceiveably determine that it's not in his best interest to sign it. Again, I know it's a left field idea, but I wouldn't be surprised. He could go under the premise that he sees too many technicalities or that it violates the 2A to some degree or another.

Seems that he would actually have to Veto it.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF LAWS
All bills passed by the General Assembly become law when signed by the Governor, or when passed over the Governor's veto by three-fifths of the membership of each house. According to the Constitution, laws thus approved take effect on the first day of June after the session in which they were passed, except when a later date is specified in the act, or the bill is declared an emergency measure. For many years, most laws took effect July 1. During the 1992 Session, however, October 1 began to be used as the standard effective date for legislation, coinciding with the start of the federal government's fiscal year. Emergency bills, passed by three-fifths of the total number of members of each house, become law immediately upon their approval by the Governor.
All passed bills, except the budget bill and constitutional amendments, must be presented to the Governor within twenty days following adjournment of a session. The Governor may veto such bills within thirty days after presentation. If a passed bill is not vetoed, it becomes law. The budget bill, however, becomes law upon its final passage and cannot be vetoed. Constitutional amendments also cannot be vetoed; they become law only upon their ratification by the voters at the next general election.

And his time is running out to do that. He could just let the 30 days run out and be able to say "I never signed it. It was not me. ".