Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[Stoveman]

"Denise Reid has an unfortunate level of knowledge about gun violence, with 11 family members shot or killed. That includes her son, Tevon Terrell, who succumbed to his injuries in April 2009, more than two years after a bullet severed his spinal cord and paralyzed him from the neck down."

She hasn't figured out her family, community and culture is toxic?

Someone should tell her that it wasn't a lawful gun carrier that shot her crotch fruit.

 

[Sunrise]

Court should have finished up motions for the day by now right?

 

[Bob A]

"Denise Reid has an unfortunate level of knowledge about gun violence, with 11 family members shot or killed. That includes her son, Tevon Terrell, who succumbed to his injuries in April 2009, more than two years after a bullet severed his spinal cord and paralyzed him from the neck down."

She hasn't figured out her family, community and culture is toxic?

If she was bright enough to figure that out, she wouldn't lend herself to this sort of pathos-ridden farce.

On the other hand, who from the pro-2A side has offered her a venue to vent her grief?

Over $16,000 per student to "educate" Baltimorons. Apparently you don't get what you pay for.
Or maybe you do?

 

[coinboy]

Did anyone here wind up making the road trip to Greenbelt?

I went.

There was about four of us in the gallery.

The county actually made the absurd argument that they weren't enforcing the law and that the plantiffs had no standing. They said because people in the lawsuit admittedly carried in county prohibited places in the lawsuit itself that it gave the county probable cause to arrest them. Yet they haven't.

It was funny when the judge asked the lawyer, (multiple times) "then why'd you write the law?"

Then he asked if the county would agree to not enforce it while the case is pending, and they could all reach an agreement. Of course the county refused.

 

[RFBfromDE]

On the other hand, who from the pro-2A side has offered her a venue to vent her grief?

I like to think I’m better than that and wouldn’t use people like The Usual Suspects do.

 

[eljefe]

Thanks for the report @coinboy!

So, I this the last hearing and now the judge has to rule? Or will there be shenanigans to drag this out further?

 

[scottyfz6]

I was also there is anyone has any questions.

To add to what coinboy said. The county tried to argue that there was no standing on some of the places the plaintiffs had not said they would go there. Like nursing homes, because none of them said they would go to a nursing home there was no standing to fight the nursing home part of the law.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Someone should tell her that it wasn't a lawful gun carrier that shot her crotch fruit.

She’s not the only one.

How about the widow Mommie of the guy that was gunned down at the Annapolis Newsroom?

Was he ever told he was prohibited from arming himself especially after the known kook threatened them?

None of these people have their head on right.

 

[JohnnyE]

I went.

There was about four of us in the gallery.

The county actually made the absurd argument that they weren't enforcing the law and that the plantiffs had no standing. They said because people in the lawsuit admittedly carried in county prohibited places in the lawsuit itself that it gave the county probable cause to arrest them. Yet they haven't.

It was funny when the judge asked the lawyer, (multiple times) "then why'd you write the law?"

Then he asked if the county would agree to not enforce it while the case is pending, and they could all reach an agreement. Of course the county refused.

What a cluster government has become. Choose to not enforce a patently unconstitutional law and you deny plaintiffs standing to challenge it, yet it hangs over everyones heads because the county may turn on enforcement at any time.

 

[coinboy]

What a cluster government has become. Choose to not enforce a patently unconstitutional law and you deny plaintiffs standing to challenge it, yet it hangs over everyones heads because the county may turn on enforcement at any time.

Pretty much what was said. There were cases that were turned on 50 years later.

The judge didn't seem too pleased with most of the arguments the county made in my opinion.

I believe that the 100 yard rule is going to be canned. Possibly churches and some other sensitive areas.

Everyone seemed to agree that schools, courthouses, federal buildings, polling places are prohibited as stated in Bruen and Heller.

The question of schools was, What exactly is a school. The county argued that it's basically any educational institution including colleges, universities, and daycares.

Other sensitive places didn't seem to be as impressive to the judge because of the county's lack of historical analog references. The county rather argued that it's sensitive because there are weak or frail people. I believe the county even argued that someone with a mental or a physical disability should be a prohibited person. (I'm fairly certain she said physical because she said they were barred from militia service.) I was a bit stunned by this.

It was three against one. County had three attorneys and plantiffs had one. I think Mark really did a really great job taking them all on.

Judge is considering a PI not a TRO. Said he will rule with swiftness but does have other cases that also have to be expedited too.

Seemed like a very fair hearing to me and I think Mark did an excellent job.

 

[pcfixer]

This was posted

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 8:21-cv-01736 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 8:21-cv-01736 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

71
Feb 6, 2023
Motion Hearing held on 2/6/2023 before Judge Theodore D. Chuang re 57 MOTION to Remand to State Court Renewed Motion to Remand Counts I, II, and III and Stay Counts IV Through VIII filed by Montgomery County, Maryland, and 54 Corrected MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Corrected Supporting Memorandum filed by Andrew Raymond, I.C.E. Firearms & Defensive Training, LLC, Joshua Edgar, Carlos Rabanales, Deryck Weaver, Nancy David, Brandon Ferrell, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., Engage Armament LLC, Eliyahu Shemony, Ronald David.(Court Reporter: Patricia Klepp\2B)

Document on pacer- I don't have the account- someone please check pacer an post document

 

[JohnnyE]

Pretty much what was said. There were cases that were turned on 50 years later.

The judge didn't seem too pleased with most of the arguments the county made in my opinion.

I believe that the 100 yard rule is going to be canned. Possibly churches and some other sensitive areas.

Everyone seemed to agree that schools, courthouses, federal buildings, polling places are prohibited as stated in Bruen and Heller.

The question of schools was, What exactly is a school. The county argued that it's basically any educational institution including colleges, universities, and daycares.

Other sensitive places didn't seem to be as impressive to the judge because of the county's lack of historical analog references. The county rather argued that it's sensitive because there are weak or frail people. I believe the county even argued that someone with a mental or a physical disability should be a prohibited person. (I'm fairly certain she said physical because she said they were barred from militia service.) I was a bit stunned by this.

It was three against one. County had three attorneys and plantiffs had one. I think Mark really did a really great job taking them all on.

Judge is considering a PI not a TRO. Said he will rule with swiftness but does have other cases that also have to be expedited too.

Seemed like a very fair hearing to me and I think Mark did an excellent job.

Thanks much for this!

Didn't the SCOTUS in Bruen, regarding schools, state that based on text, history and tradition, a school's students could be dissarmed, but not staff or visitors?

 

[coinboy]

Thanks for the report @coinboy!

So, I this the last hearing and now the judge has to rule? Or will there be shenanigans to drag this out further?

It's a bit unclear.

The judge could technically rule at any moment on the PI and the remand. The county requested a remand to another court if the judge rules against them. Mark was saying he wanted federal issues decided first and was asking the court to get an opinion from the newly named MD Supreme Court if I understood all of that correctly. Ideally he'd rather have the PI and the decision in our favor. I'm not a lawyer so this process is a little more confusing to me.

Wish I would have taken notes if I was allowed.

 

[coinboy]

Thanks much for this!

Didn't the SCOTUS in Bruen, regarding schools, state that based on text, history and tradition, a school's students could be dissarmed, but not staff or visitors?

I'm not sure.

That's a good question however I thought it was an all out ban in schools.

 

[scottyfz6]

It's a bit unclear.

The judge could technically rule at any moment on the PI and the remand. The county requested a remand to another court if the judge rules against them. Mark was saying he wanted federal rules decided first and was asking the court to get an opinion from the newly named MD Supreme Court if I understood all of that correctly. I'm not a lawyer so this process is a little more confusing to me.

Wish I would have taken notes if I was allowed.

You are little off. The county does not want two cases, one being the fed 2nd amendment part and the other being the county law going or possibly going against state law in a state court. Mark was willing to let the state supreme court decide the state part. But neither really wanted 2 cases due to parallel case issues.

I think this is calculated by the county feeling they will just loose under 2nd amendment grounds. So they are concentrating on standing and wanting the fed court to interpret state law to say they can do this. I think they know the state court will default to state law over county. The county also did not push the remand very hard, and it seemed to me they where really trying to avoid the 2nd amendment part. So in a way trying to get the court to agree that the county is allowed to do this, and that moots the 2nd amendment part of the case.

Mark wanted to avoid duel cases due to the possiblity of the 2nd amendment part being stalled until the state stuff was settled.

 

[SigNerd]

Document on pacer- I don't have the account- someone please check pacer an post document

"You do not have permission to view this document."

From what my googling says I shouldn't be getting this message (mostly for protecting SSNs in bankruptcy hearings based on the FAQs), but it's the first time I've ever tried to pay for a pacer document, so I don't have personal experience with it. Might just be that it's not available yet. Or maybe my account isn't fully provisioned yet.

 

[coinboy]

You are little off. The county does not want two cases, one being the fed 2nd amendment part and the other being the county law going or possibly going against state law in a state court. Mark was willing to let the state supreme court decide the state part. But neither really wanted 2 cases due to parallel case issues.

I think this is calculated by the county feeling they will just loose under 2nd amendment grounds. So they are concentrating on standing and wanting the fed court to interpret state law to say they can do this. I think they know the state court will default to state law over county. The county also did not push the remand very hard, and it seemed to me they where really trying to avoid the 2nd amendment part. So in a way trying to get the court to agree that the county is allowed to do this, and that moots the 2nd amendment part of the case.

Mark wanted to avoid duel cases due to the possiblity of the 2nd amendment part being stalled until the state stuff was settled.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[JohnnyE]

I'm not sure.

That's a good question however I thought it was an all out ban in schools.

I think I picked up the school distinctions on MDS. We cover so much here with contributions from so many authorities I should take notes.

 

[Sunrise]

I went.

There was about four of us in the gallery.

The county actually made the absurd argument that they weren't enforcing the law and that the plantiffs had no standing. They said because people in the lawsuit admittedly carried in county prohibited places in the lawsuit itself that it gave the county probable cause to arrest them. Yet they haven't.

It was funny when the judge asked the lawyer, (multiple times) "then why'd you write the law?"

Then he asked if the county would agree to not enforce it while the case is pending, and they could all reach an agreement. Of course the county refused.

Nice! The Judge is definitely asking the right questions to put MoCo on the spot.

Much appreciate you sharing this.

 

[Sunrise]

I was also there is anyone has any questions.

To add to what coinboy said. The county tried to argue that there was no standing on some of the places the plaintiffs had not said they would go there. Like nursing homes, because none of them said they would go to a nursing home there was no standing to fight the nursing home part of the law.

Thanks!

Still with the “No Standing” argument crap. I hope the Judge smacks this down.