Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[Sunrise]

The SCOTUS dissected that sentence in the Heller decision. They were very clear that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and unconnected to militia service.

Fourteen years later anti-gunners are still bringing up "but militia" arguments.

The grift compels them to do that. They can't stop and undermine the cause, so the grift continues unabated.

 

[jmcgonig]

Everyone ready to hear and see the hearing before the actual hearing so we can hear if we can carry?

That one isn't a broadcast is it? That one is the afternoon and its just the pre-meeting if I understand things correctly.

 

[Occam]

Everyone ready to hear and see the hearing before the actual hearing so we can hear if we can carry?

That (action/decison/TRO) isn’t on the table today. This is admin/housekeeping in advance of that being heard.

 

[Stoveman]

That one isn't a broadcast is it? That one is the afternoon and its just the pre-meeting if I understand things correctly.

This one is the plate conference before the game starts.

 

[swinokur]

Correct. It’s a pre trial phone conference. Not a hearing

 

[LuckyShot]

That one isn't a broadcast is it? That one is the afternoon and its just the pre-meeting if I understand things correctly.

That (action/decison/TRO) isn’t on the table today. This is admin/housekeeping in advance of that being heard.

yea i knew it wasn't anything of significance but i did not know it was a conference phone call

 

[Allen65]

The SCOTUS dissected that sentence in the Heller decision. They were very clear that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and unconnected to militia service.

Fourteen years later anti-gunners are still bringing up "but militia" arguments.

Mostly because it's all they have. The rest of the text is pretty clear in its meaning, and it's not what the Antis want to hear.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Why would the county board and the county exec be covered to qualified immunity when told by the county lawyer this might be illegal under the us constitution and they are not subject to TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 of federal law???

 

[Sunrise]

Why would the county board and the county exec be covered to qualified immunity when told by the county lawyer this might be illegal under the us constitution and they are not subject to TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 of federal law???

The County Lawyer told them that it might be illegal? I was under the impression that it was rubber-stamped based on what the County Council and Elrich said.

 

[swinokur]

It was Jamie Raskin who told them it might be illegal, not the County Attorney

He is a US Congressman from MD who used to be in the GA and has nothing to do with the county now except he lives in Takoma Park

 

[Sunrise]

It was Jamie Raskin who told them it might be illegal, not the Attorney

He is a US Congressman from MD who used to be in the GA and has nothing to do with the county now except he lives in Takoma Park

Correct:

 

[Occam]

It was Jamie Raskin who told them it might be illegal, not the Attorney

He is a US Congressman from MD who used to be in the GA and has nothing to do with the county now except he lives in Takoma Park

And more to the point, I believe he told them it probably wouldn't survive a court challenge - he would never have gone on the record calling his ideological traveling companions' work or aspirations "illegal."

 

[Sunrise]

And more to the point, I believe he told them it probably wouldn't survive a court challenge - he would never have gone on the record calling his ideological traveling companions' work or aspirations "illegal."

Yup. That's right, and it's also mentioned that the Council and Elrich got "legal advice" so that it would be "legally sound".

 

[pcfixer]

esqappellate said: POST #66
We have a conference with the Judge at 2:30 on this coming Tuesday. After which I will be allowed to file the motion for a TRO and for a PI. Which I am prepared to file that day. That's what I expect.

 

[Sunrise]

esqappellate said: POST #66
We have a conference with the Judge at 2:30 on this coming Tuesday. After which I will be allowed to file the motion for a TRO and for a PI. Which I am prepared to file that day. That's what I expect.

Hoping the conference went well.

Looking forward to seeing the filed motion papers.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I believe that you can answer, "I respectfully decline to discuss the contents of my vehicle".

You Could . But if you took that approach , " nothing illegal " or " nothing illegal or dangerous " . Would also be true , and less combative .

 

[teratos]

I believe that you can answer, "I respectfully decline to discuss the contents of my vehicle".

“F*ck off” has also been found to be Constitutional. YMMV.

 

[Doctor_M]

Crap... if that is true,

“F*ck off” has also been found to be Constitutional. YMMV.

I wish I had your sense of poetry, my good man!!

 

[Sunrise]

Update from MSI:

 

[esqappellate]

I'm going off my memory but I could of sworn the code 4-203 says where state and federal law prohibits you. Then goes to list those sensitive areas

Incorrect. State law allows the State Police to limit the scope of the permit and then provides that any carry with a permit outside such limits is the same as having no permit at all. All the permits issued by the State Place bear the limitation that the permit is "not valid where firearms are prohibited by law." Any law, including presumptively County law.