Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[ICW2019]

Agenda item 14 currently. 21-22 is agenda item 22. But a lot of these items only have one or two people speaking, so probably 15-30 minutes to go. Maybe 45.

How does this work. They discuss and put it up for a vote if popular?

 

[SigNerd]

How does this work. They discuss and put it up for a vote if popular?

Just the public hearing today with testimony from those that signed up. To my knowledge they're not voting today, or at least not during this hearing. I believe it also has to go through Racial Equity and Social Justice Committee first for a report.

 

[SigNerd]

And I was wrong, we're on item 20 it's about to start. These items are going by very quickly at this point.

 

[Boondock Saint]

It's go time.

 

[Afrikeber]

It’s on now

 

[Stoveman]

I don't know which one of you is Gary Simon but I've got a man crush on you. Guy knocked it out of the park!

 

[ICW2019]

It’s on now

Albornoz is a pile of shit and the drama lady too.

 

[Afrikeber]

Drama lady discussed how her son was shot by criminals in a criminal act.... has nothing to do with law abiding citizens who respect tha law.

I think we had a good representation at this hearing.....now let's see if the MC council decides to get slapped down or not.

 

[ICW2019]

Drama lady discussed how her son was shot by criminals in a criminal act.... has nothing to do with law abiding citizens who respect tha law.

I think we had a good representation at this hearing.....now let's see if the MC council decides to get slapped down or not.

The way Albornoz acted after Gary was finished vs drama lady was quite different shall I say.

 

[DC-W]

That was fun.

 

[Afrikeber]

The way Albornoz acted after Gary was finished vs drama lady was quite different shall I say.

yea I picked up on that body language as well.

 

[Muleskinner]

So, every "downtown" or "Central Business District" area becomes a complete firearms free zone...Makes Georgia Ave almost exclusively firearms free from just north of Windham, all the way through the Glenmont Metro station...yup, that'll save the community...

They can define it any way they want to. They could say that the street that you live on potentially could be a public rallying place so you can't leave your house with your firearm.

 

[Muleskinner]

It's been a pattern and practice to pass legislation, regardless of its constitutionality, and leave it to the courts to uphold or strike. Very few legislators will tell constituents they'd like to do something for them but it won't pass constitutional muster, so they won't. Instead, they'll pass shit legislation, take credit (and raise campaign funds) for addressing a problem, and leave it to the courts to sort it out.

It's worse than that. The left knows that it costs tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court. They just keep passing law after law knowing that eventually they will bankrupt the second amendment advocacy groups. There's an easy fix the supreme Court just refuses to do it. All you have to do is confirm that the second amendment means what it says and says what it means and that no law can be passed that would infringe upon it but they won't do it

 

[lazarus]

It's worse than that. The left knows that it costs tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court. They just keep passing law after law knowing that eventually they will bankrupt the second amendment advocacy groups. There's an easy fix the supreme Court just refuses to do it. All you have to do is confirm that the second amendment means what it says and says what it means and that no law can be passed that would infringe upon it but they won't do it

No the supreme court couldn't do that. Not under our existing constitution. They have no power over the legislative branch. Congress COULD pass a law requiring pre-clearance of 2A related bills, like they did with the voting rights act (which eventually SCOTUS gutted).

If SCOTUS decided TO try to order it, that's the last of what is left of our representative democracy under our constitution.

As for the costs, yes. On the other hand, donations for at least national groups have not been stingy, and the defendant wins legal costs (even if it doesn't necessarily cover ALL costs, it does cover much of the cost of litigation).

 

[Occam]

It's worse than that. The left knows that it costs tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court. They just keep passing law after law knowing that eventually they will bankrupt the second amendment advocacy groups. There's an easy fix the supreme Court just refuses to do it. All you have to do is confirm that the second amendment means what it says and says what it means and that no law can be passed that would infringe upon it but they won't do it

The SCOTUS can't just wake up in the morning and decide to issue edicts and interpretations. That's the sort of thing the lefties wish a court controlled by them could and would do, but that's not how the constitution works. They have to have a case before them, and the rulings they make have to be about that case. Thomas just wrote a ruling that comes very close to what you just wished for, and more than enough to take care of much of what we need to immediately address. But so what? That still won't stop legislatures from passing laws that will have be challenged against such rulings. It won't stop executives from issuing directives or other orders that will have to be challenged.

There's no "easy fix" in having a solid ruling, no matter how far it goes in plainly defending the Bill of Rights. Our checks and balances are after-the-fact things, unless you can get a court to issue an injunction. Just last week, an Obama-appointed federal judge DID issue exactly such an injunction - based entirely on the Thomas ruling in Bruen - that enjoins a new law written by a city council in Colorado (typical AWB/mag-capacity banning/taking type stuff). Yes, plaintiffs had to take it to court. But that liberal judge concluded that the law would very likely be found unconstitutional and agreed with the plaintiffs to head it off at the pass pending proceedings in court. So yes, we need to keep putting money in MSI's litigation bucket. And the NRA-ILA's, and GOA's, and SAF's. That vigilance is the cost of freedom, and we're in the thick of it right now as these various jurisdictions throw things against the wall post-Bruen to see what they can get away with. Thomas saw to it they won't be able to get away with much, but there's no free lunch in court. Our opponents are spending time and money, and we have to, as well.

 

[jef955]

The SCOTUS can't just wake up in the morning and decide to issue edicts and interpretations. That's the sort of thing the lefties wish a court controlled by them could and would do, but that's not how the constitution works. They have to have a case before them, and the rulings they make have to be about that case. Thomas just wrote a ruling that comes very close to what you just wished for, and more than enough to take care of much of what we need to immediately address. But so what? That still won't stop legislatures from passing laws that will have be challenged against such rulings. It won't stop executives from issuing directives or other orders that will have to be challenged.

There's no "easy fix" in having a solid ruling, no matter how far it goes in plainly defending the Bill of Rights. Our checks and balances are after-the-fact things, unless you can get a court to issue an injunction. Just last week, an Obama-appointed federal judge DID issue exactly such an injunction - based entirely on the Thomas ruling in Bruen - that enjoins a new law written by a city council in Colorado (typical AWB/mag-capacity banning/taking type stuff). Yes, plaintiffs had to take it to court. But that liberal judge concluded that the law would very likely be found unconstitutional and agreed with the plaintiffs to head it off at the pass pending proceedings in court. So yes, we need to keep putting money in MSI's litigation bucket. And the NRA-ILA's, and GOA's, and SAF's. That vigilance is the cost of freedom, and we're in the thick of it right now as these various jurisdictions throw things against the wall post-Bruen to see what they can get away with. Thomas saw to it they won't be able to get away with much, but there's no free lunch in court. Our opponents are spending time and money, and we have to, as well.

Well said..

 

[outrider58]

Signed and donated

 

[Muleskinner]

The SCOTUS can't just wake up in the morning and decide to issue edicts and interpretations. That's the sort of thing the lefties wish a court controlled by them could and would do, but that's not how the constitution works. They have to have a case before them, and the rulings they make have to be about that case. Thomas just wrote a ruling that comes very close to what you just wished for, and more than enough to take care of much of what we need to immediately address. But so what? That still won't stop legislatures from passing laws that will have be challenged against such rulings. It won't stop executives from issuing directives or other orders that will have to be challenged.

There's no "easy fix" in having a solid ruling, no matter how far it goes in plainly defending the Bill of Rights. Our checks and balances are after-the-fact things, unless you can get a court to issue an injunction. Just last week, an Obama-appointed federal judge DID issue exactly such an injunction - based entirely on the Thomas ruling in Bruen - that enjoins a new law written by a city council in Colorado (typical AWB/mag-capacity banning/taking type stuff). Yes, plaintiffs had to take it to court. But that liberal judge concluded that the law would very likely be found unconstitutional and agreed with the plaintiffs to head it off at the pass pending proceedings in court. So yes, we need to keep putting money in MSI's litigation bucket. And the NRA-ILA's, and GOA's, and SAF's. That vigilance is the cost of freedom, and we're in the thick of it right now as these various jurisdictions throw things against the wall post-Bruen to see what they can get away with. Thomas saw to it they won't be able to get away with much, but there's no free lunch in court. Our opponents are spending time and money, and we have to, as well.

Then maybe we need a new constitutional amendment that requires government at all levels who wish to pass a bill that would have a direct effect on the constitutional rights of all Americans to be challenged before it becomes law. Because eventually the left will succeed in bankrupting the NRA and other advocacy groups. That's their plan. They have had plenty of cases in before them where they could have upheld the meaning of the second amendment but they refuse to do so... Every case in which a law gets challenged takes years before it gets to the supreme Court level. That should not be the case. No bill should ever be allowed to signed into law that directly challenges the constitutional right. Those bills should be put before the court before they become law. Most of them would be tossed

 

[Occam]

Then maybe we need a new constitutional amendment that requires government at all levels who wish to pass a bill that would have a direct effect on the constitutional rights of all Americans to be challenged before it becomes law. Because eventually the left will succeed in bankrupting the NRA and other advocacy groups. That's their plan.

And which person or group of people will determine in advance whether a law might eventually - in execution later - rub up against the BoR? Are you talking about establishing yet another layer of government that would sit in between legislatures and the courts? Are you talking about the courts breaking the separation of powers and getting permanently and pervasively involved in the legislative process for every state, county, and township?

Unworkable and unconstitutional. You’re frustrated because lefties are now in a phase of finding where the new boundaries are. They’re going to look down every tunnel they think will get them around the 2A and find Thomas staring back at them. This will go on for a while. Let it. We’ve had a huge victory and they know it, but are still virtue signaling to their donors for midterm cash.

 

[JohnnyE]

I discussed with a friend the challenges that are the subject of these recent posts and the most difficult aspect (of talking with him and making progress on the challenges) is that a solution requires people to make value judgments. There is no magic wand to be waved that will get people to make correct decisions even when the facts and the law are clear, never mind when they grapple over an issue where reasonable minds may differ.