Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[teratos]

And...What's your point?

Even as charged, he can still be a plaintiff.

Yes, but he shouldn’t.

 

[Sunrise]

And...What's your point?

Even as charged, he can still be a plantiff.

I just noticed it from the filing. That's all.
Sure he can. Innocent until proven guilty.
However, it could affect the outcome of the matter. It shouldn't, but it could.

 

[esqappellate]

Because he’s a liberal

Well, he probably is, but judges hate TROs for a reason. A TRO is for real emergencies, like house on fire, and are seldom appropriate. They require a lot of work that has to be repeated in deciding a motion for a Prel. Injunction, which is subject to a similar standard. Merits are but one factor. Now, all that said, I think the motion meets the requirements for a TRO, or else I would not have asked for it. That is particularly so for houses of worship and the 100 yard BS, which effectively bans carry anywhere in the County. But judges have a ton of discretion on TROs and this judge backed off from his resistance when I pushed hard at the conference. He let me file it. So, we shall see. A denial of a TRO is NOT appealable, a TRO is good only for 14 days renewable for another 14 days. See Rule 65 FRCP. So, it is not the end all.

 

[Mister F]

Well, he probably is, but judges hate TROs for a reason. A TRO is for real emergencies, like house on fire, and are seldom appropriate. They require a lot of work that has to be repeated in deciding a motion for a Prel. Injunction, which is subject to a similar standard. Merits are but one factor. Now, all that said, I think the motion meets the requirements for a TRO, or else I would not have asked for it. That is particularly so for houses of worship and the 100 yard BS, which effectively bans carry anywhere in the County. But judges have a ton of discretion on TROs and this judge back off from his resistance when I pushed back hard at the conference. So, we shall see. A denial of a TRO is NOT appealable, a TRO is good only for 14 days renewable for another 14 days. See Rule 65 FRCP. So, it is not the end all.

Sir, we are are very grateful for your work and your sharing of “the rules”. Everything in life is an opportunity to learn, even from the sidelines. (Or at least as just a $ contributor )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

Let me rephrase. The Judge is an Obama appointee. I’m guessing he’s not a Constitutional Condervative

 

[Atomevolution]

And...What's your point?

Even as charged, he can still be a plantiff.

I think the idea is that the optics are bad if the plaintiff of a case involving wear and carry is also charged with a crime involving a shooting.

 

[rbird7282]

I think the idea is that the optics are bad if the plaintiff of a case involving wear and carry is also convicted of a crime involving a shooting.

I would agree but he hasn’t been convicted of anything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dblas]

I just noticed it from the filing. That's all.
Sure he can. Innocent until proven guilty.
However, it could affect the outcome of the matter. It shouldn't, but it could.

Thank you for the reply.

Fully understand and fully agree with your reply.

 

[dblas]

I think the idea is that the optics are bad if the plaintiff of a case involving wear and carry is also convicted of a crime involving a shooting.

If he becomes convicted (which he has not as of yet), then he becomes a prhibited person and no longer an eligible plantiff do to lack of standing by way of losing his carry permit.

He is currently charged, and charged only.

Are the optics good? Nope.
Should he be dropped for it? I'll leave that up to Mark P. and the rest of the legal team to decide.

 

[Atomevolution]

If he becomes convicted (which he has not as of yet), then he becomes a prhibited person and no longer an eligible plantiff do to lack of standing by way of losing his carry permit.

He is currently charged, and charged only.

Are the optics good? Nope.
Should he be dropped for it? I'll leave that up to Mark P. and the rest of the legal team to decide.

I would agree but he hasn’t been convicted of anything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did mean to write charged, not convicted. Amended.

 

[Atomevolution]

If he becomes convicted (which he has not as of yet), then he becomes a prhibited person and no longer an eligible plantiff do to lack of standing by way of losing his carry permit.

He is currently charged, and charged only.

Are the optics good? Nope.
Should he be dropped for it? I'll leave that up to Mark P. and the rest of the legal team to decide.

Amended to charged.

 

[Atomevolution]

This wasn't my point, but it is an interesting one. Even though he can still be a plaintiff, as he's only been charged with a crime involving a firearm, does it make sense? So little has been said officially about what happened that night, that it's probably too early to tell. Even if it was justified, I can foresee a headline that reads, "Plantiff in Mongomery County Wear and Carry Dispute Previously Charged with Shooting at Officer." People, especially anti-2As, eat stuff like this up and don't bother to look beyond the headline. They just take it as a confirmation of why they want wear and carry and guns banned altogether. Confirmation bias is real.

 

[esqappellate]

This wasn't my point, but it is an interesting one. Even though he can still be a plaintiff, as he's only been charged with a crime involving a firearm, does it make sense? So little has been said officially about what happened that night, that it's probably too early to tell. Even if it was justified, I can foresee a headline that reads, "Plantiff in Mongomery County Wear and Carry Dispute Previously Charged with Shooting at Officer." People, especially anti-2As, eat stuff like this up and don't bother to look beyond the headline. They just take it as a confirmation of why they want wear and carry and guns banned altogether. Confirmation bias is real.

For now, we wait and see. The decision whether to prosecute or drop the charges or do a plea deal lies with the State's Attorney's office. As to the grabbers, they are largely unpersuadable regardless of the facts or law. Generally, I try to avoid pounding my head against that brick wall.

 

[rbird7282]

This wasn't my point, but it is an interesting one. Even though he can still be a plaintiff, as he's only been charged with a crime involving a firearm, does it make sense? So little has been said officially about what happened that night, that it's probably too early to tell. Even if it was justified, I can foresee a headline that reads, "Plantiff in Mongomery County Wear and Carry Dispute Previously Charged with Shooting at Officer." People, especially anti-2As, eat stuff like this up and don't bother to look beyond the headline. They just take it as a confirmation of why they want wear and carry and guns banned altogether. Confirmation bias is real.

Doesn't really matter what the headlines are, they will try to ban everything anyway.
F these people.

 

[LuckyShot]

Gotta love it when you get info direct from the source. Not being knowledgeable on the process and terminology makes people even more scared about their rights being taken and them possibly becoming a prohibited possessor just by being next to a county garage with a firearm.

So its great to see detailed explanations as to whats happening and moving forward

 

[Blacksmith101]

Well, he probably is, but judges hate TROs for a reason. A TRO is for real emergencies, like house on fire, and are seldom appropriate. They require a lot of work that has to be repeated in deciding a motion for a Prel. Injunction, which is subject to a similar standard. Merits are but one factor. Now, all that said, I think the motion meets the requirements for a TRO, or else I would not have asked for it. That is particularly so for houses of worship and the 100 yard BS, which effectively bans carry anywhere in the County. But judges have a ton of discretion on TROs and this judge backed off from his resistance when I pushed hard at the conference. He let me file it. So, we shall see. A denial of a TRO is NOT appealable, a TRO is good only for 14 days renewable for another 14 days. See Rule 65 FRCP. So, it is not the end all.

This might bolster your arguments regarding carry in religious institutions and private schools:
"In a new threat bulletin released last week, the Department of Homeland Security warned, "targets of potential violence include public gatherings, faith-based institutions, the LGBTQI+ community, schools, racial and religious minorities, government facilities and personnel, U.S. critical infrastructure, the media, and perceived ideological opponents." This is included in the SUMMARY OF THE TERRORISM THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES near the end, a link follows.

Link to DHS National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin issued November 30, 2022:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ntas/alerts/22_1130_S1_NTAS-Bulletin-508.pdf

 

[swinokur]

Innocent until proven guilty. Includes plaintiffs in lawsuits.

Optics don’t matter in Mo Co.

These people are fanatics.

Guns are bad.

 

[Allen65]

Innocent until proven guilty. Includes plaintiffs in lawsuits.

Optics don’t matter in Mo Co.

These people are fanatics.

Guns are bad.

Many people challenging the constitutionality of criminal laws in court are less than sympathetic (Miranda, for example), but the courts ultimately decided on matters of law rather than perceived moral turpitude of the parties.

 

[esqappellate]

This might bolster your arguments regarding carry in religious institutions and private schools:
"In a new threat bulletin released last week, the Department of Homeland Security warned, "targets of potential violence include public gatherings, faith-based institutions, the LGBTQI+ community, schools, racial and religious minorities, government facilities and personnel, U.S. critical infrastructure, the media, and perceived ideological opponents." This is included in the SUMMARY OF THE TERRORISM THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES near the end, a link follows.

Link to DHS National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin issued November 30, 2022:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ntas/alerts/22_1130_S1_NTAS-Bulletin-508.pdf

Thanks!

 

[Chase Houston]

Just curious, but would the restrictions imposed by this new also affect one driving on the interstate highways? It would seem that one could be within the 100yds of some of the “places of public assembly” even when driving on those roads.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk