Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[Occam]

At the county level, that's true. But your permit specifically says "Not valid where firearms are prohibited by law", which means the state law on unlawful carry kicks in if you're carrying somewhere banned by the county, with a 5 year state-imposed potential penalty.

And, if you actually have to use that pistol, any carry insurance or legal service membership you’ve been paying for will drop you cold because you were breaking the law while defending yourself. Fun!

 

[Biggfoot44]

At the county level, that's true. But your permit specifically says "Not valid where firearms are prohibited by law", which means the state law on unlawful carry kicks in if you're carrying somewhere banned by the county, with a 5 year state-imposed potential penalty.

Three year Misdemeanor , but same effect of making you Prohibited Person .

 

[LuckyShot]

All redundant when the cop with the beat calls his Sergent and the Sergent calls the LT to figure out WTH to charge you with.

Charge: Being a bad boy in a 35mph zone
Sentenced to 10 spanks by Ehrlich

 

[jcutonilli]

None of this can survive the higher courts.

I would disagree. Based on the past litigation, the circuit courts are likely to adopt similar reasoning. While the SCOTUS is likely in a better position to overrule, it may not be as strong of a position as some may think.

 

[Sunrise]

At the county level, that's true. But your permit specifically says "Not valid where firearms are prohibited by law", which means the state law on unlawful carry kicks in if you're carrying somewhere banned by the county, with a 5 year state-imposed potential penalty.

Welcome to the Bonus Round!

 

[jmcgonig]

Why isn't the county responsible for informing us? I mean, they pass a bill that goes into effect immediately. Hell, the state has all of our emails. The fact that they can do this w/o informing is just wrong... I hate this county.

 

[swinokur]

How will they catch and prosecute you if you know about it?

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

I would disagree. Based on the past litigation, the circuit courts are likely to adopt similar reasoning. While the SCOTUS is likely in a better position to overrule, it may not be as strong of a position as some may think.

Not disagreeing…all it would take is for the cases to be slow walked through the system until the Libs get a SCOTUS more to their liking. This is all the more reason for such cases to proceed posthaste.

 

[kmittleman]

When we win, and make no mistake we will, I plan on a nice OC lunch at Mission BBQ on Rockville Pike. Maybe the statist worms will be able to see us from their ivory tower on MD Ave

I will join you - for lunch that is

 

[Doctor_M]

Has anyone been charged under this statute/travisty yet?

 

[dblas]

I would disagree. Based on the past litigation, the circuit courts are likely to adopt similar reasoning. While the SCOTUS is likely in a better position to overrule, it may not be as strong of a position as some may think.

So we will have to wait on current litigation under Bruen to se what happens, since there have yet to be ANY lower court rulings (that I am aware of) under Bruen.

 

[IronEye]

Do courts take longer in civil right's violation cases when they involve the 2nd Amendment? It sure seems that way. Or maybe that is the same time dilation effect that slows down the last week of school and makes summer vacation fly by when you're a kid. SCOTUS remanded a number of cases that were wrongly decided back in June. C'mon already!

Am I wrong in expecting that as cases are decided in agreement with Bruen that follow on cases will begin to be decided more rapidly as the body of decided cases grows? Or will the first decision in each federal district just take a long time?

 

[dblas]

Do courts take longer in civil right's violation cases when they involve the 2nd Amendment? It sure seems that way. Or maybe that is the same time dilation effect that slows down the last week of school and makes summer vacation fly by when you're a kid. SCOTUS remanded a number of cases that were wrongly decided back in June. C'mon already!

Am I wrong in expecting that as cases are decided in agreement with Bruen that follow on cases will begin to be decided more rapidly as the body of decided cases grows? Or will the first decision in each federal district just take a long time?

Civil suit take a back seat to criminal cases.

 

[LuckyShot]

Has anyone been charged under this statute/travisty yet?

I am wondering the same thing.

Many of us on here are playing it safe which is fine..its your butt to risk but at the same time we're giving police more credit than i think they deserve in the way of enforcing this.

I highly doubt if you're in montgomery mall a cop is gonna do rounds around the damn mall for a dentist office(if he even knows the law exists). I highly doubt if you're grabbing headphones at best buy the cop is gonna check his google maps to see if there is a daycare nearby. I doubt if you're craving roaming roosters a cops gonna map out how close you are to pike n rose park.

Nothing wrong with playing it safe but lets be real. Especially when cops are saying they dunno what the charge will be

 

[swinokur]

Got an email that the page had been updated.

What changed?

 

[LuckyShot]

Got an email that the page had been updated.

What changed?

still waiting on county reply as far as i know. I see nothing updated.

 

[jcutonilli]

So we will have to wait on current litigation under Bruen to se what happens, since there have yet to be ANY lower court rulings (that I am aware of) under Bruen.

You have not been paying attention. There have been numerous rulings in numerous courts, although none of these rulings have been final judgments.

NY's Bruen temper tantrum law lawsuit was initially dismissed for lack of standing. The revised lawsuit had a preliminary injunction (PI) partly granted and partly denied. The 2CA stayed that ruling.

The RI and OR mag ban laws had the TRO and/or PI denied because mags are not arms.

Things seem to be proceeding just like past history.

 

[Allen65]

You have not been paying attention. There have been numerous rulings in numerous courts, although none of these rulings have been final judgments.

NY's Bruen temper tantrum law lawsuit was initially dismissed for lack of standing. The revised lawsuit had a preliminary injunction (PI) partly granted and partly denied. The 2CA stayed that ruling.

The RI and OR mag ban laws had the TRO and/or PI denied because mags are not arms.

Things seem to be proceeding just like past history.

As of last Thursday, the Oregon ban had a PI.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/po...cked/283-f470484a-aef7-483d-bf4d-628e7f0654d7
Was a stay issued since then?

 

[Doctor_M]

God forbid, but I wonder what happens if some lady with a restraining order winds up dead because of an abusive ex, all because there was no way for her to get out of her cul-de-sac while carrying without violating this law... who has the liability for depriving such a person of her rights and life. The county is going to wind up with blood on its hands, mark my words.

 

[Sunrise]

And, if you actually have to use that pistol, any carry insurance or legal service membership you’ve been paying for will drop you cold because you were breaking the law while defending yourself. Fun!

Yup.

I'm looking forward to when Elrich has to bend the knee on all this.