Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[Steyr40]

I've been having conversations with coworkers about this terrible law. I know getting any group to agree on anything is virtually impossible, but the conversations made me wonder how the majority of the 2A community would feel about adding the language "in the commission of a violent crime" to this, and for that matter, all gun legislation. Meaning, of course you can't be on government property, but the 100 yard restrictions, magazine capacity restrictions, pistol brace restrictions, etc. would only apply if in the act of committing a crime of violence. Those charges would serve as an enhancement to the primary charge. If done correctly, I don't think I would be opposed to that.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I've been having conversations with coworkers about this terrible law. I know getting any group to agree on anything is virtually impossible, but the conversations made me wonder how the majority of the 2A community would feel about adding the language "in the commission of a violent crime" to this, and for that matter, all gun legislation. Meaning, of course you can't be on government property, but the 100 yard restrictions, magazine capacity restrictions, pistol brace restrictions, etc. would only apply if in the act of committing a crime of violence. Those charges would serve as an enhancement to the primary charge. If done correctly, I don't think I would be opposed to that.

Law abiding W&C holders would be unaffected.

Use of firearm in commission of a felony is already illegal though, with no limit as to where is occors.

So it would still be feel good nonsense that I would oppose.

 

[Steyr40]

That's my point.

Law abiding Wear & Carry holders would be unaffected as opposed to the garbage they're passing that affects only Wear & Carry holders. It may be "feel good" but it would allow you to defend yourself and your family without the threat of losing your freedom or right to carry. But then again, this law is entirely to exclude the protections that the W&C provide in MoCo, so it'll never happen. I guess it would be like leaving it the way it was.

 

[RFBfromDE]

@Steyr40

For clarity;

No credible threat of prosecution? So they assume that we are all going to ignore the law and carry anyway?

 

[Steyr40]

I read that the same way I read, "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." Sounds like they're saying not to worry about it because it hasn't happened to you... yet. But when it does...?

If there's no threat of prosecution then what's the point of the law, and further, what's the point of expressly prohibiting W&C holders? Are they inviting us to get comfortable only to snatch the rug out?

 

[mac1_131]

I am fairly certain Elrich did indeed say they intend to enforce this law. I'll have to look though his email messages to find it.

I hope the courts see through their doublespeak.

 

[Allen65]

I am fairly certain Elrich did indeed say they intend to enforce this law. I'll have to look though his email messages to find it.

I hope the courts see through their doublespeak.

Hopefully what he said or didn't say is considered irrelevant by the court. If there's no written policy specifically stating the law won't be enforced, there is no policy that the law won't be enforced and it's assumed to be enforceable because it's on the books. And there almost certainly is no such written, promulgated, policy.

 

[Allen65]

Meanwhile , as noted , among the populace , it generates contempt for the law , and creates very steep, and very slippery slope of contempt for other laws , and public order generally .

I agree completely. Passing criminal statues with no intent of enforcing them, in order to virtue signal by debate and passage, is as reprehensible as using a position as a government official for personal gain.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I agree completely. Passing criminal statues with no intent of enforcing them, in order to virtue signal by debate and passage, is as reprehensible as using a position as a government official for personal gain.

Meanwhile I trust them….

 

[rbird7282]

I am fairly certain Elrich did indeed say they intend to enforce this law. I'll have to look though his email messages to find it.

I hope the courts see through their doublespeak.

Hard to enforce when most of the Moco police dept. probably doesn’t even know about it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob A]

I've been having conversations with coworkers about this terrible law. I know getting any group to agree on anything is virtually impossible, but the conversations made me wonder how the majority of the 2A community would feel about adding the language "in the commission of a violent crime" to this, and for that matter, all gun legislation. Meaning, of course you can't be on government property, but the 100 yard restrictions, magazine capacity restrictions, pistol brace restrictions, etc. would only apply if in the act of committing a crime of violence. Those charges would serve as an enhancement to the primary charge. If done correctly, I don't think I would be opposed to that.

You might have missed the point that the only purpose of this law was to remove the rights of legal legitimate holders of carry permits.

It's the virtue signaling of the county council with a big middle finger to the Supreme Court and those of us who support this basic human right.

 

[LuckyShot]

Apparently there's no need for us to worry because there's no credible threat of prosecution. I mean, it's only an enacted law that would result in a substantial prison sentence and lifetime ban on carrying, but not to worry - It's not actually enforced.... So no standing for you, peasant.

Just avoid SS and white flint mcdonalds(aka the walking dead) then pray no one singles you out during your day to day where you have to use it.

I think if anyone whos still choosing to carry needs to reassess what situation is worth the backlash if you do use it in a red zone. If you or friends/family are not directly targeted and can leave than do that. Otherwise lay low and dont print.

 

[lazarus]

My favorite part is on Page 13:

"Plaintiffs in this action have not alleged similar specific statements by Montgomery County public officials necessary to establish an imminent and credible threat of prosecution. As such, Plaintiffs have alleged nothing more than hypothetical, future harm which is insufficient to establish Article III standing for a pre-enforcement challenge."

All of those hearings on the Bill. All of the testimony on the Bill from the leftist grifters. Even Elrich's recent comments on the litigation where he said MoCo "is not the wild west" and is "not some lawless anarchic country":



Even with all that, MoCo's lawyers are willing to say that there haven't been any specific statements by Montgomery County Public Officials necessary to establish an imminent and credible threat of prosecution.

CC: @esqappellate - Get them with their own words.

DC just did the same thing related to carry on the metro and the Obama judge tossed it because of standing. The plaintiffs couldn't point to THEM being arrested or charged and couldn't point to other cases of CONCEALED CARRY permit holders getting arrested and charged so as to show the risk was likely.

WTF? The law says if I do something, I will be arrested. I am in the class, because I am a permit holder. But because activity I am specific barred from doing hasn't been shown to lead to MY arrest or other people's arrest, because they FOLLOW THE LAW, means I don't have standing to say I have been harmed by the law by prohibiting behavior?

That is tortured reasoning if I've ever heard it. I can grok not having standing for someone without a permit. Or not having standing if you are a New Jersey resident and have never been to DC, but I just don't get it otherwise.

 

[Allen65]

DC just did the same thing related to carry on the metro and the Obama judge tossed it because of standing. The plaintiffs couldn't point to THEM being arrested or charged and couldn't point to other cases of CONCEALED CARRY permit holders getting arrested and charged so as to show the risk was likely.

WTF? The law says if I do something, I will be arrested. I am in the class, because I am a permit holder. But because activity I am specific barred from doing hasn't been shown to lead to MY arrest or other people's arrest, because they FOLLOW THE LAW, means I don't have standing to say I have been harmed by the law by prohibiting behavior?

That is tortured reasoning if I've ever heard it. I can grok not having standing for someone without a permit. Or not having standing if you are a New Jersey resident and have never been to DC, but I just don't get it otherwise.

Hopefully the plaintiffs will appeal. I could see SCOTUS holding a bunch of these "nuisance law" cases to be GVRed with the next big 2A case, similar to the four cases held and GVRed with Bruen. It's going to take time, though.

Maybe in the meantime some unlucky person will get arrested and have a chance to be the test case with standing. But I could see DC then dropping charges to kill off any standing to pursue a legal assault on the law using Bruen now that they've seen the position of the DC Court.

 

[lazarus]

Hopefully the plaintiffs will appeal. I could see SCOTUS holding a bunch of these "nuisance law" cases to be GVRed with the next big 2A case, similar to the four cases held and GVRed with Bruen. It's going to take time, though.

Maybe in the meantime some unlucky person will get arrested and be the test case with standing. But I could see DC then dropping charges to kill off standing to pursue a legal assault on the law using Bruen.

I don't think they'd be able to succeed in getting it mooted. You can show injury the moment you have been arrested, even if the charges are dropped. They'd have to remove the prohibition on carry on the metro to have a chance of mooting the law.

I can't speak to the DC appeals court, but I don't see the judge's interpretation of standing succeeding in this case. Otherwise, the ONLY way to challenge a law is if you are arrested/charged/fined under the law. Prohibiting otherwise legal actions you would be LIKELY to take if the law was not there, could never allowed unless you choose to break the law, AND are actually arrested/penalized for it. Heck, it would be one thing if the state could point to a law that hasn't been enforced in ages and ages and there is no actual indication that it ever will be enforced.

 

[swinokur]

That’s like saying the plaintiffs in Bruen would not have standing because they had not yet been arrested for carrying without a permit they could not get.

Where did those idiots go to law school?

Oh that’s right, Ivy League trash generators

 

[rrrenyer071]

By extending a 100-yard perimeter out from every prohibited location, you can use standard geo-data techniques to render a detailed map of all the areas where you can't carry. The impacted areas within Montgomery County are marked below in blue:

View attachment 394064

Hilarious! Sad and True! Hopefully the new year will bring some good news on this front.

 

[RFBfromDE]

That’s like saying the plaintiffs in Bruen would not have standing because they had not yet been arrested for carrying without a permit they could not get.

Where did those idiots go to law school?

Oh that’s right, Ivy League trash generators

I’ll try to be fair.

Didn’t they need to find or manufacture a Roe before they could have a Roe v Wade?

 

[swinokur]

There is no constitutional right to an abortion

 

[RFBfromDE]

There is no constitutional right to an abortion

That’s been established.

However, to establish standing to be heard, they had to dig up a Roe, right?