Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[Sunrise]

While we wait:



"Experts raise safety concerns". That's a good one.

 

[teratos]

While we wait:



"Experts raise safety concerns". That's a good one.

Experts in what?

Experts in public health and firearms disagree.

 

[Sunrise]

Experts in what?

Experts in public health and firearms disagree.

Grifting.

Continuing to grift in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[teratos]

Grifting.

Continuing to grift in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This makes sense.

 

[Tower43]

I think this NEEDS to be done. They know what they are doing violates the Constitution.

Even Jamie Raskin, in his couched statement of detest of SCOTUS, admitted it was unconstitutional

Thety can pass whatever they want. And those laws will have immediate TRO/PIs slapped on them by lower level courts because their illegality will be well- defined by precedent.

AFAIK, a law struck by a court in the same jurisdiction, or a superior jurisdiction, sets the precedent... they cannot pass the law.

 

[Allen65]

Even Jamie Raskin, in his couched statement of detest of SCOTUS, admitted it was unconstitutional

AFAIK, a law struck by a court in the same jurisdiction, or a superior jurisdiction, sets the precedent... they cannot pass the law.

There no mechanism in law for a court to prevent a legislature from passing any bill they want to. Precedent only comes into play when someone challenges the constitutionality of the law in court. MDGA can pass anything they want to, it's the Judicial Branch's problem to clean up the mess after the fact.

 

[coinboy]

There no mechanism in law for a court to prevent a legislature from passing any bill they want to. Precedent only comes into play when someone challenges the constitutionality of the law in court. MDGA can pass anything they want to, it's the Judicial Branch's problem to clean up the mess after the fact.

Isn't there an attorney for the legislature that notifies them that they are about to pass an illegal law? I also thought the AG had the ability to notify the legislature of the illegal law and prevent enforcement?

I thought that was the purpose of the Bruen hearing.

 

[Allen65]

Isn't there an attorney for the legislature that notifies them that they are about to pass an illegal law? I also thought the AG had the ability to notify the legislature of the illegal law and prevent enforcement?

I thought that was the purpose of the Bruen hearing.

Yes, yes, and yes, but none actually prevents a bill from being passed, even if the MDGA's counsel and the AG say it'll be unenforceable. Responsible legislators wouldn't waste committee or floor time on such a bill, but the key word here is "responsible".

And how often is a vote on a sure to lose bill forced in the US House or Senate just to create a voting record to be used as election ad fodder?

Even when there are legislative rules in place to provide limits, like process delays to allow time to contemplate and debate, they can be bypassed. A shining example is the concept of the "Legislative Day" (or whatever the MD Senate and House Leadership calls it), several of which can fit into a single calendar day.

 

[coinboy]

Yes, yes, and yes, but none actually prevents a bill from being passed, even if the MDGA's counsel and the AG say it'll be unenforceable. Responsible legislators wouldn't waste committee or floor time on such a bill, but the key word here is "responsible".

And how often is a vote on a sure to lose bill forced in the US House or Senate just to create a voting record to be used as election ad fodder?

Even when there are legislative rules in place to provide limits, like process delays to allow time to contemplate and debate, they can be bypassed. A shining example is the concept of the "Legislative Day" (or whatever the MD Senate and House Leadership calls it), several of which can fit into a single calendar day.

Okay, so if the AG and MDGA say the law or bill is unenforceable, then we win right?

 

[Occam]

Okay, so if the AG and MDGA say the law or bill is unenforceable, then we win right?

We win the right to spend lots of money and time fighting it in court. We do not win any sort of automatic removal of the bill. If the legislature wants to pretend (or are dumb enough to actually believe) that their bill somehow passes constitutional muster, that is their judgement and prerogative. Our system of checks and balances is almost always a secondary, after-the-fact cleanup process.

 

[coinboy]

We win the right to spend lots of money and time fighting it in court. We do not win any sort of automatic removal of the bill. If the legislature wants to pretend (or are dumb enough to actually believe) that their bill somehow passes constitutional muster, that is their judgement and prerogative. Our system of checks and balances is almost always a secondary, after-the-fact cleanup process.

Hypothetically speaking,

If the AG and MDGA both say the bill or law is unenforceable then why do we need to fight it in court if no enforcement agency can actually enforce it?

 

[swinokur]

It needs to be off the books

 

[MeatGrinder]

It needs to be off the books

Agreed, to hear them say "well, we're not going to enforce it at this moment " is not much of a victory.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

As long as it's on the books they can begin enforcement of it at an opportune moment for them.

 

[Allen65]

As long as it's on the books they can begin enforcement of it at an opportune moment for them.

The problem is as long as they have a promulgated policy of nonenforcement, nobody has standing to sue to get it adjudicated unconstitutional. The standing issue was why the first Antonyuk suit in NY was thrown out.

 

[Occam]

Hypothetically speaking,

If the AG and MDGA both say the bill or law is unenforceable then why do we need to fight it in court if no enforcement agency can actually enforce it?

Because even after they say so ... AND after they leave office, with a new administration and legislature in their place, the law is still right there on the books. When it's only a moment's whim on the part of the law enforcement stack (from the beat officers, through command, all the way up to the AG) to decide that the law is sitting there, ready to be used to prosecute someone, then there it is: waiting for YOU to be the guy that is the first lucky winner. Their opinions don't make the law go away. Having it struck down by the court does. So they will pass it, and we'll have to fight, as usual.

 

[swinokur]

Pree cisely

 

[Mark75H]

Historically MGA has ignored their own council, MD AG and MSP. It doesn’t matter what the legal eagles tell them when they have been bought and paid for -um - I mean made up their minds. Yeah, that’s the ticket, yeah! They’ve already made up their minds.

 

[teratos]

Why would ANYONE trust the State to pass a law and not enforce it? Why go through the trouble of passing it?

 

[dblas]

Isn't there an attorney for the legislature that notifies them that they are about to pass an illegal law? I also thought the AG had the ability to notify the legislature of the illegal law and prevent enforcement?

I thought that was the purpose of the Bruen hearing.

Yes there is, but Bruen only ruled on G&S, not sensitive places. While the ruling touched on what or may not be considered sensitive places, the Bruen decision did define them nor rule on them. Hence the new laws by states trying to see what is/is not a sensitive place. Welcome to what could be considered Bruen 2 lawsuits.