Montgomery County Bill 21-22

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Sunrise

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 18, 2020
    5,054
    Capital Region

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,154
    Anne Arundel County
    I wonder if there's significance to the court's TRO decision date being set to late afternoon of the day before Gun Bill Day in the MGA JPC?

    Wouldn't it make it too late for us to then include anything about his decision in our submitted, written testimony? Other than the relation to the JPC hearing, the judge's schedule seems entirely arbitrary.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,953
    Marylandstan
    :thumbsup:

    Quoted...
    The court found that the New Jersey defendants “are, ‘in essence, criminalizing the conduct that the Bruen Court articulated as a core civil right.’” Id. In so holding, the court examined and rejected the same arguments advanced by the County and by the amicus in this case, including rejecting the same historical analogues cited by the County and Everytown here. The court’s analysis is compelling and directly on point.
     

    shootin the breeze

    Missed it by that much
    Dec 22, 2012
    3,878
    Highland
    I really want to see a smack down. Don't get me wrong, we have gotten some good wins but none have had the feeling of epic smack down. That will make me happy if we can get one, here in MD, from MD and not associated with from another state. Big, ass smack down!!
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,953
    Marylandstan
    Jan 30, 2023
    PAPERLESS NOTICE that a HEARING on 54 Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and 57
    Defendants Renewed Motion to Remand Counts I, II and III and Stay Counts IV through VIII is scheduled for February 6, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. before Judge Theodore D. Chuang
    at the United States Courthouse located at 6500 Cherrywood Lane in Greenbelt, Maryland. The specific courtroom for the motions hearing will be available the week of the proceeding on the Court's website. (ds2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2023)


    EDIT: Why Not on 7 Feb? LOL
     
    Last edited:

    Muff Hucka

    Member
    Jul 9, 2022
    91
    Under your bed
    Anyone want to guess whether or not the MoCo bill was a trial balloon encouraged by the MGA to see how far they could take this? Or, if it's something MGA is furious about because any court action taken against the MoCo bill effectively neuters MGA (pretty sure they're neutered in real life) attempts to diminish 2A rights?
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,953
    Marylandstan
    MSI filed a supplemental table of authority yesterday in light of the NJ ruling.

    The judge is in a real fix


    MSI filed a supplemental. Also response.


    This Response is intended to address the three new arguments raised by the amicus brief. For the reasons set forth below, those arguments lack merit and should be rejected by the Court. The Court should thus enter a TRO and a preliminary injunction because County Bill 21-22E effectively eviscerates the ability of plaintiffs, who have been issued a wear and carry permit by the Maryland State Police, to exercise their fundamental Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in the County, as recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).

    It's All a good read. Mark hits home 100%
     
    Last edited:

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,154
    Anne Arundel County
    MSI filed a supplemental. Also response.


    This Response is intended to address the three new arguments raised by the amicus brief. For the reasons set forth below, those arguments lack merit and should be rejected by the Court. The Court should thus enter a TRO and a preliminary injunction because County Bill 21-22E effectively eviscerates the ability of plaintiffs, who have been issued a wear and carry permit by the Maryland State Police, to exercise their fundamental Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in the County, as recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).

    It's All a good read. Mark hits home 100%
    I read it; pretty impressive. You'd think by now Everytown would know better than to present Mark P. with an additional attack surface, but they did, and he obliterated their arguments one by one. You'd think billions in Bloombux would could buy better legal and historical research.
     

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    Anyone want to guess whether or not the MoCo bill was a trial balloon encouraged by the MGA to see how far they could take this? Or, if it's something MGA is furious about because any court action taken against the MoCo bill effectively neuters MGA (pretty sure they're neutered in real life) attempts to diminish 2A rights?
    I wouldn't doubt it, Charles County tried something similar. Boy, did the commissioners quickly learned not to push it.
     

    Sunrise

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 18, 2020
    5,054
    Capital Region
    MSI filed a supplemental. Also response.


    This Response is intended to address the three new arguments raised by the amicus brief. For the reasons set forth below, those arguments lack merit and should be rejected by the Court. The Court should thus enter a TRO and a preliminary injunction because County Bill 21-22E effectively eviscerates the ability of plaintiffs, who have been issued a wear and carry permit by the Maryland State Police, to exercise their fundamental Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in the County, as recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).

    It's All a good read. Mark hits home 100%
    Very well written!
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,921
    I read it; pretty impressive. You'd think by now Everytown would know better than to present Mark P. with an additional attack surface, but they did, and he obliterated their arguments one by one. You'd think billions in Bloombux would could buy better legal and historical research.
    Expensive does not equal good

    When driven exclusively by ideology and identity, competency is often sacrificed at the altar for some other purpose.

    Acting in desperation does not produce cogency in briefs.

    What it achieves is the production of poor arguments, easily refuted; this can only benefit the opponent, who is thus provided with the opportunity to debunk whatever additional rationalisations a panicked litigator might feverishly conjure to save an already failed case.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,403
    Messages
    7,280,365
    Members
    33,450
    Latest member
    angel45z

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom