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!
  • pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,962
    Marylandstan
    th

    LOL. Does This Apply?
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,684
    MoCo
    I think most people that are anti-2nd also are anti-1st. Maybe even unwittingly but nevertheless, anti-1st by both action and words. Especially since, for practical purposes, the 1st has been suspended.
    Sadly this appears to be true. Years ago I read a line from someone that sums up the peoples' view on society perfectly: people don't want liberty, they want their way. Fixing this is the crux of the matter. All other issues spring from this.
     

    jmcgonig

    Active Member
    Jan 18, 2012
    544
    Germantown, MD
    Sadly this appears to be true. Years ago I read a line from someone that sums up the peoples' view on society perfectly: people don't want liberty, they want their way. Fixing this is the crux of the matter. All other issues spring from this.

    Haven't heard it said that way, very true.
     

    Sunrise

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 18, 2020
    5,387
    Capital Region
    The poor fella. Finds himself struggling over what “is” is.
    Yup. It's embarrassing. He's a disgrace to the judiciary IMHO, and if by some reason he decides to rule in favor of MoCo in the face of Bruen, I hope the smackdown he gets on appeal leaves a lasting mark that dead-ends his career. This is a Judge who should not be on the bench.
     

    Athelney878

    Active Member
    Jan 9, 2021
    201
    Montgomery County
    Denial of a constitutional right constitutes irreparable harm under the PI framework. That is supposed to be all the urgency a judge needs.

    Beyond the legal framework, as I see it the practical urgency is tied to the rash of crimes being committed (car jackings, murders, etc.) in these 100 yard no-self-defense zones in MoCo. It is not hypothetical that people who are legally required to be unarmed are being victimized in the areas covered by this unconstitutional law.
     

    Sunrise

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 18, 2020
    5,387
    Capital Region
    Sadly this appears to be true. Years ago I read a line from someone that sums up the peoples' view on society perfectly: people don't want liberty, they want their way. Fixing this is the crux of the matter. All other issues spring from this.
    Well said.

    This is a good corollary to: It's not about hypocrisy. It's about hierarchy.

    People will look past their own hypocrisy and that of others if it advances their desired hierarchy.

    We're seeing this play out in real-time in MoCo.
     

    Sunrise

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 18, 2020
    5,387
    Capital Region
    Denial of a constitutional right constitutes irreparable harm under the PI framework. That is supposed to be all the urgency a judge needs.

    Beyond the legal framework, as I see it the practical urgency is tied to the rash of crimes being committed (car jackings, murders, etc.) in these 100 yard no-self-defense zones in MoCo. It is not hypothetical that people who are legally required to be unarmed are being victimized in the areas covered by this unconstitutional law.
    Apparently this effective abrogation of an enumerated constitutional right wasn't urgent enough for the Judge, which begs the question, "What would be?".
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    31,114
    Sadly this appears to be true. Years ago I read a line from someone that sums up the peoples' view on society perfectly: people don't want liberty, they want their way. Fixing this is the crux of the matter. All other issues spring from this.

    All too true. And it is frightening, in these days of selective entitlement and brain-bending manipulation of our "thoughts" and opinions.

    I've elsewhere posted a link to a study of the under-30 set, regarding their concerns about "hate speech." They were queried whether they though that the death penalty might be appropriate under certain extreme circumstances, for those whose words were particularly troubling.

    A surprising number though that this would be OK.

    Here's a link:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,826
    Messages
    7,297,442
    Members
    33,526
    Latest member
    Comotion357

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom