MSI beats Mo Co

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!
  • esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Does MSI’s loss of standing mean no portion of such damages, other than what the other plaintiffs might be sporting enough to share?
    Correct, but the damages here are associated with the takings claim and MSI as an entity did not suffer a taking.
     

    gungate

    NRA Patron Member
    Apr 5, 2012
    16,414
    Damascus. MD
    Is MSI working on MD local parks being a prohibited place for CCW? I have a trail that I walk about 3 miles long where I would like to carry due to a few animal attacks. That trail is part of the MC local park system where firearm carry is prohibited.

    Section 15. Weapons

    No person shall carry, possess, or discharge a bow and arrow, dart, firearm, ammunition for a firearm, knife with a blade longer than three (3) inches, or any other dangerous weapon on Park Property except where authorized in designated areas by Park Directive; provided, that this provision does not apply to any law enforcement officer.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Is MSI working on MD local parks being a prohibited place for CCW? I have a trail that I walk about 3 miles long where I would like to carry due to a few animal attacks. That trail is part of the MC local park system where firearm carry is prohibited.
    The Co. ordinance banning carry in local parks has been ruled invalid. Final injunctive order will be entered soon. State law, left undisturbed by SB1 controlls only State parks and State forest
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    Far as I am aware, former MoCO ammo purchase restrictions went away years ago, though places like PSA still refuse to ship to MoCo or Annapolis.

    The state has no restrictions on online ammo purchase -Yet.

    But January is creeping up on us, and the General Assembly will be doing its thing. Might as well buy a few cases of whatever you use. As we have seen, it's easier for them to create unconstitutional laws than it is to get them removed the fact.
    It's a small state. Easy enough to drive to West Virginia to stock up on ammo, where not only does Maryland not get my sales tax, West Virginia does not charge it (on ammo).

    Every gun owner in MD should be a member of MSI, and donate what additional funding you can.

    Super shout out to the volunteers at MSI!
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,052
    Montgomery County
    Will this have any effect on the class requirements for both HQL and CCW? Are we any closer to constitutional carry?
    If the HQL stays struck down (it might, or this could drag on a long time), the of course that requirement and its associated costs go away. This has no impact on what it takes to get a Wear & Carry permit.

    And no, this doesn’t put the Maryland General Assembly a millimeter closer to putting constitutional carry in place. I’d argue the opposite. Every minor victory for the 2A in this state makes them all the more passionate about defining new infringements and trying to shore up the surviving ones.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,328
    Westminster USA
    According to Mark W. Smith, the orals scheduled for January have been postponed indefinitely.

    WTF is going on in Richmond?

     

    IronEye

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 10, 2018
    781
    Howard County
    Has there been a permanent or temporary injunction issued?

    I have not seen that the judge issued his final ruling yet; wasn't that supposed to happen in 10 days after the 27-Nov ruling?

    So is 22-21 is still technically the law in Montgomery County even though the judge indicated that there is a permanent injunction forthcoming?
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,937
    Marylandstan
    The Co. ordinance banning carry in local parks has been ruled invalid. Final injunctive order will be entered soon. State law, left undisturbed by SB1 controlls only State parks and State forest

    Like These?
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,046
    Outside the Gates

    Like These?
    Not at this time. There is no suit against the preempted park prohibition.
     

    gungate

    NRA Patron Member
    Apr 5, 2012
    16,414
    Damascus. MD
    What is this law?


    Prohibiting a person from knowingly wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm in certain locations; prohibiting a person from wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm onto certain property unless the owner or owner's agent has given certain permission; altering certain provisions of law relating to the authority of the Secretary of State Police to limit the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun at certain times and locations; etc.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    No clue...
    @esqappellate - Any update?
    The Court's opinion required the parties to "meet and confer" concerning the wording of the orders (order awarding declaratory relief and the order awarding injunctive relief and the order certifying the case for immediate appeal). Needless to say, the parties could not agree. So, on Dec. 6, I submitted proposed orders, along with a motion explaining why these orders were consistent with the court's opinion. See https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=495&catid=4&m=0 And on Dec. 7 the County submitted their proposed orders which were vastly more limited than mine. The County says that they want to respond to my motion under the rules, which give them 15 days, as measured from Dec. 6. (12/21). I'll file a reply and the Court will decide when he wants.
     

    FrankZ

    Liberty = Responsibility
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 25, 2012
    3,310
    The Court's opinion required the parties to "meet and confer" concerning the wording of the orders (order awarding declaratory relief and the order awarding injunctive relief and the order certifying the case for immediate appeal). Needless to say, the parties could not agree. So, on Dec. 6, I submitted proposed orders, along with a motion explaining why these orders were consistent with the court's opinion. See https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=495&catid=4&m=0 And on Dec. 7 the County submitted their proposed orders which were vastly more limited than mine. The County says that they want to respond to my motion under the rules, which give them 15 days, as measured from Dec. 6. (12/21). I'll file a reply and the Court will decide when he wants.
    Is this just petty delay tactics or do they have a legitimate complaint?
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,107
    Messages
    7,223,407
    Members
    33,160
    Latest member
    FullBackBob

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom