MSI v. Hogan - The Challenge Against the Handgun Qualification License Proceeds

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!
  • Well they’re going to be tempted no matter what at this point.
    It’s just what possible law could they pass to accomplish their objective (less public carry) and still have it be constitutional?
    IMO they’re basically maxed out. Anything else they could add would get more and more ridiculous and would be smacked down quickly.
    They'll continue to do what they have been doing passing bills that they know to be unconstitutional but will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more and take years to challenge to the court system. Eventually if they do that enough they will bankrupt the second amendment advocacy groups and then there will be no one to fight on our side and at that point they can do whatever they want.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    I don't know what more they could throw against the wall at this point, but who knows.
    They can throw a nearly infinite number of rabidly unConstitutional bills at the citizenry, in every legislative session in every Dem-controlled state legislature.

    And that's what they're doing.

    The game is "Break the bank of the Conservatives" until they can fix enough elections to produce another Progressive SCOTUS. It's a long game. It may break the Republic, as well.
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,367
    White Marsh
    Are these cases not eligible for reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees if/when decided against the state? They're civil rights violations.

    Sure, those fees would ultimately come from the pockets of ordinary citizens, but it wouldn't serve to bankrupt the foundations pursuing legal action. Between any fee relief, the methodical nature of the suits (suing when it's quite likely to win and set good precedent), and donations from pro-2A folks, I'd expect these foundations are not seriously aching for cash. Never flush, for sure. But not teetering on collapse, either.

    Then again, I know nothing. :)
     

    coinboy

    Yeah, Sweet Lemonade.
    Oct 22, 2007
    4,480
    Howard County
    Are these cases not eligible for reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees if/when decided against the state? They're civil rights violations.

    Sure, those fees would ultimately come from the pockets of ordinary citizens, but it wouldn't serve to bankrupt the foundations pursuing legal action. Between any fee relief, the methodical nature of the suits (suing when it's quite likely to win and set good precedent), and donations from pro-2A folks, I'd expect these foundations are not seriously aching for cash. Never flush, for sure. But not teetering on collapse, either.

    Then again, I know nothing. :)
    I was curious about the same thing.

    I thought if a civil right was violated by the legislature, the plantiffs could sue for damages and legal fees.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    I was curious about the same thing.

    I thought if a civil right was violated by the legislature, the plaintiffs could sue for damages and legal fees.
    I suspect the Legislature has deftly protected itself from any attempt to lay the blame on lawmakers for their actions, however unConstitutional or reprehensible they may be.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,156
    I suspect the Legislature has deftly protected itself from any attempt to lay the blame on lawmakers for their actions, however unConstitutional or reprehensible they may be.
    If the legislature is not careful they will end up with a Judge overseeing what they do and having to approve it. Look at the states that fought the civil rights judgements post Brown v Board of Education.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    If the legislature is not careful they will end up with a Judge overseeing what they do and having to approve it. Look at the states that fought the civil rights judgements post Brown v Board of Education.
    Look at the Dept of Justice, and the administration that gives it orders.

    I don't see them opposing any outrageous unconstitutional crap; even under Trump they had their own agenda, and nobody was going to tell them any different.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    Are these cases not eligible for reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees if/when decided against the state? They're civil rights violations.

    Sure, those fees would ultimately come from the pockets of ordinary citizens, but it wouldn't serve to bankrupt the foundations pursuing legal action. Between any fee relief, the methodical nature of the suits (suing when it's quite likely to win and set good precedent), and donations from pro-2A folks, I'd expect these foundations are not seriously aching for cash. Never flush, for sure. But not teetering on collapse, either.

    Then again, I know nothing. :)
    If the case is won by our side, yes. But the amount rarely coms to what was actually spent on th case by our side.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    I was curious about the same thing.

    I thought if a civil right was violated by the legislature, the plantiffs could sue for damages and legal fees.
    ALL Legislatures at every level are exempt from civil rights suits.
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,866
    AA County
    ALL Legislatures at every level are exempt from civil rights suits.
    ...but not violating a directive of the courts. At a minimum, the judge can hold them in contempt and issue a warrant for their arrest. I'm sure there might be a Sheriff or two willing to make the arrest.


    .

    Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    ...but not violating a directive of the courts. At a minimum, the judge can hold them in contempt and issue a warrant for their arrest. I'm sure there might be a Sheriff or two willing to make the arrest.


    .

    Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
    I'm certain there'd be no shortage of volunteers to be deputized to aid in the arrest.

    Me! Me! Deputize me!!!


    (Do we practice "ley de fuga" here? Seems ideal, somehow.)
    (Merely a pleasant fantasy, I assure you.)
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    ALL Legislatures at every level are exempt from civil rights suits.
    Well, its a little more complicated. All States can be sued under 1983 for prospective relief, viz., injunctive and declaratory relief, but not more damages. Damages are barred by the State's sovereign immunity. But injunctive relief is not as the suit is directed against the State official (e.g., the Governor) in his official capacity under Ex Parte Young. The theory being that soverneign immunity does not protect the state official acting unconstitutionally for purposes of prospective injunctive relief. Now, damages ARE available against municipalities under Monell. Why? Because the SCT held that any sovereign immunity of these subordinate gov. entities has been waived by Congress in enacting Section 1983. Clear as mud, I know.
     

    FrankZ

    Liberty = Responsibility
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 25, 2012
    3,334
    Well, its a little more complicated. All States can be sued under 1983 for prospective relief, viz., injunctive and declaratory relief, but not more damages. Damages are barred by the State's sovereign immunity. But injunctive relief is not as the suit is directed against the State official (e.g., the Governor) in his official capacity under Ex Parte Young. The theory being that soverneign immunity does not protect the state official acting unconstitutionally for purposes of prospective injunctive relief. Now, damages ARE available against municipalities under Monell. Why? Because the SCT held that any sovereign immunity of these subordinate gov. entities has been waived by Congress in enacting Section 1983. Clear as mud, I know.
    Where do we get to the ability to tar and feather?
     

    King of COD

    Active Member
    Jul 24, 2022
    117
    Baltimore
    6a954b2f2ee33a711b60038cf9c2fafa.jpg

    Bruen decision was 35 pages. Everyone wants you to believe Foot note 9 prevails.
    THAT FOOTNOTE 9 shit was the death of me it is wat it is no way around it…
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,367
    White Marsh
    Where do we get to the ability to tar and feather?

    It is one of our natural born rights as human beings, to overthrow those who would oppress us. It is not granted by any document. It is of course one of the fundamental reasons that the pre-existing rights codified by the 2A were done so. It's harder to overthrow your oppressors with sticks and stones than it is a bunch of rifles and ammo.

    It is of course no wonder that public education in this country is, with notable and commendable exceptions, a roaring dumpster fire. Rifles and ammo are nice, but without an appropriate education that make such truths as the above self-evident to a critical mass of the population, the rifles and ammo don't mean terribly much.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,238
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom