He can't find any wine to drink, Andrea Chambley bought up most of the boxes in the state last Thursday, she bought out the rest today.
He can't find any wine to drink, Andrea Chambley bought up most of the boxes in the state last Thursday, she bought out the rest today.
I just had a thought about this. A business has to post a sign saying you can (as opposed to "cannot") carry a firearm. However, carrying a firearm is now a civil right (Bruen). If you have to post a sign to exercise a civil right, I believe that fails under 1A as compelled speech (as the government cannot force you to speak). Thoughts?https://apnews.com/article/us-supre...kathy-hochul-7df2c33a805cc1d99b2dd430675d3d53
New York State appears poised to go forward with its plan to make all businesses off limits to concealed carry by default.
We'll see how long the courts allow that and if any other states follow suit.
With the 2nd Amendment prominently highlighted.How can we thank him for taking his oath of office to uphold our constitutional rights? Maybe sending a bunch of mini booklets on the constitution to his office might be a thankful gesture. He definitely deserves some token of our appreciation for his role in firmly establishing these rights.
"large capacity" magazine are LEGAL to own/carry/use in Maryland, you can't transfer/manufacture/but them in Maryland. No reason to be arrested for legally using them.Yes and No.
I would not risk it and go out and get arrested for having a mag, or AW.
however IF you did.
Any lawyer worth his salt, would have your case “stayed in abeyance” in light of Bruen and awaiting final decisions of Bianchi v Frosh, Duncan v Bonta, ANJRPC v Platkin
The reason I would not carry a AW or a High capacity Mag yet, is that it would cost you an arrest on your record, and hurt your pocketbook in hiring a lawyer.
You would still eventually get the case dismissed, and maybe even the arrest record wiped, but it would still cost you many $$$$$$
Perfectly legal to carry a standard capacity magazine when carrying concealed. I do all the time.If a MD resident can travel to VA and come home with 10+ mags, is it the consensus here that a MD resident with a CCW cannot legally carry a firearm that is designed for one?
Yes I think it’ll fail. I do think private property owners could ban. But as a constitutional right, I think the Thomas court would frown on a proactive ban that businesses would have to opt in.I just had a thought about this. A business has to post a sign saying you can (as opposed to "cannot") carry a firearm. However, carrying a firearm is now a civil right (Bruen). If you have to post a sign to exercise a civil right, I believe that fails under 1A as compelled speech (as the government cannot force you to speak). Thoughts?
Yeah they'd be free to regulate on private propertyYes I think it’ll fail. I do think private property owners could ban. But as a constitutional right, I think the Thomas court would frown on a proactive ban that businesses would have to opt in.
They are calling it the vampire clause on Twitter. You have to invite them in.Yes I think it’ll fail. I do think private property owners could ban. But as a constitutional right, I think the Thomas court would frown on a proactive ban that businesses would have to opt in.
Maybe they can just come in anyway. I feel like the invitation thing is a myth. Business owners should put up some strings of garlic to see if it wards off concealed carriers instead.They are calling it the vampire clause on Twitter. You have to invite them in.
The En Banc Panel, and the exact same 11 justices as well.Procedural question for @jcutonilli (or anyone else who knows the answer) :
When a case is GVRed, and the case in question was decided en banc by the appellate court, is it the en banc panel that has to rewrite its opinion, or is it the original 3 judge panel that has to do so?
It's not unusual for en bancs to take the lazy way out, and kick is back down to the appeals court with "see new guidance".The En Banc Panel, and the exact same 11 justices as well.
if no En Banc then the original 3 justices.
Except that in several of these cases, the original appellate judge had been reversed by the en banc body.It's not unusual for en bancs to take the lazy way out, and kick is back down to the appeals court with "see new guidance".
The 9th has been known to use the tactic.
O'Scannlain is going to enjoy this.It's not unusual for en bancs to take the lazy way out, and kick is back down to the appeals court with "see new guidance".
The 9th has been known to use the tactic.
It's not unusual for en bancs to take the lazy way out, and kick is back down to the appeals court with "see new guidance".
The 9th has been known to use the tactic.
Except that in several of these cases, the original appellate judge had been reversed by the en banc body.
One other interesting note. The three Justice panel on the 9th circuit with Justice Bumatay, have already reopened and started final proceedings on at least two cases.
Rupp v Bonta, and Miller V Bonta. Both AWB cases.
Miller “won” win Benitez found it unconstitutional, 3 justices upheld it and now sent it back to district.
Rupp ”lost” and the three Justice ppanel with Bumatay on it, vacated and remanded back to district in light of Miller and Bruen
Scheduling is setup to be complete in 90 days.
Bernard Getz approves !Once upon a time, I lived in New York and was a holder of an unrestricted carry license. With that unrestricted carry license I was able to carry in bars, movie theaters, sporting events, hospitals and on mass transit. Schools, jails, courts and airports were the only off limits locations.
NY (and MD) are not going to be able to get away with the "sensitive place" restrictions they are proposing. If these areas were truly sensitive, they would have been off limits for decades.
States are not going to be able to ban carry on mass transit because:
a) there is an acute need for self defense there as anyone who has ridden on a NYC subway or MD metro subway knows and
b) prohibiting carry on mass transit discriminates against those who can't afford a car and has a racially disparate impact.
It will be similar for restaurant carry. A prohibition on carrying firearms while drinking and/or intoxicated can survive strict scrutiny. A prohibition on carrying firearms just because the restaurant you're eating at has a drink menu will not.
Totally agree with your post. They will not be able to ban carry at all these places, no way.
For the bar/restaurant alcohol issue……Florida does it like this. You CAN carry into any establishment however you cannot be in the “bar area”. If you walk into a Chilis you must go sit in the restaurant part, not the bar part. It’s really dumb imo but I guess it works we really don’t have many shootings from CCW’s in bars down here.
There was a shooting outside at an indoor/outdoor establishment in Saint Augustine, FL two years ago. Apparently a drunk bar patron came out to the patio area, slapped some random guys wife, then punched the husband in the face and told him he was “going to kill him” …..the husband pulled his pistol and shot the guy in the outside patio portion of the establishment. No arrest, no charges, he did have a FL CCW permit
That's inflation for you. Maryland's "two weeks" has expanded to "three months"
"Antimony" may be replaced by "Antinomian".
{The distinction between antinomian and other Christian views on moral law is that antinomians believe that obedience to the law is motivated by an internal principle flowing from belief rather than from any external compulsion. Thus following one's personal belief that natural law insists that the organism may, indeed ought to defend its existence would take precedence over laws which deny such a right for the sake of the "greater good" of the community, or, more likely, of its leaders.)
Sorry about that, if you actually read it. Sometimes I can't help myself; I get trapped in a mental cul-de-sac, and have to write myself out.