hodgepodge
Senior Member (Gold)
Not at all. Mine is a blatant ripoff of dblas' post.
SB1 (2023) - Criminal Law - Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms - Restrictions (Gun Safety Act of 2023)
- Thread starter dblas
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Contemplating a repeat of my "I have come here to chew bubblegum, and fight tyranny ...."
Or maybe just :
This legalize abortion of a Bill has NO chance of passing Constitutional muster.
If you're intent on wasting taxpayer money on this fool's errand, I say "Lay on Mcduff. And damned be he who first cries, 'Hold. Enough'.
And also, I have ordered a Shine Box for everyone of you in favor of this Bill"
We stopped caring about those country's laws in 1776
Mostly. Except the founders said “Fine, I'm gonna make my own common law! With blackjack...and hookers... In fact, forget the common law!”
The people of Maryland didn't actually stop carrying about English Common Law after the founding. In article 5, the Maryland constitution references that the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to English Common Law.
I was surprised by this when I read it, but when considering that the US didn't have much in the way of laws and legal standards after the founding it would make sense that some of the states wanted a common reference point.
It's also interesting because the right to keep and bear arms was held in English Common Law from that time period. There's a lot of discussions around this topic in the Bruen and other decisions, and related scholarship.
Link to MD constitution: https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html
Art. 5. (a)
(1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity; and also of all Acts of Assembly in force on the first day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; except such as may have since expired, or may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution; subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State. And the Inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property derived to them from, or under the Charter granted by His Majesty Charles the First to Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.
(2) Legislation may be enacted that limits the right to trial by jury in civil proceedings to those proceedings in which the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000 (added by Chapter 422, Acts of 2006, ratified Nov. 7, 2006; amended by Chapter 480, Acts of 2010, ratified Nov. 2, 2010).
(b) The parties to any civil proceeding in which the right to a jury trial is preserved are entitled to a trial by jury of at least 6 jurors.
(c) That notwithstanding the Common Law of England, nothing in this Constitution prohibits trial by jury of less than 12 jurors in any civil proceeding in which the right to a jury trial is preserved (amended by Chapters 203, 204, Acts of 1992, ratified Nov. 3, 1992).
I was surprised by this when I read it, but when considering that the US didn't have much in the way of laws and legal standards after the founding it would make sense that some of the states wanted a common reference point.
It's also interesting because the right to keep and bear arms was held in English Common Law from that time period. There's a lot of discussions around this topic in the Bruen and other decisions, and related scholarship.
Link to MD constitution: https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html
Art. 5. (a)
(1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity; and also of all Acts of Assembly in force on the first day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; except such as may have since expired, or may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution; subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State. And the Inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property derived to them from, or under the Charter granted by His Majesty Charles the First to Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.
(2) Legislation may be enacted that limits the right to trial by jury in civil proceedings to those proceedings in which the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000 (added by Chapter 422, Acts of 2006, ratified Nov. 7, 2006; amended by Chapter 480, Acts of 2010, ratified Nov. 2, 2010).
(b) The parties to any civil proceeding in which the right to a jury trial is preserved are entitled to a trial by jury of at least 6 jurors.
(c) That notwithstanding the Common Law of England, nothing in this Constitution prohibits trial by jury of less than 12 jurors in any civil proceeding in which the right to a jury trial is preserved (amended by Chapters 203, 204, Acts of 1992, ratified Nov. 3, 1992).
Liberty Doll looks freakishly like Meaghan Hall
Less forehead, bigger rack.
Snardo
Member
- Nov 25, 2019
- 41
I apologize if this type of thing has already been shared but I have emailed my representatives in the state legislature and thought I'd share the content of my email in case anyone else wants to reach out but doesn't think they have the right words. Not saying mine are the "right" words, but I feel like I've expressed myself well here. Feel free to use whatever parts of this you like.
I am writing to you to urge you to vote NO on MD SB1 which prohibits the wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation. Not only does this bill violate the second amendment of the United States Constitution, it also expressly violates the decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer in NY Rifle & Pistol Assoc. V. Bruen. In that decision the Court expressed the following (directly quoting from the majority decision):
"Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. In their view, “sensitive places” where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all “places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.” Brief for Respondents 34. It is true that people sometimes congregate in “sensitive places,” and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.
Obviously, the same reasoning applies to the Maryland Legislature's attempts to effectively declare the entire state of Maryland a "sensitive place". While the words "sensitive place" are not used in SB1, the intent and effect are the same.
As you can see, a NO vote on this bill will avoid costly court proceedings that will invariably result in the invalidation of SB1 and will thus save potentially millions of MD tax payer dollars that could be better spent on improving the lives of Marylanders.
I am writing to you to urge you to vote NO on MD SB1 which prohibits the wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation. Not only does this bill violate the second amendment of the United States Constitution, it also expressly violates the decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer in NY Rifle & Pistol Assoc. V. Bruen. In that decision the Court expressed the following (directly quoting from the majority decision):
"Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. In their view, “sensitive places” where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all “places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.” Brief for Respondents 34. It is true that people sometimes congregate in “sensitive places,” and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.
Obviously, the same reasoning applies to the Maryland Legislature's attempts to effectively declare the entire state of Maryland a "sensitive place". While the words "sensitive place" are not used in SB1, the intent and effect are the same.
As you can see, a NO vote on this bill will avoid costly court proceedings that will invariably result in the invalidation of SB1 and will thus save potentially millions of MD tax payer dollars that could be better spent on improving the lives of Marylanders.
People still think talking to the communist Borg might change their mind. ?
That’s cute
I don't know if it was mentioned elsewhere but the more anti states try this then the more likely we end up with a circuit split and it gets teed up for SCOTUS to knock it down again.
Since Bruen was a 6-3 opinion it's entirely conceivable a per curiam could vaporize any potential bad 4th circuit ruling without even having to hear the case. But right now it's not looking good for the antis in the CA2 & 3 district courts. These judges don't like to go out on a limb and buck the trend which is what would be the case here if one rules these new laws pass muster.
Given the whole Court took on the Antonyuk TRO issue, I don't think we need to wait for a circuit split on "sensitive places", especially when the laws being challenged were advertised by their advocates specifically as ways to short-circuit Bruen. Courts don't like having their decisions treated with contempt.
Restoring 2A rights will be a multi-year, and at times very painful, process. But I think in the end we'll prevail on the key issues, even if the statist are still nibbling around the edges of the right for years to come.
Last edited:
Snardo
Member
- Nov 25, 2019
- 41
I don't have everything in front of me, but according to one take I heard recently, the NJ approach of designating essentially everything a "sensitive place" was more or less "approved of" at the Appeals court level and SCOTUS has declined to hear the matter. That makes me more than a little worried that something similar could happen in MD which would leave us with no further opportunity to fight it's implementation.
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
Inaccurate take
NJ has been stayed at the DC level
NY had their stay vacated by 2CA but it's been put on a fast track hearing.
I think you're thinking of the Antonyuk case from NY. 2CA stayed the TRO without any explanation. SCOTUS declined to lift the stay not on the merits, but as a process issue because the case is still being argued at 2CA, and because no reasoning was provided. SCOTUS left the door open for further SCOTUS action if 2CA didn't come up with a justification for it stay in a timely manner.
sleev-les
Prestige Worldwide
I think SCOTUS is reapecting the process. They already warned the 2nd Circuit about doing the right thing. They aren’t granting the emergency requests to bypass lower courts. Meaning we have more time to deal with.
I think I understood those requests correctly
Was NJ TRO stayed, or is there an active TRO?
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
Last I saw the TRO was in effect and that a TRO can't be appealed
Slackdaddy
My pronouns: Iva/Bigun
- Jan 1, 2019
- 5,962
Things are different from the days of Mike Miller and Busch,, They were politicians, they wanted to stay in their cozy offices and get invited to the Annapolis dinner parties.
The MGA is now made up of radical activists,, They are singularly focused on "fundamental transformation" and their hatred of the heterosexual white male. They don't give a damn if 6 million Marylanders showed up, they will not change course.
The MGA is now made up of radical activists,, They are singularly focused on "fundamental transformation" and their hatred of the heterosexual white male. They don't give a damn if 6 million Marylanders showed up, they will not change course.
