SB1 - Injunctive relief is provided for private property, locations that sell alcohol, and public demonstrations.

[Raineman]

Then what?

It'll be time.

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Where can we get non-legal verbiage on what just happened? I get that we can carry still in public places and restaurants..what didn’t get overturned? I see someone mention state parks.. can we carry there now?

Click on link below, to read post #84.

Post #84

 

[Phoenix_1295]

It does seem, from reading the various law related threads, there are a number of folks who got their permits but didn’t do their reading homework.

 

[Threeband]

It does seem, from reading the various law related threads, there are a number of folks who got their permits but didn’t do their reading homework.

My W&C class required me to write a 1200 word book report on The Last of the Mohicans. Does that count?

Where can we get non-legal verbiage on what just happened? I get that we can carry still in public places and restaurants..what didn’t get overturned? I see someone mention state parks.. can we carry there now?

Nothing got overturned. This just prevents some parts of the law from being enforced until the actual cases are settled in court. The judge is saying that those parts, private property carry etc. are such obvious slam dunks to be overturned that he is ordering they not be enforced until then.

Other parts he considers more debatable, so he's allowing them to be enforced even before the final decision. For instance, he thinks the open carry ban will pass constitutional muster.

 

[sxs]

It means WaldstreiKKKer can eat a bag of dicks.

You left out the part about choking on them....

 

[sxs]

Just don't fart in church.

If you do fart in church, you may end up sitting in your own pew.

 

[sxs]

I’d be happier to see him choke on a bag of dicks.

Ahhhh, I didn't read far enough through the thread to see the option that was better than merely eating a bag.

 

[Georges2nd]

So let it be written

So let it be done


View attachment 433375


View attachment 433376

It goes with that malvany bud light

 

[Georges2nd]

Or more eloquently:

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

And the winner is

 

[Crazytrain]

And, no - State Parks are not part of the PI and are still no-go for carry.

Huh.

 

[Muleskinner]

My W&C class required me to write a 1200 word book report on The Last of the Mohicans. Does that count?



Nothing got overturned. This just prevents some parts of the law from being enforced until the actual cases are settled in court. The judge is saying that those parts, private property carry etc. are such obvious slam dunks to be overturned that he is ordering they not be enforced until then.

Other parts he considers more debatable, so he's allowing them to be enforced even before the final decision. For instance, he thinks the open carry ban will pass constitutional muster.

Wouldn't that require the state to overhaul their entire permit system since the current law allows either and the permit isn't called a concealed carry permit it's called a wear and carry permit.

 

[Threeband]

Maryland won't allow any silly little technicalities to prevent them from infringing your Constitutional rights.

 

[swinokur]

Open carry was never contested in the lawsuit..

You are still carrying it. Just must be concealed

 

[gab]

These are great news, but not great enough. I have a huge concern with how the courts are trending in their interpretation of Bruen with respect to the historical analysis. Both the MoCo judge that denied the Preliminary injunction and the judge on Friday are treating 1868 (14th ammendment ratification) as valid historical precedent... which is completely absurd. Their justification is also such bs, clearly politically motivated. That is really bad news for us. The reason the judge granted the injunction on the private property portion of SB1 was because of the racial discrimination intent of the historical laws provided as an example by the State. In the end, they are not using the intent of the 2A and the history of gun restrictions at ratification like they do for the rest of the bill of rights, but instead they are using a much more restrictive time period.

Although I'm happy the judge saw some "reason" unlike the judge in the MoCo case... it is a very concerned patter and a slap back at Bruen from the lower courts and liberal judges.

I found this interesting paper discussing similar concerns:

'Not All History Is Created Equal': In the Post-Bruen World, the Critical Period for Historical Analogues Is when the Second Amendment Was Ratified in 1791, and not 1868

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which was a major victory for the constitutional right

papers.ssrn.com

 

[MULE-JK]

The 2A prevents Govt. Infringement. Private business can do as they please

I disagree and this type of thought is what get's us to where we are now. These businesses are open to the public, therefore they are public, not private and they are not allowed to infringe on the rest of the rights we have in public. If you are legally carrying, they are not allowed to infringe upon that, just as if you are legally using your 1st Amendment rights, they may not infringe upon that. Telling someone they are not allowed to carry in a business is akin to telling someone they are not allowed to speak if they enter your business or making them wear tape over their mouth. Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded place or protest, or cause a ruckus is not preventing you from doing it, it makes it illegal, there is nothing physically preventing you from doing so. There are laws against using a firearm illegally, just as there are your voice. Your home, your private land are not public, make whatever rules you want for entry there.

 

[MULE-JK]

On private property? That's a little tricky. Sort of like the 1A doesn't guarantee you can spend your day in someone's private business screaming political screeds at the top of your lungs or even just politely but creepily proselytizing someone's customers. There's a difference between "no black people allowed" and "no hoodies that hide your face while you're in my place of business." I'd like to preserve the right to tell people to get out of my private property if I don't like their conduct or bearing, and so I can't very well complain when another person wants the same. Hence the "don't carry here" signs followed up by invoking trespass if someone won't leave, that's not incoherent, philosophically. Forcing me to put up a "you can carry here" sign certainly is.

See my reply to swinokur, I couldn't get the dang multi-reply to work.

 

[MULE-JK]

Form my own militia?

My friend, we are the militia.

 

[mac1_131]

Wouldn't that require the state to overhaul their entire permit system since the current law allows either and the permit isn't called a concealed carry permit it's called a wear and carry permit.

No, the current law as of 10/1 prohibits open carry.

 

[Mark75H]

My friend, we are the militia.

I beleive the quote is "The whole of the people"

 

[gab]

I beleive the quote is "The whole of the people"

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)