"Sensitive" places restrictions on wear and carry currently that should not be.

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!
  • BurkeM

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2014
    889
    Baltimore
    Based on NYSRPA v Bruen, virtually all of the existing prohibitions on possessing firearms (with a permit) will be eliminated by litigation over the next 18-24 months.

    Antonyuk and GOA (Gun Owners of America) have already filed a lawsuit against NY (Bruen II) challenging new “sensitive places” and training requirements passed by Albany last month.

     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,102
    COMAR - Code of Maryland REGULATIONS.

    Policy, not LAW.
    Which is going to lead to your arrest. Statute empowers the executive branch to permit or deny carry of firearms or dangerous weapons on or in any state property.

    Guess what the state general services administration decided to do.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,102
    Based on NYSRPA v Bruen, virtually all of the existing prohibitions on possessing firearms (with a permit) will be eliminated by litigation over the next 18-24 months.

    Antonyuk and GOA (Gun Owners of America) have already filed a lawsuit against NY (Bruen II) challenging new “sensitive places” and training requirements passed by Albany last month.

    Probably many, yes. But that is then and this is now. Unless one wants to be the test case. And some are likely to remain.

    I agree if someone really wants to push “in a rest stop” specifically SCOTUS will probably overturn that.

    “In a government building” I am going to guess they won’t. Or at best they will provide guidance that the government building must have security physically present or something along those lines.

    I prefer not to F around and find out. As it isn’t BGOS right now, it is current reality. Regulation and statute, for now, say no go.

    Just like I wouldn’t go carrying in another state without a permit there or if they don’t recognize a permit I do have. Yeah, maybe SCOTUS will force reciprocity and my charges will get dropped. Or they won’t. Either way I am in for a world of hurt.

    Sure thing concealed means concealed. Unless I print. Or the guy next to me likes checking out other dudes cocks while taking a piss and sees my piece, I mean my other piece, and calls the cops while I am taking a piss at a rest stop. Or my handgun drops on the floor by accident while I am fumbling with my pants or wiping my ass.

    I can just quick lock it in my vehicle for the 2 minutes to go to the bathroom to avoid the unlikelihood I am about to have an arrest record and possibly a future conviction. Hopefully SCOTUS knocks down that non-sense.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 22, 2009
    50,376
    Bel Air
    The state has to very narrowly tailor the rules. They have to meet THT.

    If there is a rule from the 18th century saying you may not carry a musket when dropping a deuce, they are golden.

    Making the crapper a “sensitive area” is gonna be tough. Are crimes committed at rest stops? Does the State provide security at rest stops that can prevent all crime?

    Self defense is a civil right. If this rule exists, it is unconstitutional and I will ignore it.
     

    sclag22

    Member
    Jan 9, 2013
    561
    Fred Co.
    I see no carry in public schools. But a privately owned building that is rented out to a private educational organization...and also partially leased to a LEO organization for training. Would that be good to go?

    I want to say yes but seems too simple.
     

    Boondock Saint

    W&C Application Data: https://tinyurl.com/42xwvkht
    Dec 11, 2008
    22,052
    White Marsh
    What "sensitive places?"

    The person who seeks a carry permit is about 20x more law abiding than the average citizen, and something like 8x more law abiding than the average LEO. This is exactly the person you can trust to carry functionally anywhere.

    "Sensitive place," my ass.

    The idea of "sensitive places" is nonsense.
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    4,868
    Carroll County!
    If a rest stop is state property then so is the highway . You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I’ll open carry at the rest stop Monday,


    Sent from an undisclosed location.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Based on NYSRPA v Bruen, virtually all of the existing prohibitions on possessing firearms (with a permit) will be eliminated by litigation over the next 18-24 months.

    Antonyuk and GOA (Gun Owners of America) have already filed a lawsuit against NY (Bruen II) challenging new “sensitive places” and training requirements passed by Albany last month.


    it will take much much longer, unless NY concedes. which they will not do.

    Here is what will happen.

    First off the first hearing is over an injunction. if They loose the injunction they will file an appeal on that decision to a. Judge panel of the appeals court. This will add 6-9 months to the case and possibly even a year. Whoever looses That appeal will request a 11 Justice En Banc hearing. That will add another 9 months to a year. Whoever looses that then will file for cert with the US Supreme Court. That could take a year to year and a half.

    That only covers the injunction… if the Supreme Court denies hearing that case, on the injunction, probably cause they will want to wait to hear the entire case… so then it’s back to district court to actually decide the case. That’s another 9 -12 months. Then whoever looses will appeal to the 3 judge panel. Then to En Banc, then to the Supreme Court. All in all if no delays no extension of time. No one conceding. It could take 4-5 more years for a decision.

    HOWEVER…. If we win our injunction… they just May concede And it will be in our favor. if the Three judge panel and En Banc uphold the injunction. Odds are SCOTUS will deny cert on NY. Then they may concede.

    However if they don’t it’s going to be a long battle.

    Same thing goes with all the GVR’d cases and any new cases.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Probably many, yes. But that is then and this is now. Unless one wants to be the test case. And some are likely to remain.

    I agree if someone really wants to push “in a rest stop” specifically SCOTUS will probably overturn that.

    “In a government building” I am going to guess they won’t. Or at best they will provide guidance that the government building must have security physically present or something along those lines.

    I prefer not to F around and find out. As it isn’t BGOS right now, it is current reality. Regulation and statute, for now, say no go.

    Just like I wouldn’t go carrying in another state without a permit there or if they don’t recognize a permit I do have. Yeah, maybe SCOTUS will force reciprocity and my charges will get dropped. Or they won’t. Either way I am in for a world of hurt.

    Sure thing concealed means concealed. Unless I print. Or the guy next to me likes checking out other dudes cocks while taking a piss and sees my piece, I mean my other piece, and calls the cops while I am taking a piss at a rest stop. Or my handgun drops on the floor by accident while I am fumbling with my pants or wiping my ass.

    I can just quick lock it in my vehicle for the 2 minutes to go to the bathroom to avoid the unlikelihood I am about to have an arrest record and possibly a future conviction. Hopefully SCOTUS knocks down that non-sense.
    One of the reasons I will avoid rest stops. I have a nice new off road Bronco. So will pull off the road as far as possible. Hopefully around trees. Position my vehicle in a way that when I open the doors. No one will be able see me pull out my piece and relieve the pressure build up!

    If an officer pulls over… i will have plenty of time to re holster my piece.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,102
    If a rest stop is state property then so is the highway . You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I’ll open carry at the rest stop Monday,


    Sent from an undisclosed location.
    The highway is too. They haven't attempted to ban carry on highways. However, if you notice, there are plenty of state laws related to firearms and public roads (most of them related to hunting).
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,102
    it will take much much longer, unless NY concedes. which they will not do.

    Here is what will happen.

    First off the first hearing is over an injunction. if They loose the injunction they will file an appeal on that decision to a. Judge panel of the appeals court. This will add 6-9 months to the case and possibly even a year. Whoever looses That appeal will request a 11 Justice En Banc hearing. That will add another 9 months to a year. Whoever looses that then will file for cert with the US Supreme Court. That could take a year to year and a half.

    That only covers the injunction… if the Supreme Court denies hearing that case, on the injunction, probably cause they will want to wait to hear the entire case… so then it’s back to district court to actually decide the case. That’s another 9 -12 months. Then whoever looses will appeal to the 3 judge panel. Then to En Banc, then to the Supreme Court. All in all if no delays no extension of time. No one conceding. It could take 4-5 more years for a decision.

    HOWEVER…. If we win our injunction… they just May concede And it will be in our favor. if the Three judge panel and En Banc uphold the injunction. Odds are SCOTUS will deny cert on NY. Then they may concede.

    However if they don’t it’s going to be a long battle.

    Same thing goes with all the GVR’d cases and any new cases.
    Injunctions, especially emergency injunctions generally go a lot faster than that. More likely than not if the district court denies the injunction, the appeals court likely will hear ASAP and rule. En Banc likely will not, SCOTUS might. A lot of times emergency injunctions only take 2-3 months to get up to SCOTUS depending on the true "emergency basis" that is being worked with. Other times even slower emergency injunctions only take 4-5 months to get in front of SCOTUS.

    Often times it depends on who is winning the emergency injunction request. If the injured parties win one at the district court level, the appeals court likely is not going to be in a hurry to decide whether to lift the injunction or continue it, because the injured party is not being impacted. If the district court decides to not stay, or only a partial stay, the appeals court will likely hear all of the motions and rule much sooner. Etc up the court food chain.

    While injunctions are ongoing, the district court can still be proceeding with the actual case itself. The actual case, even on a somewhat expedited manner is likely to take 8-18 months to resolve. Then add about a year at each appeal. It depends on how quickly the courts want to move things and depends on things like COVID. COVID screwed up the works BAD on cases and I am not sure that is still fully worked out between backlogs as well as restrictions. Anyway, plenty of cases can take 8-10 years for SCOTUS to make a final ruling on the initial case. Other cases where SCOTUS, and especially the court system in general, either wants to make brand new precedent, or there is STRONG existing precedent can take 2-4 years to go from initial request for an emergency injunction to SCOTUS ruling.

    For example in Dobbs, an emergency injunction was requested against the state of Mississippi the day the law went to effect and the district court issued an injunction the following day. There was strong case precedent to issue the injunction (at the time). The district court granted summary judgement and permanently enjoined the state soon after. The appeals court in December of 2019 (about a year later) basically issued the same against Mississippi. No En Banc, SCOTUS then sat on the request for cert for a couple of years because the make-up of the court wasn't likely to find favorably for MS heard it and decided. The biggest delay was SCOTUS sitting on the case for an extra term. There was no hurry in this case because the lower courts were making ruling based on existing very clear precedent and an injunction was granted right away. SCOTUS took awhile, because they were waiting for a better majority to overturn Roe.

    When things are a lot less clear, it can take a LOT longer. Or when the courts WANT to drag things out, it can take a LOT longer. Heller took a long time. Young is taking years, etc. But we have a new standard and a fairly clear direction from SCOTUS. And Thomas, and I think in general the conversative justices, want to act quickly to make it clear that the 2A is not disfavored and start setting a lot of new precedent. So at least at the SCOTUS level, I would expect them to act quickly (for SCOTUS) to rule on 2A cases that percolate up to them. Any of the GVR'd cases that they don't like the appeals/district court opinions on, expect them to hear quickly. Other ones like the NY case, I expect them to rule quickly as it directly goes against the exact opinion issued.

    Even with injunctions issued I don't see it taking 4-5 years to get a decision and opinion from SCOTUS on the NY and CA crap. I'd be surprised if it took more than 3 with injunctions issued toot sweet.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    45,553
    SoMD / West PA
    What "sensitive places?"

    The person who seeks a carry permit is about 20x more law abiding than the average citizen, and something like 8x more law abiding than the average LEO. This is exactly the person you can trust to carry functionally anywhere.

    "Sensitive place," my ass.

    The idea of "sensitive places" is nonsense.
    To limit the sensitive place nonsense.

    If a state wants to pass a law about a location to be a sensitive place, there needs to be someone to secure that space and also provide a secure area for carriers property to be secured.

    Now how do we get that put into law?
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    4,868
    Carroll County!
    The highway is too. They haven't attempted to ban carry on highways. However, if you notice, there are plenty of state laws related to firearms and public roads (most of them related to hunting).

    If the state says it is a violation to carry on state property. It is illegal , but you seem to say highway carry is ok. So is it state property or not. Laws identify what is illegal not what is legal. So what law doesn’t allow carry in a rest stop? I still haven’t seen one.


    Sent from an undisclosed location.
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    4,868
    Carroll County!
    Hell I would have a sign that said “Gun on board”. If it wasn’t for the fact that anti gunners would accuse me of brandishing just to cause a problem. I’m pretty sure rest stops have cameras. I hope i can ask a citizen of a free state to take a pic of me open carrying. Not displaying.


    Sent from an undisclosed location.
     

    lx1x

    Peanut Gallery
    Apr 19, 2009
    26,858
    Maryland
    Hell I would have a sign that said “Gun on board”. If it wasn’t for the fact that anti gunners would accuse me of brandishing just to cause a problem. I’m pretty sure rest stops have cameras. I hope i can ask a citizen of a free state to take a pic of me open carrying. Not displaying.


    Sent from an undisclosed location.
    And every week you'd be replacing your windows if not car..
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Injunctions, especially emergency injunctions generally go a lot faster than that. More likely than not if the district court denies the injunction, the appeals court likely will hear ASAP and rule. En Banc likely will not, SCOTUS might. A lot of times emergency injunctions only take 2-3 months to get up to SCOTUS depending on the true "emergency basis" that is being worked with. Other times even slower emergency injunctions only take 4-5 months to get in front of SCOTUS.

    Often times it depends on who is winning the emergency injunction request. If the injured parties win one at the district court level, the appeals court likely is not going to be in a hurry to decide whether to lift the injunction or continue it, because the injured party is not being impacted. If the district court decides to not stay, or only a partial stay, the appeals court will likely hear all of the motions and rule much sooner. Etc up the court food chain.

    While injunctions are ongoing, the district court can still be proceeding with the actual case itself. The actual case, even on a somewhat expedited manner is likely to take 8-18 months to resolve. Then add about a year at each appeal. It depends on how quickly the courts want to move things and depends on things like COVID. COVID screwed up the works BAD on cases and I am not sure that is still fully worked out between backlogs as well as restrictions. Anyway, plenty of cases can take 8-10 years for SCOTUS to make a final ruling on the initial case. Other cases where SCOTUS, and especially the court system in general, either wants to make brand new precedent, or there is STRONG existing precedent can take 2-4 years to go from initial request for an emergency injunction to SCOTUS ruling.

    For example in Dobbs, an emergency injunction was requested against the state of Mississippi the day the law went to effect and the district court issued an injunction the following day. There was strong case precedent to issue the injunction (at the time). The district court granted summary judgement and permanently enjoined the state soon after. The appeals court in December of 2019 (about a year later) basically issued the same against Mississippi. No En Banc, SCOTUS then sat on the request for cert for a couple of years because the make-up of the court wasn't likely to find favorably for MS heard it and decided. The biggest delay was SCOTUS sitting on the case for an extra term. There was no hurry in this case because the lower courts were making ruling based on existing very clear precedent and an injunction was granted right away. SCOTUS took awhile, because they were waiting for a better majority to overturn Roe.

    When things are a lot less clear, it can take a LOT longer. Or when the courts WANT to drag things out, it can take a LOT longer. Heller took a long time. Young is taking years, etc. But we have a new standard and a fairly clear direction from SCOTUS. And Thomas, and I think in general the conversative justices, want to act quickly to make it clear that the 2A is not disfavored and start setting a lot of new precedent. So at least at the SCOTUS level, I would expect them to act quickly (for SCOTUS) to rule on 2A cases that percolate up to them. Any of the GVR'd cases that they don't like the appeals/district court opinions on, expect them to hear quickly. Other ones like the NY case, I expect them to rule quickly as it directly goes against the exact opinion issued.

    Even with injunctions issued I don't see it taking 4-5 years to get a decision and opinion from SCOTUS on the NY and CA crap. I'd be surprised if it took more than 3 with injunctions issued toot sweet.
    Well here are some more examples.

    The Bruen case was decided simply based on an appeal, since the district court dismissed the case. Normally it would have gone back down to district and reheard then appealed back up to scotus. That was what NY was trying to do. But SCOTUS put an end to that real quick. That’s why Bruen only took 3 years to make it up to them.

    Yes it is true what you said about injunctions especially if emergency injunctions have been put in place.

    But take a look at Duncan v Bonta. its been 5 years on that case with injunctions and stays. SCOTUs just GVR’d that case. figure Another year or two years before that case makes it back to SCOTUS again. California isn’t going to give up, until SCOTUS rules against them, or SCOTUS denies cert. While judge Benitez will find for Duncan. The 9th circuit is stubborn and defiant. They will find a way to reverse Duncan. And maintain at EnBanc level. Or if they maintain a win at circuit level, EnBanc will reverse. Then back to SCOTUS. That’s why another year or two or more on even Duncan V Bonta.

    The same could apply to Young v Hawaii,or Bianchi v Frosh, or even ANJRPC v Bruck. However. Hawaii, Maryland, and New Jersey may just give up the ghost before it gets back to SCOTUS.

    What the Anti-2A doesn’t want is another loss like Bruen, and they are starting to fear if things are pushed back to SCOTUS things might get worse.

    The only reason Hochul as well as other democrats are pursuing hard line gun control. Is because it’s an election year. Knowing that. Once elections are done in Novemeber, you might find many of them surrending.

    Of the aprox. 30 new cases filed after June 23rd in the country. Some areas will cecide once they see many of the cases start to loose at district level, and a few even lose at enbanc level. Especially among liberal judges.

    Look at the AWB case out of Colorado against the city of Superior. Even there a liberal judge found against the City of Superior, and openly admitted tha reasons like gun violence, and mass shootings were NOT a valid reason for the law. When more liberal judges start ruling like that, especially at circuit and EnBanc level. They will know the game is over. except for the Stubborn ones like California, and New York.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    261,292
    Messages
    6,659,277
    Members
    30,439
    Latest member
    Tony1094

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom