Severability - let's get one thing straight

[fabsroman]

SB281 is not going down in flames in its entirety just because one section is deemed unconstitutional and there is no severability clause within the bill itself.

SCOTUS looks to legislative intent when determining whether an unconstitutional portion of a bill is severable or not.

The 2013 Maryland Legislative Drafting Manual deals with this pretty well.

http://dls.state.md.us/data\leganda...ana_bildra_bildraman\2013-Drafting-Manual.pdf

The basic test for determining whether a bill embraces more than one subject
is whether or not all portions of the bill are “germane” (i.e., connected, related, pertinent) or whether they are foreign to one another. Note that absent an express nonseverability clause, all enactments of the General Assembly are presumed to be severable. (See Article 1  Rules of Interpretation, § 23 of the Annotated Code.)

Therefore, on determining that a law embraces more than one subject, a court will attempt to define and give effect to the principal subject of the enactment and separate out the dissimilar subjects. For an analysis of the application of the “one subject” rule to a legislative enactment, see Migdal v. State, 358 Md. 308 (2000).

at p. 35

Severability Clause and Nonseverability Clause
Article 1 – Rules of Interpretation, § 23 of the Annotated Code states that
provisions of statutes enacted after July 1, 1973, are severable unless the statute specifically provides that they are not. However, the following clause may be used to reinforce this rule:

Example
...; making the provisions of this Act severable; ...

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That if any provision of this
Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid for any reason in a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or any other application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared severable.

at p. 109-110

So, while the General Assembly could add the above language to reinforce that a bill is severable should any portion of it be struck down, the presumption since 1973 is that everything is severable UNLESS the General Assembly puts something into the bill stating that the bill is NOT severable.

So, SB281 is NOT getting struck down in its entirety just because one single portion is found unconstitutional.

I hate raining on our parade. Now, if anybody can prove the opposite, I am all ears/eyes and will be dancing in the streets after agreeing with you.

If you were relying on the bill not being severable in the hope that it would all be struck down in Court, you need to change your risk outlook now.

 

[Brooklyn]

I know. Parts will survive. I even think I know which parts, but I will not comment further.

 

[fabsroman]

I know. Parts will survive. I even think I know which parts, but I will not comment further.

lol - don't want to give the other side any ideas or legal precedent I take it. Trust me, attorneys with tons of experience on both sides are going to research and argue the heck out of this one. I would be shocked if you came up with something novel. Might as well spit out your theory so the rest of the sheeple can buy accordingly.

I'm just wondering if the Courts/attorneys are going to argue common usage as to each distinct firearm, or on a class of firearms. Are we going to be trying to hit a home run, or save the AR-15, AK, M1A, etc.?

The 10 round mag limitation is going to survive.

Licensing will probably die.

If they can kill licensing and preserve a couple of the most popular "assault weapons", I will consider that to be a win.

 

[Beemerguy]

I know. Parts will survive. I even think I know which parts, but I will not comment further.

I agree. Even after the most blatantly unconstitutional parts of this scheme are overturned by a court, we will still be left with a whole panoply of bad new laws.

Nothing has changed for me: Despite being a lifelong resident of this state, Maryland's government has made it clear they don't want "my kind" here anymore, and I have taken the hint. As soon as possible, I plan to move from here.

 

[Markp]

No, don't say it... Keep it secret... We need to hide in the shadows and continue to be ashamed of the fact that we believe in having competent forms of self-defense, especially when it comes to weapons that might be suitable to the smaller and less physically intimidating amongst us!!!

 

[iggy]

lol - don't want to give the other side any ideas or legal precedent I take it. Trust me, attorneys with tons of experience on both sides are going to research and argue the heck out of this one. I would be shocked if you came up with something novel. Might as well spit out your theory so the rest of the sheeple can buy accordingly.

I'm just wondering if the Courts/attorneys are going to argue common usage as to each distinct firearm, or on a class of firearms. Are we going to be trying to hit a home run, or save the AR-15, AK, M1A, etc.?

The 10 round mag limitation is going to survive.

Licensing will probably die.

If they can kill licensing and preserve a couple of the most popular "assault weapons", I will consider that to be a win.

What makes you think the licensing will die? As I understand it several other states have licensing of some type for ownership.

I dont support licensing, just trying to understand the logic

 

[tomh]

Nothing has changed for me: Despite being a lifelong resident of this state, Maryland's government has made it clear they don't want "my kind" here anymore, and I have taken the hint. As soon as possible, I plan to move from here.

That is exactly the same situation for me. With me and my wife goes our income as well, so the state will be losing more than demographics. The more and more people abandon the state, the sillier it will become, trying to tax non-income-producing people to support the ever-increasing state government burden.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

What makes you think the licensing will die? As I understand it several other states have licensing of some type for ownership.

I dont support licensing, just trying to understand the logic

I say it before and I'll said it again. The fee (poll tax) for the license being done away with is what we should be challenging.

Again, if you can't ask for money to get a voter ID card than you can't ask for money for this right either.

By my calculations, the finger printing, licensing, application fees, training costs, travel time, and gasoline costs are going to cost gun buyers 15 times what it would cost to get a voter ID card. $25.00 vs. $375.00

This is the argument that MUST/NEEDS to be made. It's the G** D*** F***ING BULLSHI* hoops that need to be addressed.

And if we don't win on the fees aspect of this, then every Republican Red state in this nation needs to lower the boom on the Obamaphoners and all the other Shouldn'tbehereers.

No cardie-No votie-So Sorrie!

Fight the Fees.

 

[molonlabe]

That is exactly the same situation for me. With me and my wife goes our income as well, so the state will be losing more than demographics. The more and more people abandon the state, the sillier it will become, trying to tax non-income-producing people to support the ever-increasing state government burden.

I have just startend my retirement process, house for sale and VA registration. I will leave this state to the Criminals running it.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

That is exactly the same situation for me. With me and my wife goes our income as well, so the state will be losing more than demographics. The more and more people abandon the state, the sillier it will become, trying to tax non-income-producing people to support the ever-increasing state government burden.

I know I say this a lot and I know it may be offensive to some. Maryland does not give a Flying Reindeer F*** if you or I leave.

They want us to leave. They need us to leave. They want this state to be the land of (offensive part coming) Rainbows and Unicorns. Little Russia. Little Califorinia. Call it what you want.

My Liberal Daughter-in-law said she does not mind paying taxes. I told her that's a Bullshi* comment. I told her that's like saying you don't mind throwing up after coming down with food poisoning. Meaning it's involuntary.

These Leftist-Libtard-Dumocrats will come to your house and help you pack if you promise to take your guns and hate filled, Republican ideas with you.

If I didn't have Sons here, I would be a blinding streak on I-95 South heading towards Tennasee or Texas or take a sharp RIGHT turn and go to Utah.

 

[dlmcbm]

lol - don't want to give the other side any ideas or legal precedent I take it. Trust me, attorneys with tons of experience on both sides are going to research and argue the heck out of this one. I would be shocked if you came up with something novel. Might as well spit out your theory so the rest of the sheeple can buy accordingly.

I'm just wondering if the Courts/attorneys are going to argue common usage as to each distinct firearm, or on a class of firearms. Are we going to be trying to hit a home run, or save the AR-15, AK, M1A, etc.?

The 10 round mag limitation is going to survive.

Licensing will probably die.

If they can kill licensing and preserve a couple of the most popular "assault weapons", I will consider that to be a win.

I think we have a good argument on licensing, and defiantly on the AR-15. I would hope it would include more rifles. Couldn't we use the same logic for the 10 round law? It will make a lot of commonly used handguns illegal unless they start making the mags for them. I think NY law on rounds would be a lot harder to beat then ours.

 

[Brooklyn]

lol - don't want to give the other side any ideas or legal precedent I take it. Trust me, attorneys with tons of experience on both sides are going to research and argue the heck out of this one. I would be shocked if you came up with something novel. Might as well spit out your theory so the rest of the sheeple can buy accordingly.

I'm just wondering if the Courts/attorneys are going to argue common usage as to each distinct firearm, or on a class of firearms. Are we going to be trying to hit a home run, or save the AR-15, AK, M1A, etc.?

The 10 round mag limitation is going to survive.

Licensing will probably die.

If they can kill licensing and preserve a couple of the most popular "assault weapons", I will consider that to be a win.

As I have said elsewhere Common use is not the correct standard. I have posted on this before publicly, and no it is not novel, it is just that I am not qualified to make the case, and see no point in making it badly here.

As a sheeple who clearly does not know his place, I have come up with my own standard for the case of weapons that I believe are most core to the right and I have stated why.

Since none of our opinions is binding I see no point in wasting more bits on it, especially since we have an election, and a another legislative session to prepare for. I am also required to develop a plan for 2016 and beyond as I hear that there is also a federal government to deal with. And there is that pesky business of trying to repeal all that stuff the court left standing-- Hail Mary you say, well I guess that depends how many people are pissed of enough to vote against the a-hole that did this. As I posted elsewhere I think it can be done but not in a single election cycle. I am sure these are not really my own thoughts, but such is my conceit, at I yet persist in my delusion.

I am sure that as soon as the NRA calls I will have all my own thoughts replaced with theirs anyway, but as you know" the brain in the vat never knows that it is a brain in a vat".


As far a magazine limits. I hope you are not on our legal team, and I mean no offensives, I find it foolish to concede anything.
You may want to consider that there is also an election coming up. I would prefer not have a "even the pro gun people support mag limits" canard to deal with.



Have a nice day...

 

[6-Pack]

Shout it from the rooftops, start a new thread every day and get a billboard along the Beltway and people on here still won't believe you because that's not the opinion of certain organizations.

Im beginning to re-think referendum though: if our own kind are too thick-headed, how can we expect to educate those who don't care? Honestly, I'm about out of patience of trying to educate people on here. I charge $200/hour for my advice to clients, but gladly spend time on here trying to correct misconceptions about the court-only route.

 

[iggy]

As I have said elsewhere Common use is not the correct standard. I have posted on this before publicly, and no it is not novel, it is just that I am not qualified to make the case, and see no point in making it badly here.

As a sheeple who clearly does not know his place, I have come up with my own standard for the case of weapons that I believe are most core to the right and I have stated why.

Since none of our opinions is binding I see no point in wasting more bits on it, especially since we have an election, and a another legislative session to prepare for. I am also required to develop a plan for 2016 and beyond as I hear that there is also a federal government to deal with. And there is that pesky business of trying to repeal all that stuff the court left standing-- Hail Mary you say, well I guess that depends how many people are pissed of enough to vote against the a-hole that did this. As I posted elsewhere I think it can be done but not in a single election cycle. I am sure these are not really my own thoughts, but such is my conceit, at I yet persist in my delusion.

I am sure that as soon as the NRA calls I will have all my own thoughts replaced with theirs anyway, but as you know" the brain in the vat never knows that it is a brain in a vat".


As far a magazine limits. I hope you are not on our legal team, and I mean no offensives, I find it foolish to concede anything.
You may want to consider that there is also an election coming up. I would prefer not have a "even the pro gun people support mag limits" canard to deal with.



Have a nice day...

Yet you are willing to concede the entire referendum process...

BTW, people who support the referendum would like all parts of the law struck down. Recognizing that we might not win that battle in court isn't conceding.

 

[Brooklyn]

What makes you think the licensing will die? As I understand it several other states have licensing of some type for ownership.

I dont support licensing, just trying to understand the logic

Read some case law. SAF web site. MSI web site.

Nothing is slam dunk.

Anyway I have an election to prepare for, with or with our a referendum, I just know that I will lose if there is a referendum. If I had the time I would help out, i am not trying to be difficult, but I really have to get back to my work.

lots of great books at the saf website, not to expensive and written for a lay audience..

Of course the more you learn the sooner NRA mind control sets in, so be careful....

 

[iggy]

Read some case law. SAF web site. MSI web site.

Nothing is slam dunk.

Anyway I have an election to prepare for, with or with our a referendum, I just know that I will lose if there is a referendum. If I had the time I would help out, i am not trying to be difficult, but I really have to get back to my work.

lots of great books at the saf website, not to expensive and written for a lay audience..

Of course the more you learn the sooner NRA mind control sets in, so be careful....

Your attitude is pretty elitist. I have read plenty of case law and that's why I am asking why anyone thinks the licensing is going to be overturned. You obviously can't articulate a reasonable response.


BTW, I am an NRA member and have donated to MSI over the years.

 

[OnTarget]

Shout it from the rooftops, start a new thread every day and get a billboard along the Beltway and people on here still won't believe you because that's not the opinion of certain organizations.

Im beginning to re-think referendum though: if our own kind are too thick-headed, how can we expect to educate those who don't care? Honestly, I'm about out of patience of trying to educate people on here. I charge $200/hour for my advice to clients, but gladly spend time on here trying to correct misconceptions about the court-only route.

Referendum YES!

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Shout it from the rooftops, start a new thread every day and get a billboard along the Beltway and people on here still won't believe you because that's not the opinion of certain organizations.

Im beginning to re-think referendum though: if our own kind are too thick-headed, how can we expect to educate those who don't care? Honestly, I'm about out of patience of trying to educate people on here. I charge $200/hour for my advice to clients, but gladly spend time on here trying to correct misconceptions about the court-only route.

That's right. Thick as a brick.

My weekend at the Timomium Gun Show is still causing me to lose sleep.

People with blank stares, glazed-over eyes, and outstretched arms are chasing me in my dreams.

They kept saying: Idontunderstand. Idontunderstand. Idontunderstand. Idontunderstand.

They kept coming and coming: Idontunderstand. Idontunderstand.

This is what we're up against. The Liberals are the least of our problems.

If you still have patience left, then you, Sir, are a Saint.

My well of patience ran dry a long time ago.

 

[aireyc]

I'm not going to write a novel here, but let me just share with you guys a brief synopsis of something I came up with a few years ago called the Progression Theory, as it sort of explains what 6-Pack and iH8DemLibz just stated. It's a new spin on things, if you will.

As backwards as this sounds, most of the liberals in this country are smarter than most of the conservatives. The Progression Theory basically argues that there are three stages a person can fall into for both politics and religion. Stage 1 politics is conservative, and stage 1 religious are believers of God. These people have made up the majority of our nation the last 200 years, and they're as dumb as a wall. Ask any of them to articulate their views and why they believe what they believe, and you'll just hear fumbling and nonsense.

Stage 2 are the liberals and atheists who are smart enough to recognize that those in stage 1 are clueless. The liberals and atheists believe what they believe not because it makes any sense, but because they feel since idiots are conservative and believe in God, it must therefore be incorrect. They're elitist in the sense that "they know better, therefore they are correct." Those in stage 2 base their opinions on others, not on anything sound, and they never look in the mirror.

Stage 3 are those who, like those in stage 1, are conservatives and believers of a higher power. The difference is these people recognize the ignorance of those in stage 1 and stage 2, and these people can articulate their views, reason, etc.

The shift we're seeing in our country is a shift from stage 1 -> stage 2. We're technically getting smarter, but we're moving in the wrong direction. The only way we (pro-2A people) can win, is to educate those in stage 1 of their ignorance (they're on our side, but they don't know why), while also tearing down the assumptions made by those in stage 2.

Please note that you can be in different stages for politics/religion, so it's not a one-size-fits-all approach.

 

[Traveler]

Because several new threads a day will help us. Seriously, you guys need to read up on opsec. We need Rumsfeld in here telling you to pound sand. You don't broadcast your attack plan on CNN, or an open forum.