Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[CrueChief]

Amusement park is a different animal. Even though probably is low, could you imagine if your gun falls out while on a roller coaster and goes flying into the crowds?

Some coasters make you lock up your phone and go through a metal detector before riding for fear of flying objects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You would be surprised what is found under a roller coaster during the daily inspection.

 

[CrueChief]

And please everyone PLEASE stop thinking the left is stupid and they are infringing on our right out of ignorance. The individual politician maybe be an idiot, sorry if I offended any idiots by lumping politicians in with them, but by and large those running the leftist cult know exactly what they are doing and how they may take some eventual losses but they are true believers and no lie and no twisting of the "facts" is a bridge too far.

 

[Biggfoot44]

If SCOTUS rules it is Unconstitutional you can completely ignore it.

If you arrested for it, the arresting officer will lose his or her qualified immunity, since they deprived you of your constitutional rights under color of law. Nobody wants that.

And yet , NJ , NY, and MA still arrest and charge people for FOPA protected transport .

 

[Biggfoot44]

No, nobody wants that. But is that true, in practice? If the MGA passes yet another infringing bill and the gubnah signs it into law, is the rookie county cop on the side of the road really supposed to have the awareness and depth of analysis to evaluate a statute's constitutionality? Or is he supposed to do the deed and let you sort it out in court at great expense and damage to your career and finances?

Not slamming anyone .

The default answer for the rank & file Ofc , in descending order :

What was personally said to them by Sgt/ similar supervisors

What was said at Roll Call

A Dept Memo ( if recent )

What it says in the dusty thick reference material in trumk/ briefcase

 

[Biggfoot44]

The theoretical question posed a couple comments up above was: what happens if the MGA watches SB-1 go down in flames, and just writes a fresh SB-2 next session with a slightly different framework that has to be challenged yet again. Not a repeat of SB-1 verbatim, but just more of the same in a slightly different wrapper so they can pretend that they've had solid guidance on it passing Bruen muster (the same game they've already played with SB-1 in the first place, and here it is, signed law).

With a tip of the hat to Mopar92 , and his " Let's play Change the Noun " , we already have ( Democrat) Maryland's historical blueprint . Black People and Jim Crow

Ended up taking up to 100 .years .

 

[coinboy]

Per the opinion, it is not. The logic Thomas was using, which I happen to agree with, is that the 14th extended the BoR and the constitution as a whole to the states. If by 1868 a state law existed regulating guns, and it hasn't been struck down in over 150 years based on the constitution, it could be used as a historical analog.

Which would mean the law was created during the founding area. That would be 1718 when hypothetical law was created.

 

[Biggfoot44]

MattF 719's post #933 , I'm too lazy to edit down to quotes.


No , they don't have to be brave . They literally could not care less about protracted legal fights .

To the contrary , any Legislator ( where 60% plus of state population lives ) or a D politician anywhere would have to be Brave to ACTUALLY VOTE against any Anti 2A legislation . ( Some of them might occasionally move their lips and say somewhat pro gun- ish things to receptive audiences , but still lock step vote according to Party Orders , both on the Floor , or in Committee , or Procedural votes .)

To the small extent they notice Legal Fights in progress , they easily spin it into a Virtue .

But mostly , they're meaningless .

It's a cliche , but it's true . It's Not Their Money ! The AG and his staff are on salary , and wether they were doing this or that other thing , their salary is the same . Direct court expenses and judgements are paid by taxpayers , an unlimited funding source .

Cases take long enough to reach SCOTUS , that they will have been through at least one election inbetween . Unless they are a political geek , they'll only remember a highlight or two of the most recent campaign , or the most recent sound bite .

Total budget of NRA vs a particular Bloomberg/ Soros front group ? Mostly irrelevant .

Disregarding Wayne's Wardrobe expenses , the NRA ( or NSSF , etc) is a big Org , doing Lots of Things . The ILA budget is a small slice of Big NRA . And ILA ( or PVF) is split up on Federal and all the rest of the States . The amount of $ coming to Maryland is small . ( More than most people think , but much is deliberately on the down low .) And the reality is in Maryland having a higher profile from NRA would be very two edged .

To the leftist Dems , the highest honor they can strive for is " I Fought the NRA , and Beat Them ." . Them appearing to be in the lead would bring even more push back , than having Independent State Level 2A Orgs leading .

And the direct expenditures of Demanding Mommies and Marylanders Against Guns are trivial compared to the in kind nonstop cheerleading from all of the Media , all of the time ( except for St Mary's Today ) , and the party discipline of the Dem Central Committee in this One Party State .

OP's previous state at least actually has Two political parties , fairly evenly matched . Maryland is the most one sided state in the country ( and near the top , if edged out for Most Gerrymandered .)

 

[teratos]

And yet , NJ , NY, and MA still arrest and charge people for FOPA protected transport .

Bruen will put and end to it. In the long run.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Should you be careful about securing your Roscoe ( used ironically for humor) on a roller coaster ? Well duh , Yeah ! ( Insert anecdotes about pistols bouncing on floorboards on Jeep Trails , and my general preferences for holsters with thumbreaks .)

Is that a reason or justification to prohibit firearms at amusement parks ( and carnivals , fairs , and etc ) ? Nah !

If you're packing at a restraunt or event , don't get drunk & stupid . If you're in the vicinity of amusement rides , either make sure your Roscoe is firmly strapped in , or only ride the tame rides .

 

[lazarus]

Which would mean the law was created during the founding area. That would be 1718 when hypothetical law was created.

Wrong direction. If it existed in 1868 and hasn’t SINCE been struck down in 150 years. Not 150 years the other way. Read the Bruen opinion.

 

[coinboy]

Wrong direction. If it existed in 1868 and hasn’t SINCE been struck down in 150 years. Not 150 years the other way. Read the Bruen opinion.

Well, that's funny because that is not what they are arguing in court right now about the relevant time period over SB1.

In the Novotny case they specifically state,
"But there can be no doubt that the actual analysis of the Court is focused on 1791"

 

[Inigoes]

And please everyone PLEASE stop thinking the left is stupid and they are infringing on our right out of ignorance indignance. The individual politician maybe be an idiot, sorry if I offended any idiots by lumping politicians in with them, but by and large those running the leftist cult know exactly what they are doing and how they may take some eventual losses but they are true believers and no lie and no twisting of the "facts" is a bridge too far.

FIFY

They actually hate us, because we do not see government as the answer to all our ills, as they do.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Well, that's funny because that is not what they are arguing in court right now about the relevant time period over SB1.

In the Novotny case they specifically state,
"But there can be no doubt that the actual analysis of the Court is focused on 1791"

Correct. The words are understood to have the meaning they had at the Founding. Some consideration is given to widespread laws extant at Reconstruction, but not thereafter. The Founding takes precedent in a confrontation between the two eras.

Racist laws are duly ignored. Like the anti-black/Catholic/non-white Protestant male shiit in Bruen specifically.

Hilarious and pathetic that NY was caught defending obviously terrible law on the idea that it was somewhat widespread in the state at the time. Ugh.

Idiots and reptiles.

 

[pcfixer]

BEST POST. 100%

And please everyone PLEASE stop thinking the left is stupid and they are infringing on our right out of ignorance indignance. The individual politician maybe be an idiot, sorry if I offended any idiots by lumping politicians in with them, but by and large those running the leftist cult know exactly what they are doing and how they may take some eventual losses but they are true believers and no lie and no twisting of the "facts" is a bridge too far.

quoted by Inigoes:
FIFY

They actually hate us, because we do not see government as the answer to all our ills, as they do

 

[lazarus]

Correct. The words are understood to have the meaning they had at the Founding. Some consideration is given to widespread laws extant at Reconstruction, but not thereafter. The Founding takes precedent in a confrontation between the two eras.

Racist laws are duly ignored. Like the anti-black/Catholic/non-white Protestant male shiit in Bruen specifically.

Hilarious and pathetic that NY was caught defending obviously terrible law on the idea that it was somewhat widespread in the state at the time. Ugh.

Idiots and reptiles.

This. Coinboy, I did not say Thomas said that construction era took precedent, but Thomas calls out in his opinion that stuff of that time and earlier, after 1791, could be considered.

Per-Boondock though, Thomas also made clear that clearly discriminatory laws of the time could not be considered.

 

[CrueChief]

BEST POST. 100%


quoted by Inigoes:
FIFY

They actually hate us, because we do not see government as the answer to all our ills, as they do

Yes they do and by they that includes 99% of the GOP.

 

[coinboy]

This. Coinboy, I did not say Thomas said that construction era took precedent, but Thomas calls out in his opinion that stuff of that time and earlier, after 1791, could be considered.

Per-Boondock though, Thomas also made clear that clearly discriminatory laws of the time could not be considered.

I'm pretty sure what Thomas said was that the time after reconstruction could be used to prove the disqualification of a law. I'm also pretty sure that he said that the validity of a law could not be considered for that time period because it was not considered in the founding era which would be between about 1791 and 1836. In order to prove a law that existed in 1886, they would have to prove that a similar law(s) existed during the founding area and that it couldn't be a one off from my understanding. "Green hat, green truck."

For example, the New York carry ban was deemed unconstitutional even though it existed for over 100 years. Just because a law existed for a century didn't mean it was a legal law under the constitution.

 

[press1280]

I'm pretty sure what Thomas said was that the time after reconstruction could be used to prove the disqualification of a law. I'm also pretty sure that he said that the validity of a law could not be considered for that time period because it was not considered in the founding era which would be between about 1791 and 1836. In order to prove a law that existed in 1886, they would have to prove that a similar law(s) existed during the founding area and that it couldn't be a one off from my understanding. "Green hat, green truck."

For example, the New York carry ban was deemed unconstitutional even though it existed for over 100 years. Just because a law existed for a century didn't mean it was a legal law under the constitution.

In the case of this NY law and numerous others which the left loves to use, those laws were passed at a time when the 2A wasn't incorporated and the state they were in either had no 2A protection or in rare cases didn't subscribe to the individual rights interpretation.
So those laws in essence don't have any real backing.

 

[lazarus]

I'm pretty sure what Thomas said was that the time after reconstruction could be used to prove the disqualification of a law. I'm also pretty sure that he said that the validity of a law could not be considered for that time period because it was not considered in the founding era which would be between about 1791 and 1836. In order to prove a law that existed in 1886, they would have to prove that a similar law(s) existed during the founding area and that it couldn't be a one off from my understanding. "Green hat, green truck."

For example, the New York carry ban was deemed unconstitutional even though it existed for over 100 years. Just because a law existed for a century didn't mean it was a legal law under the constitution.

That NY law was still more than 50 years after reconstruction. Which is why it cannot be considered. Please read his opinion again. Your interpretation is not what he said. Laws before the 14th was ratified can be considered for THT, they just hold less weight than when BoR was incorporated.

 

[Lafayette]

That NY law was still more than 50 years after reconstruction. Which is why it cannot be considered. Please read his opinion again. Your interpretation is not what he said. Laws before the 14th was ratified can be considered for THT, they just hold less weight than when BoR was incorporated.

My understanding is that laws up until 1869 can reinforce, but not contradict THT from 1781. Is this correct from your reading?