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

[motorcoachdoug]

NOPE!!!!!

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

As JFK, RFK, Teddy and the whole Masshole clan would say:

Umm, errr, ahhh, No!

 

[Rickman]

I'll join with...NOPE, Nada, No way!!

 

[Garet Jax]

Is there any update on this?

 

[jcarte29]

There are four criteria that are evaluated.
Likelihood of success, Irreparable harm, Balance of Equities, Public Interest

You simply need to make a case demonstrating how you meet all four criteria. In the past, the Courts tended to side with the government on the likelihood of success so most injunctions were denied. It is unclear how the government will defend the law so it is difficult to predict the exact chance, but it does seem likely that the likelihood of success will go our way. The other three criteria are not as difficult to prove given it addresses fundamental rights.

I do expect that the government will be given plenty of time to figure out how they will respond before any injunction would be issued.

They should not get any additional time. "Balance tests," "Public safety interest," "Strict Scrutiny, or Intermediate Scrutiny," are all STRUCK DOWN post NYSRPA v Bruen. There's one test now, and that's historical tradition of fire arm regulation in 1791, when 2A was ratified. That's it. That's the test. The burden is on the Government and NO ONE should give them additional time to write a bunch of puff arguments.

 

[INMY01TA]

No thanks

 

[swinokur]

As JFK, RFK, Teddy and the whole Masshole clan would say:

Umm, errr, ahhh, No!

Vaughn Meader approves


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dblas]

Is there any update on this?

Yep, in the original thread on the subject, found here: https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/bianchi-v-frosh.267627/

 

[Garet Jax]

Yep, in the original thread on the subject, found here: https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/bianchi-v-frosh.267627/

Thanks.

 

[Huckleberry]

No Bueno!

Nope, Nada, Nothing

No Fuching Way Jose

 

[Crazytrain]

Yep, in the original thread on the subject, found here: https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/bianchi-v-frosh.267627/

That thread is gone?

 

[Threeband]

Yep, in the original thread on the subject, found here: https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/bianchi-v-frosh.267627/

"The requested thread could not be found."

 

[dblas]

That thread is gone?

"The requested thread could not be found."

If you guys look a little bit, you will notice that the original thread got rolled into this one.

 

[Crazytrain]

If you guys look a little bit, you will notice that the original thread got rolled into this one.

Shouldn't have to. Time is precious. Nothing in this combined thread since your link suggests it was combined. A quick scan back to post 301 didn't show anything. Really, should we have to guess? How are we supposed to know it was combined? What even suggests it? Why would it even occur to us to go looking for a little bit? I don't feel dumb; but maybe I am.

No need to reply and muddy up this thread with off topic banter. I just felt a little insulted. I'll get over it in a couple seconds.

 

[dblas]

Shouldn't have to. Time is precious. Nothing in this combined thread since your link suggests it was combined. A quick scan back to post 301 didn't show anything. Really, should we have to guess? How are we supposed to know it was combined? What even suggests it? Why would it even occur to us to go looking for a little bit? I don't feel dumb; but maybe I am.

No need to reply and muddy up this thread with off topic banter. I just felt a little insulted. I'll get over it in a couple seconds.

Didn't mean to come across as insulting, I noticed that this thread exploded from one page to 17 in less than a day and the first post is dated June 30, 2022.
I guess I should have just said it was rolled into this one. Next beer is on me.

 

[pcfixer]

jcutonilli said:
There are four criteria that are evaluated.
Likelihood of success, Irreparable harm, Balance of Equities, Public Interest

The "State" has not demonstrated the likelihood of success!

Which part of NO do they not understand! Is it the N or the O?

 

[pcfixer]

NO extra time for the State. Quoted from the reply brief. Page 25

"Instead, it is the “balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands [the Court’s] unqualified deference.” Id. The American people have selected the banned rifles as their favored tools for selfdefense and other lawful purposes, and that controls this case."

 

[press1280]

They are going about this all wrong, they should not challenge the training requirements. They should agree with it. They need to push the issue about the state forcing people to buy a service in order to exercise their rights (forcing som to buy a class) and the other part is they require a tax to exercise our rights in form of fees. Tell the judge that we would not fight the hql and w$C if the state pays for the required training and the permits and fingerprints are free.

I understand what you are saying as kind of a middle ground. It also shows that this is being used to depress a constitutional right.
I believe the way to challenge it is to go back to the law as it was before Wollard and I believe that was no (or much less training)? Have the court assess why right after Woollard all this was put into place. It's quite obvious and hopefully the passage of time shouldn't give any deference to the post-Woollard law.

 

[cap6888]

Trying to parse through this thread……what’s the current status?

 

[Threeband]

I understand what you are saying as kind of a middle ground. It also shows that this is being used to depress a constitutional right.
I believe the way to challenge it is to go back to the law as it was before Wollard and I believe that was no (or much less training)? Have the court assess why right after Woollard all this was put into place. It's quite obvious and hopefully the passage of time shouldn't give any deference to the post-Woollard law.

It's not about the money only. The biggest impediment for rich and poor alike is the time. It is extremely challenging to set aside 16 hours for training, juggling that against work and family obligations. There is no demonstrable advantage to such training, based on a comparison of actual statistical results from "Strict Training States" and "No Training At All States."

As noted, before 2012, Maryland was one of the "No Training At All" states. What justifies the changed requirement? Is it a punishment, as I have always suspected?