Will the New York ruling ever take place in MD?

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!
  • lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,794
    Everything he is saying is demonstrably false. 50% of the country is Constitutional Carry. Where is the incredible uptick in violence?
    I mean, murder rates have skyrocketed over the last 2 years (up 30% in 2020 and I think another 10-20% last year? But I think in 2022 they've been down slightly from 2021). But that tracks more with economic difficulties, COVID restriction, some significant police brutality/murder cases, and political instability than any kind of law changes.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 22, 2009
    51,666
    Bel Air
    I mean, murder rates have skyrocketed over the last 2 years (up 30% in 2020 and I think another 10-20% last year? But I think in 2022 they've been down slightly from 2021). But that tracks more with economic difficulties, COVID restriction, some significant police brutality/murder cases, and political instability than any kind of law changes.
    Murders are by definition not committed by law abiding citizens.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,794
    Do SCOTUS circuit assignments come into play with regards to an injunction or no? IE: Does the wise latina being assigned to the 2CA give NY more room for shenanigans? Will Frosh and the MGA be more restrained in their response with Roberts representing the 4th?
    It does, but if I am remembering correctly, even though she sits over the 2nd and can issue emergency injunction, I believe that the court has the option to vote as a whole on an injunction without being referred to the full court by the justice that sits over that circuit. I think.

    So basically, if the district and appeals courts turned down an injunction and the injured party asked SCOTUS to step in, Sotomayor could grant or deny it, but the whole court would have the opportunity to jump in and decide they wish to grant it anyway. Or if district granted and NY asked the Appeals court and they allowed the injunction and it got referred to SCOTUS, same deal, the whole court could overrule the justice that sits over the circuit. I believe this is fairly uncommon though. But in this case, I don't see it as unlikely.

    I could be badly wrong, but I suspect Thomas, and likely Alito, and perhaps K, G, and ACB would all like to have it on the books that the 2A is not a disfavored right and all, but the most straight forward and lightest touch, least likely to run afoul of the 2A laws get injunctions slapped on them till the courts can ensure that they are constitutional.

    Any law getting at a core constitutional right should be allowed to have its day in court prior to it being implemented if it is controversial enough that someone A) files suit B) can make a semi-intelligible argument about how/why this new law might violate their rights.

    It is one thing passing a law that, say, adds single payer health care. Another to restrict your freedom of speech, or right to keep and bear arms, or to be free of warrantless searches. Sure, you could argue that some law implicates a right all day long. But you still have to be able to form an argument about how it does. I would hope judges would take a jaundiced view of Maryland's new costal protection law (I am making something up) violates their 4th amendment rights because it imposes limits on nitrogen run off. Like, okay, how the heck does one have anything to do with the other?
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,794
    Murders are by definition not committed by law abiding citizens.
    Huh? You said where is the credible uptick in violence. I mentioned murders have gone up substantially in the last two years.

    I agree that constitutional carry is not to blame as the rates of violence have been going up relatively evenly around the country, not just a huge amount in constitutional carry states and level or reduced in shall issue or may issue states.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    11,329
    They should be sued right F’ing now. All of them

    No patience, no waiting to see what happens. Sue them and sue them now. I saw the MSI guy say something to the effect they are “saving their powder” or something….for what exactly? Sue these Communists now
    So, you know better than the President of one of our leading 2A Rights organizations in Maryland?
    You know better than a retired Federal Attorney, who practiced federal law at ALL levels of the federal court system?
    If that's the case, I'll say it again, carry your happy ass up here and put some skin in the game. Otherwise, again, you just a big (and growing bigger) bag of hot air.
     

    mac1_131

    MSI Executive Member
    Jan 31, 2009
    3,086
    Believe me, I want permits yesterday too.

    But didn't SCOTUS remand Bruen to a lower court for a compliant ruling? I'm not sure anything can really change until that happens.

    If it doesn't happen, then rinse, wash, repeat until an actual order is produced by some court.

    Meanwhile, Call v. Jones moves forward in light of Bruen. Maybe that will produce an actual order.
     
    Last edited:

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    11,329
    Exactly, but they are still using it according to MSP. MSP are the issuing agents that are admittedly unconstitutionally not following the law. So why can’t someone file a suit against them immediately? Nobody like throwing money away, but it might show how serious people are about this.
    Why not just add it to the W&C lawsuit that is already before the courts?

    Do people understand that Call v Jons is in the 4th and has not been ruled on?

    While we do understand G&S to be dead, it still hasn't been ruled as such in Maryland. Call v Jones is one of the issue hanging this up, it really is that simple.
    Could Frosh preemptively remove G&S from the process based on Bruen, yep. Will he, nope. Why? because he can still play out Call v Jones. That is the delay tactic we are dealing with and the issue that most here keep over looking emotionally.
    We laugh at the other side for making emotional arguments, yet those here that use an emotional argument think it is different. Why?
     

    Allen65

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    5,363
    Anne Arundel County
    Why not just add it to the W&C lawsuit that is already before the courts?

    Do people understand that Call v Jons is in the 4th and has not been ruled on?

    While we do understand G&S to be dead, it still hasn't been ruled as such in Maryland. Call v Jones is one of the issue hanging this up, it really is that simple.
    Could Frosh preemptively remove G&S from the process based on Bruen, yep. Will he, nope. Why? because he can still play out Call v Jones. That is the delay tactic we are dealing with and the issue that most here keep over looking emotionally.
    We laugh at the other side for making emotional arguments, yet those here that use an emotional argument think it is different. Why?
    Which do you think will break things free first, Call or Whalen?
     

    Abuck

    Active Member
    Why not just add it to the W&C lawsuit that is already before the courts?

    Do people understand that Call v Jons is in the 4th and has not been ruled on?

    While we do understand G&S to be dead, it still hasn't been ruled as such in Maryland. Call v Jones is one of the issue hanging this up, it really is that simple.
    Could Frosh preemptively remove G&S from the process based on Bruen, yep. Will he, nope. Why? because he can still play out Call v Jones. That is the delay tactic we are dealing with and the issue that most here keep over looking emotionally.
    We laugh at the other side for making emotional arguments, yet those here that use an emotional argument think it is different. Why?
    Trying to not be emotional, just genuinely curious. Thanks for explaining some of it so we can understand things a bit better. I am fully aware that things need to happen in a somewhat logical order. Even if that happens slower than we would prefer.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    45,914
    SoMD / West PA
    I agree. The 90 days people keep talking about is arbitrary. This applies to any permit after 6/23/2022.
    The 90 days is laid out in 5-312.

    In order to show the courts you are acting in good faith by giving the MSP a chance to work within the law, before suing the crap out of them.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 22, 2009
    51,666
    Bel Air
    The 90 days is laid out in 5-312.

    In order to show the courts you are acting in good faith by giving the MSP a chance to work within the law, before suing the crap out of them.
    I mean waiting 90 days for suits. I have no illusions that the 90 days for the permit will stand.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    11,329
    Which do you think will break things free first, Call or Whalen?
    Whalen is state, and a response is do in a week, Call is at the 4th Circuit.
    Whalen, will probably be decided first, but I'm not sure it will carry as much weight as Call, but both should get the job done.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    11,329
    Trying to not be emotional, just genuinely curious. Thanks for explaining some of it so we can understand things a bit better. I am fully aware that things need to happen in a somewhat logical order. Even if that happens slower than we would prefer.
    Buck - The "emotional" part wasn't really aimed at you, I just used your comment as a vehicle for my above reply.

    I have said this before, we lost our rights one insignificant law at a time, we get them back one insignificant law at a time.

    HOWEVER, I will amend that to add, we will, NOW, also get them back one very well litigated lawsuit at a time. And with Bruen, and a 6-3 SCOTUS, I'm not so sure we have to "hope" the lower courts will rule correctly.

    I will take time, just not as much time as it would have this time last year. Bruen is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning. It is the ruling we have been waiting, neh, hoping for, since McDonald and the thin 5-4 SCOTUS rulings, that really had no teeth to force the lower courts to rule as they should.

    A 6-3 court and very well spelled out opinion, have changed that.
     

    BurkeM

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2014
    889
    Baltimore
    And if all the intervening courts are hostile to NYSRPA decision?

    How long to get back to SCOTUS?

    I have no faith that the lower courts will abide by NYSRPA any more than they did with McDonald/Heller.
    A plaintiff may request a stay/TRO/injunction be issued by the courts along with their lawsuit.

    If denied at the US District Court level, it can immediately be brought before the Circuit Court having jurisdiction. If the CCA fails to grant relief, it can immediately be brought before the Supreme Court.

    No guarantees, but absurd new statutes passed in NJ and NY can be stifled quickly.
     

    Abuck

    Active Member
    Buck - The "emotional" part wasn't really aimed at you, I just used your comment as a vehicle for my above reply.

    I have said this before, we lost our rights one insignificant law at a time, we get them back one insignificant law at a time.

    HOWEVER, I will amend that to add, we will, NOW, also get them back one very well litigated lawsuit at a time. And with Bruen, and a 6-3 SCOTUS, I'm not so sure we have to "hope" the lower courts will rule correctly.

    I will take time, just not as much time as it would have this time last year. Bruen is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning. It is the ruling we have been waiting, neh, hoping for, since McDonald and the thin 5-4 SCOTUS rulings, that really had no teeth to force the lower courts to rule as they should.

    A 6-3 court and very well spelled out opinion, have changed that.
    I didn’t take it personally, as I understand that this IS a topic full of emotions. Having the tools available able to defend your business and your cash, but not your children, your spouse, or your own life is a subject full of emotions.

    I am fully aware of how long this battle has been, and it’s going to continue. In PA, I’ve carried the last 36 years. I’ve been waiting to not have to disarm at the MD border for several decades. I can wait a bit longer, just not like it.

    We got a gift from Justice Thomas with this ruling. Even more than we had hoped. It’s going to be nice to see our laws used against those who restrict our rights. It’s a shame that permitting schemes were upheld, and emboldened some to defy parts of the ruling. It’s going to take time, lawsuits, and of course money, to correct those infractions. But thankfully, the clock is ticking.
     

    BurkeM

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2014
    889
    Baltimore
    Of course, before 6/23, no one has probably submitted an application without G&S.
    Many people have been disapproved over the past decade for lacking G&S. Some of those people appealed to the HPRB and were disapproved again - like Mr Whalen.

    Others have gone through the OAH process- some have been approved and others were disapproved again.

    IMHO, all of the people ever who were disapproved over G&S will have grounds to either reopen their applications or file new apps for reconsideration w/out a “reason.”

    (Examples- Guards and PI’s who were missing the proper letter from an employer, or who’s Guard cards had expired; business owners and employees who failed to provide “enough” documentation about the business; personal protection applicants who lacked police reports or lacked witnesses, or where a peace order had lapsed; assumed risk cases who couldn’t get a security manager to write a TS letter, or who only had a S clearance, or doctors and lawyers who lacked threatening letters.

    Lots of folks over the past decade were disapproved or had applications canceled over something minor missing from the application.

    Others HAVE applied without detailed evidence, using “2A” or other constitutional carry arguments alone.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    262,854
    Messages
    6,728,433
    Members
    30,820
    Latest member
    82peterbilt

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom