MSI, FPC & SAF New Carry Lawsuit

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!
  • DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    The 4th Circuit vacated the lower court's holding and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss as moot today.

     

    scottyfz6

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 22, 2018
    1,343
    The 4th Circuit vacated the lower court's holding and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss as moot today.
    Well that sucks and is good. Good that we have what we have, sucks that they could not have given us precedent as an insurance policy.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    I have the same question Twitter has, how is it moot when G&S is still codified law?
    Both the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, as well as the Governor’s response, render this case moot. See Long v. Pekoske, 38 F.4th 417, 422-23 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A case becomes moot . . . when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. A case may become moot on appeal if there’s ‘[a] change in factual circumstances[,] . . . such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought in his or her claim.’” (citations and some quotation marks omitted)). As set forth above, the complaint in this case challenged Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement to the extent that it allowed Maryland officials to deny a wear and carry permit based on a discretionary determination that an individual failed to show a specific need to carry a handgun that distinguished the applicant from the general public. By concluding that New York’s discretionary scheme violated the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court’s decision, in effect, thereby also invalidated laws that had “analog[ous]” schemes, including that embodied in Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement. Governor Hogan’s executive action affirmed this conclusion and formalized the State’s intent to comply with Bruen. On July 27, 2022, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued a published decision holding that Maryland’s good-and-substantial-reason requirement is unconstitutional under Bruen. In re Rounds, No. 1533, Sept. Term, 2021 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 27, 2022).

    The relief sought in Call had been achieved. G&S is no longer enforced and cannot be without officials liable to litigation for deprivation of civil rights.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    The law will be adjusted to reflect the change. Per order of the court.
    There won't be any orders telling the state legislature they must change their law. Rather, the law cannot be enforced anymore without officials and agencies being left vulnerable to litigation and penalties (in which they're vulnerable under 42 USC § 1983). The federal courts do not have the power to force states to change their laws. It just behooves the government to do so for a number of reasons.

    Maryland is still repealing laws repugnant to SCOTUS precedent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and further controlling precedent from the 4th Circuit in 2013.
    The events referenced by the Delegate: https://www.washingtonblade.com/202...-under-md-sodomy-law-in-adult-bookstore-raid/
    I don't think the charges that inspired these changes resulted in further litigation, but the criminal prosecutions were at risk to begin with (this effect is happening on some criminal gun prosecutions in Maryland since Bruen already). Those involved could still potentially be in trouble if any of the affected decided to bring suit and there are groups that would take on such cases.

    The difference here is that only the State Police enforce MD Public Safety § 5-306(a)(6)(ii), as the Secretary is charged with administering permits to carry handguns and the MSP have been ordered by the Governor to cease enforcement of "G&S" and a Maryland Court of Special Appeals decision further bars its enforcement. The state threw its hands up to say, "You got me."

    The legislature might, and I expect they do, remove "g&s" from its code and COMAR, but they will likely try some New York stuff this coming session as they change their laws against a reality that the people have a right to carry handguns in public for their personal protection.



    This coming legislative session will be bumpy (but they always are).
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,184
    There won't be any orders telling the state legislature they must change their law. Rather, the law cannot be enforced anymore without officials and agencies being left vulnerable to litigation and penalties (in which they're vulnerable under 42 USC § 1983). The federal courts do not have the power to force states to change their laws. It just behooves the government to do so for a number of reasons.

    Maryland is still repealing laws repugnant to SCOTUS precedent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and further controlling precedent from the 4th Circuit in 2013.
    The events referenced by the Delegate: https://www.washingtonblade.com/202...-under-md-sodomy-law-in-adult-bookstore-raid/
    I don't think the charges that inspired these changes resulted in further litigation, but the criminal prosecutions were at risk to begin with (this effect is happening on some criminal gun prosecutions in Maryland since Bruen already). Those involved could still potentially be in trouble if any of the affected decided to bring suit and there are groups that would take on such cases.

    The difference here is that only the State Police enforce MD Public Safety § 5-306(a)(6)(ii), as the Secretary is charged with administering permits to carry handguns and the MSP have been ordered by the Governor to cease enforcement of "G&S" and a Maryland Court of Special Appeals decision further bars its enforcement. The state threw its hands up to say, "You got me."

    The legislature might, and I expect they do, remove "g&s" from its code and COMAR, but they will likely try some New York stuff this coming session as they change their laws against a reality that the people have a right to carry handguns in public for their personal protection.



    This coming legislative session will be bumpy (but they always are).

    Thanks...

    My comment is that they will eventually change the law to reflect the court order.

    Either by deletion or by other change. But in the mean time, the existence of the language cannot negate/nullify the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen. A ruling which completely negates/nullifies the written language of G&S.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Thanks...

    My comment is that they will eventually change the law to reflect the court order.

    Either by deletion or by other change. But in the mean time, the existence of the language cannot negate/nullify the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen. A ruling which completely negates/nullifies the written language of G&S.
    Or they may not change the G&S language, just in case changes at SCOTUS do to Bruen what Dobbs did to Roe. Alito and Thomas aren't exactly youthful.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,184
    Or they may not change the G&S language, just in case changes at SCOTUS do to Bruen what Dobbs did to Roe. Alito and Thomas aren't exactly youthful.
    RvW was not ever a COTUS right. Nothing in any history of the COTUS process ever mentioned abortion. The SCOTUS panel that issued RvW did not have the lawful authority/power to rule on what is a State’s Rights issue. The current SCOTUS panel corrected that mistake.

    However, the Bruen ruling had everything to do with a purely COTUS issue. RTKABA is clearly written into the COTUS. It literally is NOT a State’s Rights issue. And SCOTUS has full authority/power to reinforce the 2A. And it did just that.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,258,955
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom