Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 2nd, 2021, 04:04 PM #51
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 38,428
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 38,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacksmith101 View Post
Possibly a "Facile" attack?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge
__________________
Quote:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256)
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2021, 04:36 PM #52
Biggfoot44's Avatar
Biggfoot44 Biggfoot44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 22,576
Biggfoot44 Biggfoot44 is offline
Senior Member
Biggfoot44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 22,576
It's not exclusive . Their Facial attacks are often Facile .
Biggfoot44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2021, 09:31 AM #53
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,677
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,677
This should get slapped down at the District Court level but remember this is CA9 territory and the MO is for the appeals court to put a stay in place while they wait a year to hear the appeal, then if the 3 judge panel rules for plaintiffs, it’ll be reversed en banc then we wait another 1-2 years for another lame decision.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2021, 09:35 AM #54
JohnnyE's Avatar
JohnnyE JohnnyE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MoCo
Posts: 3,029
JohnnyE JohnnyE is offline
Senior Member
JohnnyE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MoCo
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by teratos View Post
Hmmm. Never thought of that.


Call it a win-win?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MigraineMan View Post
Acetone is fairly effective at removing urethane adhesives from skin, but it removes the natural oils too.

Make sure it rubs the lotion on it's skin after treatment.
What about a heat gun?
__________________
This may look like legal advice. It is not. I am not a Maryland lawyer. I do not know you or the details of your concerns. I cannot advise you or answer your legal questions. Hire your own counsel to advise you.
JohnnyE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2021, 10:09 AM #55
whistlersmother whistlersmother is offline
Peace through strength
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fulton, MD
Posts: 6,861
whistlersmother whistlersmother is offline
Peace through strength
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fulton, MD
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
This should get slapped down at the District Court level but remember this is CA9 territory and the MO is for the appeals court to put a stay in place while they wait a year to hear the appeal, then if the 3 judge panel rules for plaintiffs, it’ll be reversed en banc then we wait another 1-2 years for another lame decision.
This.

And all the tax and guns given over to gov won't be returned if its struck down.
__________________
How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words! - Samuel Adams
whistlersmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2021, 11:19 AM #56
MichaelZWilliamson MichaelZWilliamson is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 42
MichaelZWilliamson MichaelZWilliamson is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combloc View Post
There is a remedy but apparently we are too pussified to take that step. The past 7+ months are proof of that.
The last 16 months of Covidiocy.

97% will meekly comply, because they "Want people to feel comfortable." They'll whine on the internet, but won't actually do anything. They'll wave IIIer banners and Gadsden flags, but they'll comply.

Americans have become indolent, compliant, and craven.
MichaelZWilliamson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2021, 02:59 PM #57
steveh326 steveh326 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mt. Airy
Posts: 1,277
steveh326 steveh326 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mt. Airy
Posts: 1,277
Montgomery County to San Jose... "hold my beer and watch this"
steveh326 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2021, 03:29 PM #58
gwfrench gwfrench is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 119
gwfrench gwfrench is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggfoot44 View Post
It's not exclusive . Their Facial attacks are often Facile .
And Farcical
gwfrench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2021, 03:29 PM #59
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 38,428
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 38,428
“ Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania

No. 480

Argued March 10, 11, 1943

Decided May 3, 1943*

319 U.S. 105

Syllabus

1. A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. Pp. 319 U. S. 108-110.

2. The mere fact that the religious literature is "sold", rather than "donated" does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise. P. 319 U. S. 111.

3. Upon the record in these cases, it cannot be said that "Jehovah's Witnesses" were engaged in a commercial, rather than in a religious, venture. P. 319 U. S. 111.

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

“5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

“6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.”

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116...”

The important parts:

“ 4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113...”

“ 5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties… and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.”

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.“

This is settled law.
__________________
Quote:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256)
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2021, 03:47 PM #60
davsco's Avatar
davsco davsco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Loudoun, VA
Posts: 7,180
Images: 4
davsco davsco is offline
Senior Member
davsco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Loudoun, VA
Posts: 7,180
Images: 4
think wva just REMOVED taxes on guns & ammo... now, THAT's moving in the "right" direction!
davsco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service