CA4 Issues Stay, Expedites Appeal

[packinacannon]

I have to choose my words very carefully. I have four cops in my family.

 

[Merlin]

I dont ask that every Marylander carry. I dont ask that they own a firearm if they choose not to. Just respect my right to do so. One day someone carrying, may save the life of someone dear to you. Just this thought should change your perspective. Our law enforcement is great but can't allways be where you need them when you need them. I carry, because a deputy wont fit in my pocket.

I hear you brother and only if it were that simple. It not that the antis think or know you have the right and just do not care about your right. They think you do not have the right and the 2A means an Army needs to be armed.

I was over hearing a discussion just the other day at work and that was going back and forth.

 

[hairba111]

I have to choose my words very carefully. I have four cops in my family.

There's more than four cops, plus a few deputies on this forum fella.

 

[Merlin]

There's more than four cops, plus a few deputies on this forum fella.

And they have been a wonderful assist with great advice to us.

 

[iobidder]

And they have been a wonderful assist with great advice to us.

I just use google. What do I know?

Sent via Samsung Galaxy 3 or iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

[damionkarp]

The sad part is this right can easily be restricted or prohibited under the " public safety " argument. Once our 1A right received limits and restrictions, it opened the door to do the same to each and every right. Do you want proof? Yell fire in a movie theatre. One little word which is used everyday in one context or another. So much for free speech.

How can they do this to 2A? Public safety could be impacted by people in a panic hearing " oh my god, there's a man with a gun! " I expect this to go to the Supreme Court and they won't answer that the right exists outside the home. They will say that public safety trumps any right we may have. This has been Maryland's two part argument. Blood in the streets, public safety. It's a chicken excrement way out of confirming our right exists in the first place.

Their thought is yes, it's an unalienable right which we can restrict. Just like 1A.

 

[Maverick0313]

Patient? yes. Optimistic? no.

 

[Merlin]

The sad part is this right can easily be restricted or prohibited under the " public safety " argument. Once our 1A right received limits and restrictions, it opened the door to do the same to each and every right. Do you want proof? Yell fire in a movie theatre. One little word which is used everyday in one context or another. So much for free speech.

How can they do this to 2A? Public safety could be impacted by people in a panic hearing " oh my god, there's a man with a gun! " I expect this to go to the Supreme Court and they won't answer that the right exists outside the home. They will say that public safety trumps any right we may have. This has been Maryland's two part argument. Blood in the streets, public safety. It's a chicken excrement way out of confirming our right exists in the first place.

Their thought is yes, it's an unalienable right which we can restrict. Just like 1A.

Do you feel the yelling of fire in a movie theater, when their is no fire for no other reason then striking fear in the hearts of the people within the theater is a responsible use of your 1A right that should be tolerated?

Personally I do not. Our rights are VERY valuable and should be respected and use as they were intended. Not just misused because we can say/do any dumb ass thing and claim free speech.

I'm not concerned at all if this goes to the SC. Back in 1986 there was only 1 state out of 50 where you could carry. Today there is 40 out of 50 states where you can carry. If the SC was not for the outside of the house thing as you say, how has this change taken place over the last 26 years?

I do not know how each of the 39 state that now have some form of Shall Issue went through their changes, but one would have to deduce that one or two of these states as their laws were being changed made it to the SC over the years. If your right, does that mean the US will go back to the way that it was in 1986?

 

[Storm40]

Patient? yes. Optimistic? no.

quoting for future reference so that either you can acknowledge that my pessimism was correct in this case or I can gratefully, happily and eagerly say you were right and I was wrong.

for the record, I really do hope I get to eat a heaping helping of crow, but the <24 hour stay followed by what I interpret to be a "hostile" oral argument doesn't leave me with much hope.

 

[damionkarp]

Do you feel the yelling of fire in a movie theater, when their is no fire for no other reason then striking fear in the hearts of the people within the theater is a responsible use of your 1A right that should be tolerated?

Personally I do not. Our rights are VERY valuable and should be respected and use as they were intended. Not just misused because we can say/do any dumb ass thing and claim free speech.

I'm not concerned at all if this goes to the SC. Back in 1986 there was only 1 state out of 50 where you could carry. Today there is 40 out of 50 states where you can carry. If the SC was not for the outside of the house thing as you say, how has this change taken place over the last 26 years?

I do not know how each of the 39 state that now have some form of Shall Issue went through their changes, but one would have to deduce that one or two of these states as their laws were being changed made it to the SC over the years. If your right, does that mean the US will go back to the way that it was in 1986?

This is why I make the comparison between 1A " Fire in Theatre " and 2A " Outside the home." You won't tolerate the yelling of fire while others won't tolerate OMG he has a gun! The mere mention of either brings fear and anger instead of tolerance and respect. The difference is WE, myself included, love guns. We will allow the repression of some rights as long as the repression doesn't reach the rights we exercise and enjoy. This is our hurdle we need to overcome. Fear and panic are public safety concerns that can trump our rights.

My point is simply since 1A has restrictions and limits, we are fooling ourselves that other rights won't be restricted as well. As for the other states, if the Supreme Court agrees with Maryland's Public Safety argument then game over and it's law of the land no matter what the states allow now.

In closing, why do the worst things come from these two rational.
It's for the children!
It's for the safety of the public.

 

[damionkarp]

I hope I'm wrong to. If I'm right, I'll tell you I'm right. If I'm wrong, I'll change the subject.

 

[Haides]

This is why I make the comparison between 1A " Fire in Theatre " and 2A " Outside the home." You won't tolerate the yelling of fire while others won't tolerate OMG he has a gun! The mere mention of either brings fear and anger instead of tolerance and respect. The difference is WE, myself included, love guns. We will allow the repression of some rights as long as the repression doesn't reach the rights we exercise and enjoy. This is our hurdle we need to overcome. Fear and panic are public safety concerns that can trump our rights.

My point is simply since 1A has restrictions and limits, we are fooling ourselves that other rights won't be restricted as well. As for the other states, if the Supreme Court agrees with Maryland's Public Safety argument then game over and it's law of the land no matter what the states allow now.

In closing, why do the worst things come from these two rational.
It's for the children!
It's for the safety of the public.

He wasn't speaking about we do and don't tolerate. It's about whether it is a responsible vs irresponsible exercise of your rights. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire just to cause panic is irresponsible. Carrying a concealed firearm for personal protection is not.

Yelling fire in theater =/= Carrying a concealed handgun in public.

The 2A equivalent of yelling fire in a theater would be brandishing and/or firing your weapon when there is no legitimate reason to do so, not simply carrying one.

 

[swinokur]

Or screaming "I've got a gun!" in public.

Whether you do or don't wouldn't be relevant.

 

[Merlin]

He wasn't speaking about we do and don't tolerate. It's about whether it is a responsible vs irresponsible exercise of your rights. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire just to cause panic is irresponsible. Carrying a concealed firearm for personal protection is not.

Yelling fire in theater =/= Carrying a concealed handgun in public.

The 2A equivalent of yelling fire in a theater would be brandishing and/or firing your weapon when there is no legitimate reason to do so, not simply carrying one.

All very good points.

 

[damionkarp]

He wasn't speaking about we do and don't tolerate. It's about whether it is a responsible vs irresponsible exercise of your rights. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire just to cause panic is irresponsible. Carrying a concealed firearm for personal protection is not.

Yelling fire in theater =/= Carrying a concealed handgun in public.

The 2A equivalent of yelling fire in a theater would be brandishing and/or firing your weapon when there is no legitimate reason to do so, not simply carrying one.

I understand that. My point is that restrictions exist on rights. What could Maryland use to their benefit to convince SCT what if any restrictions should be placed on 2A rights. I don't think Maryland will distinguish how the fear and panic will ensue , they will just say it will ensue.

 

[Haides]

I understand that. My point is that restrictions exist on rights. What could Maryland use to their benefit to convince SCT what if any restrictions should be placed on 2A rights. I don't think Maryland will distinguish how the fear and panic will ensue , they will just say it will ensue.

That's true but we have facts and common sense on our side. I think the best counter to the 'fire in a movie theater' argument is the whole deal about prior restraint. Yes, it's against the law to yell fire in movie theater, but we don't have to wear gags in a theater to keep us from doing so. We aren't prohibited from speaking in a theater to stop us from yelling fire, and we don't have to apply for a permit to allow us to speak in a movie theater. So yes, there are some instances in which rights can be restricted in the name of public safety but the state cannot place a prior restraint on those rights. I know that would involve Maryland "trusting" us to be responsible, which is a bit of a stretch from their usual 'protect them from themselves' attitude, but it is still a solid point.

Not to mention we've heard all the 'fear & panic' and 'blood in the streets' arguments before, and 30 some years and 40 states later it hasn't come to pass.

The biggest danger with the SC, IMO, is judicial activism. If their already dead set against the 2A, then it won't matter how good our arguments are; their opinion will win out over facts and common sense every time.

 

[swinokur]

The thing I don't get is the MD argument about public safety. All the shall issue states' in the 4th Circuit gun crime rates can easily disprove MD's public safety argument, not to mention the over 40 Shall Issue states. The gun crime rates there certainly disprove MD's argument, yet they continue to make it, even in light of SAF's briefs that totally disprove it.

Very frustrating to say the least.

 

[Mr H]

The thing I don't get is the MD argument about public safety. All the states in the 4th Circuit except MD can easily disprove MD's public safety argument, not to mention the over 40 Shall Issue states. The gun crime rates there certainly disprove MD's argument, yet they continue to make it, even in light of SAF's briefs that totally disprove it.
Very frustrating to say the least.

But... But........

Maryland's DIFFERENT!!



I've said it before... The Woollard case (and Shall-Issue in general) flies in the face of what has, heretofore, been a very effective self-perpetuating scheme to accrue power and funding to crime-ridden centers, all while doing nothing to actually solve the problem (thus requiring more power and funding...)

 

[Boxcab]

Can someone show me the statute that says it is illegal to shout "Fire" in a theater, or is it that you are responsible for the consequences of doing so (public endangerment, lawsuits for damages/etc.)?

It is best to understand the difference in this discussion.

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

Can someone show me the statute that says it is illegal to shout "Fire" in a theater, or is it that you are responsible for the consequences of doing so (public endangerment, lawsuits for damages/etc.)?

It is best to understand the difference in this discussion.

It's a paraphrasing of a portion of the majority opinion in Schenk v. United States, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to criminalize speech encouraging draft resistance during World War 1.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."