Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[Sunrise]

Effectively declare would actually be banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere in the county, but doing it other than simply stating a ban on carrying of a firearm in the entire county.

That isn't actually circular logic.

"The carrying of a firearm in the county is prohibited" Is a direct ban.

"The carrying of a firearm on property other than that owned by the permit holder or where explicit permission is given by the property owner as well as the carry of a firearm on any public property is banned" would be an effective ban. Can't on public. And without permission from a private property owner, you can't anywhere on private either. Generally, your own property is not going to extend to being considered part of the county by a court is my understanding.

This was a tactic MD tried with their explicit permission private property ban as well as public building ban. They aren't banning it outside, so in MD after October 1st, you will still be allowed to carry a firearm in most of the state (outside of MoCo), but you just can't go inside almost anywhere. Which again, makes it extraordinarily difficult to carry most of the time without significant burden (such as locking your firearm in your vehicle anytime you stop to go in somewhere).

It gets back to Bruen, the language makes it 100% crystal clear a total ban in something like a city is flat out not acceptable. The liberal legislatures are attempting to see if one very small step back from a clear total ban is acceptable. The obvious answer is it perverts what Bruen was trying to make clear. But Bruen did NOT spell out how close to a total ban in a large geographic area you could be and be considered acceptable. So long as you can point to some kind of historical analog for the bans you are issuing.

And again, in this case the judge is saying a PI can only be issued under the OLD regime of 2-step. Because Bruen didn't make it clear that PIs should also use THT. And the judge then further said, there is some historical analogs. Well, Bruen didn't spell out clearly exactly how similar is it for be an analog? If the horse is painted green and the sweater is green, does that make them analogs? The county is arguing yes, they are both green, the judge is nodding his head that they are in fact both green.

So that would be an effective ban. Is it an absolute? No, but effectively you can't.

To what Dblas said and I have, you CAN transport your firearm to places in the county you could carry. It is not effectively a county wide ban. It drastically limits it and it obviously makes it nearly impossible for the average permit holder to carry throughout their day without violating the law. And most permit holders could not carry continuously as they travel through the county or resident permit holders could not leave their property while carrying. Most would be forced to transport to a location and then carry.

The intent is to make it too difficult and legally perilous to carry to dissuade anyone from carrying.

An effective ban would mean there is really no ability to comply. Hughs is an effective ban on the private ownership for fully automatic weapons made after 1986. Okay, I can get an FFL and SOT and under certain circumstances I could then own a fully automatic weapon. But effectively, private ownership is banned. Most people could not even qualify and get through the hoops needed for an FFL and SOT and then the conditions necessary to then possess one on top of that, because only then am I exempt from needing a tax stamp to possess it. The ban on the treasury from issuing tax stamps for new machine guns makes it an effective ban.

This is going to take another visit to SCOTUS to clarify sensitive places. That was obvious from the moment Bruen was released. I think Thomas new it too. But unless he wanted to push things even FURTHER and enshrine a sensitive places test in to Bruen, that wasn't going to happen. Bruen was not about sensitive places. That was/is going to take another lawsuit and a SCOTUS opinion to make that clear (and I doubt Thomas had 5 other votes if he had put a sensitive places test in to Bruen. I'd imagine there are 6 votes on such once a case makes it to SCOTUS, but it was outside of what they were ruling on and SCOTUS rarely broadens their opinions to cover more than simply the issue before the court, which was permit issuance)

Mark was very clear in his Notice of Intent to Submit a Rule 8, FRAP, Motion For An Injunction Pending Appeal.

There are likely thousands of such 100-yard exclusionary zones spread throughout the County. The County itself, in opposing plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stated that “[t]here are over 1,000 licensed childcare facilities in the County.” County Opp. To Plaintiffs’ Motion for a PI at 26. A childcare facility is merely one of the many types of locations in which firearms are banned by the County. See Opinion at 4. The existence of so many such zones make it impossible, as a practical matter, for persons who have been issued a wear and carry permit to legally carry in the County. That effect is not seriously disputed by the County and, indeed, was fully intended by the County when it enacted Bill 21-22E. Inexplicably, the Court’s Opinion did not address this reality even though it was prominent in the briefing.

In NYSRPA v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2118-19 (2023), the Supreme Court held that “there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place.’” In its Opinion in this case, the Court has permitted the County “to effectively declare” the whole of Montgomery County, Maryland, a “sensitive place” in which all firearms are banned, even by permit holders. The island of Manhattan occupies approximately 23 square miles. Montgomery County occupies over 490 square miles, which is 21 times larger than the island of Manhattan. If New York may not “effectively” ban carry on the island of Manhattan, the County may not “effectively” ban carry throughout the County. Bruen held that there is a “general right” to carry in public, 142 S.Ct. at 2135, 2134, 2135, but the Court’s Opinion in this case has allowed the County to effectively extinguish that right. Respectfully, that result is indefensible.

The County bans firearms over vast tracts of privately owned land otherwise open to the public and those bans are thus analogous to New Jersey’s presumptive ban on carry on private property at issue in Koons v. Platkin, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2023 WL 3478604 (D.N.J. May 16, 2023). In that case, the district court preliminarily enjoined that presumptive ban, holding that such a ban violated the Second Amendment. Id. at *68. New Jersey appealed that ruling (and other rulings) to the Third Circuit and sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal under Rule 8. That motion is, of course, the mirror image of the relief that plaintiffs will seek in this case with a Rule 8 motion.

The liberal legislatures are attempting to see if one very small step back from a clear total ban is acceptable.

I wouldn't call any of the above "one very small step". The language "to effectively declare" is completely appropriate here. Mark didn't say "effective". He said "effectively". That's an important distinction with a difference.

 

[rambling_one]

L - Have you offered Mark your assistance in making his narrative clearer?

 

[jcutonilli]

Why would anyone want to go to your address? That never crossed my mind.

Someone living at 7200 Denton Rd does not need to go anywhere and can legally carry in that area.

I am not arguing that this law will somehow pass muster, I am demonstrating why it is not a 100% ban for you or anyone in the area

What is the intended point ?

I am demonstrating why it is not a 100% ban for you or anyone in the area

Someone living at 7200 Denton does not need to go anywhere ?

You don't need to be able to go anywhere in MoCo to demonstrate that there are areas where the law allows legal carry.

Because he can carry up and down the sidewalk of 7200 block of Denton St only , 21-22 isn't an infringement ?

I am not arguing that this law will somehow pass muster

 

[Blacksmith101]

The Four Boxes Diner has a YouTube that analyzes the Judges decision:

 

[Occam]

You don't need to be able to go anywhere in MoCo to demonstrate that there are areas where the law allows legal carry.

If the law does not allow carrying TO those places then the demonstration is meaningless. No, “transport” is not “bearing” within the bounds of the 2A, Bruen, or any whiff of common sense. An inaccessible carry oasis is an oasis because carrying to get there is banned in practice and by intent under this law.

 

[coinboy]

What am I wrong about?

You can carry anywhere not prohibited by law.

MSI mentioned Caroline Free Urban Park as an example of a prohibited location in their brief. As an example where lawful carry can occur is 7200 Denton Rd, Bethesda, MD 20814 (Few blocks west of the park) There appears to be at least a few blocks west and south of this location that would also allow lawful carry.

This disproves any notion that the law is "A 100% ban in practice, and intent."

So the person can carry a few blocks.

Got it.

 

[jcutonilli]

If the law does not allow carrying TO those places then the demonstration is meaningless. No, “transport” is not “bearing” within the bounds of the 2A, Bruen, or any whiff of common sense. An inaccessible carry oasis is an oasis because carrying to get there is banned in practice and by intent under this law.

It is not meaningless if you want to demonstrate that there is not a 100% ban. The claim you have made is that there is a 100% ban and that is false.

 

[jcutonilli]

...and I would tell you that you are wrong.

So

So the person can carry a few blocks.

Got it.

You already said that

...and I would tell you that you are wrong.

Apparently you have nothing intelligent to say about why you think I am wrong.

Being able to carry a few blocks refutes a statement that say you cannot carry anywhere because those few blocks demonstrate that you can carry at least somewhere.

 

[coinboy]

You already said that

Apparently you have nothing intelligent to say about why you think I am wrong.

Being able to carry a few blocks refutes a statement that say you cannot carry anywhere because those few blocks demonstrate that you can carry at least somewhere.

Because the premise of the law is that you can't carry anywhere.

I guess by your logic a few steps down the street is a legitimate argument.

I think it's illogical because you really can't carry anywhere. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that.

The purpose of Bruen was to reaffirm the right to self protection. Not protection of people in a two block area and banned in the rest of the county.

I'd also like to know how you come up with THT for the exclusion of all zones but a two block area of an entire county.

 

[FGT1958]

I am not saying @jcutonilli is right or wrong in his assertions. However, I do believe from my recollection of his posts, that he has a very good handle on how the court system is reviewing and handling these cases. My personal opinion is that there is an effective ban on the ability to carry by licensed CCW holders in MoCo due to the structure of the law as it was passed. Therefore, I think that the county will effectively utilize a version of his arguments to support their position. Hopefully, the court will see through this and render a just verdict.

 

[Blacksmith101]

So in spite of Bruen saying you can't make the whole island of Manhattan a "sensitive place" as long as they exclude one block somewhere they could declare the rest of the island a "sensitive place" and it would be OK because it isn't 100%?

I don't think that meets the spirit of the law.

 

[Occam]

I don't think that meets the spirit of the law.

It doesn’t honor the spirit OR the actual unambiguous language of Thomas’s ruling.

Any judge who finds for the county on this because of truly childish semantic differences between describing a carry-unnavigable county and actually manifesting one in real life … that judge would be ruling for the county no matter what, out of personal distaste for what he considers an icky part of the Bill of Rights, and even ickier Deplorables who cling to it.

We don’t have to worry about the semantics. We have a judge who will dishonor Bruen or not, regardless of the gymnastics required to do it. The sanctity of the BoR, Thomas’s very clear anticipation of just this sort of BS law, and anything resembling intellectual integrity will all take a back seat to the same politics that denied the PI. Warm up the MSI litigation fund bucket, we’re gonna need it. And more patience.

 

[Bob A]

So in spite of Bruen saying you can't make the whole island of Manhattan a "sensitive place" as long as they exclude one block somewhere they could declare the rest of the island a "sensitive place" and it would be OK because it isn't 100%?

I don't think that meets the spirit of the law.

He's uncaring regarding the "spirit" of the law. He's hanging his hat on "100%" while ignoring the application of the law.

It's what sleazy lawyers do. He may or may not be sleazy in himself or his practice, but he's doing what lawyers are trained to do: find or create any possible argument that might possibly work against the opposition, and keep throwing it against the wall, and pointing out the places where it sticks, and then conflating the shit-smears into complete validation of his argument.

This in turn provides scope for the judges to follow their personal inclinations, while pontificating that their position is The Only Right Interpretation.

And so on, up the ladder. Until everyone involved in the case is bankrupt or dead.

 

[Occam]

Until everyone involved in the case is bankrupt or dead.

The county will only be happy if we are both of those things.

 

[BeoBill]

He's uncaring regarding the "spirit" of the law. He's hanging his hat on "100%" while ignoring the application of the law.

It's what sleazy lawyers do. He may or may not be sleazy in himself or his practice, but he's doing what lawyers are trained to do: find or create any possible argument that might possibly work against the opposition, and keep throwing it against the wall, and pointing out the places where it sticks, and then conflating the shit-smears into complete validation of his argument.

He and nearly all of the entire Maryland Governance Apparatus view the Bruen ruling as "misguided" and "wrongheaded", and have said so publicly several times. This is just childish petulance from the adult children that have been elected and appointed. Their words will ultimately win our case for us.

This reminds me of the earlier Civil Rights Movement when the schools were being desegregated. The parallels are stunning...

 

[rbird7282]

He and nearly all of the entire Maryland Governance Apparatus view the Bruen ruling as "misguided" and "wrongheaded", and have said so publicly several times. This is just childish petulance from the adult children that have been elected and appointed. Their words will ultimately win our case for us.

This reminds me of the earlier Civil Rights Movement when the schools were being desegregated. The parallels are stunning...

Exactly right. Well said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jcutonilli]

Because the premise of the law is that you can't carry anywhere.

I guess by your logic a few steps down the street is a legitimate argument.

I think it's illogical because you really can't carry anywhere. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that.

The purpose of Bruen was to reaffirm the right to self protection. Not protection of people in a two block area and banned in the rest of the county.

I'd also like to know how you come up with THT for the exclusion of all zones but a two block area of an entire county.

If the premise of the law is truly that you can't carry anywhere, then it would be illegal to carry in every inch of MoCo. There would be no place that could be identified as being an area that is lawful to carry.

I have identified a particular spot in MoCo where I believe it would be lawful to carry. I may be right or I may be wrong about that particular spot. I have yet to hear anyone say that I am wrong about this spot and at least a small area near that spot. I believe there are quite a few spots, but I have not done a rigorous analysis to determine exactly how many spots.

Both of these statements cannot be true as they contradict each other.

I believe the first statement, that you can't carry anywhere, is incorrect because there are places that do allow lawful carry.

I believe that MoCo wrote it to maximize the amount of sensitive places without fully banning carry everywhere. My analysis seems to confirm this.

Bruen certainly did reaffirm the right to self protection in public. It does allow certain sensitive places to be excluded, but it is currently unclear exactly what they are. While the judge claimed to apply THT to the case, I don't believe he has correctly applied it to the law. I don't believe the current law will survive intact. We will need to wait and see how this will all play out in the courts.

 

[jcutonilli]

So in spite of Bruen saying you can't make the whole island of Manhattan a "sensitive place" as long as they exclude one block somewhere they could declare the rest of the island a "sensitive place" and it would be OK because it isn't 100%?

I don't think that meets the spirit of the law.

I don't believe Bruen would allow a prohibition on carry everywhere but one block.

My issues have to do with what the MoCo law says and does. The MoCo law does not make carry illegal everywhere and it does not turn MoCo into one big "sensitive place".

 

[coinboy]

If the premise of the law is truly that you can't carry anywhere, then it would be illegal to carry in every inch of MoCo. There would be no place that could be identified as being an area that is lawful to carry.

I have identified a particular spot in MoCo where I believe it would be lawful to carry. I may be right or I may be wrong about that particular spot. I have yet to hear anyone say that I am wrong about this spot and at least a small area near that spot. I believe there are quite a few spots, but I have not done a rigorous analysis to determine exactly how many spots.

Both of these statements cannot be true as they contradict each other.

I believe the first statement, that you can't carry anywhere, is incorrect because there are places that do allow lawful carry.

I believe that MoCo wrote it to maximize the amount of sensitive places without fully banning carry everywhere. My analysis seems to confirm this.

Bruen certainly did reaffirm the right to self protection in public. It does allow certain sensitive places to be excluded, but it is currently unclear exactly what they are. While the judge claimed to apply THT to the case, I don't believe he has correctly applied it to the law. I don't believe the current law will survive intact. We will need to wait and see how this will all play out in the courts.

It seems that you are pretty good at arguing.

How about instead of arguing how we lose, you argue about how we win?

Just sayin'.

 

[Raineman]

I don't believe Bruen would allow a prohibition on carry everywhere but one block.

My issues have to do with what the MoCo law says and does. The MoCo law does not make carry illegal everywhere and it does not turn MoCo into one big "sensitive place".

Your 1st sentence is the point of this whole thing I believe.

3rd sentence= it "effectively" does though, and as I pointed out previously, "effectively" is a key word in Bruen, as far as I understand.

How about instead of arguing how we lose, you argue about how we win?

Yes, this. Or maybe that is what he is doing, I really can't tell.