NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[2112rws]

.577 ?

 

[Kharn]

The lawyers behind this epic Constitutional SCOTUS victory, Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, were more or less fired by their law firm (Kirkland and Ellis) today - told they either had to drop all their 2A clients or leave. Unbelievable.

WSJ: You Won Your Gun Case. You’re Fired

I went to high school with a different partner from Kirkland and Ellis.
I'm not at all surprised.

 

[Allen65]

.577 ?

That would be a Pattern 1853 Enfield.

 

[Kharn]

WRT NFA'34, we don't need a full invalidation. I think most of us would settle for 922(o) being declared unconstitutional, and a time limit imposed on Forms 1 and 4. This is the third decade of the 21st Century...the idea that it takes 10-13 months to run a background check is nonsense.

Walmart charging the $200 tax like a duck stamp at the time of purchase, and NICS?
Not the best outcome, not the worst.

 

[Ecestu]

Lead story on the Bloodymore Sun email blast tonight...

Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling with implications for Maryland’s own concealed carry law

Behind a paywall unless you can defeat cookies and browser fingerprinting.

tl;dr:
- Supreme Court issued something today that may affect Maryland gun laws.
- A handful of state Republicans think it's a good thing.
- Every state Democrat of any stature thinks it will lead to wholesale slaughter.
- Frosh is having a hemorrhage. (Made me smile)
- That Potato in DC doesn't like it (No word about DoJ).

Pretty decent article. Hint for opening it: right click, open in private tab.

 

[DC-W]

Maryland’s rules for concealed carry gun permits in jeopardy after Supreme Court ruling

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said his team is examining the high court’s ruling to see how it affects the issuance of permits in Maryland, known legally as “wear and carry” permits.

www.thebaltimorebanner.com

 

[jrumann59]

View attachment 370260

Knew this was coming

What a maroon, if they can ignore a federal court what stops a district court from ignoring state supreme court or appeals court?

 

[DC-W]

42 USC § 1983 can get costly…

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Lalez]

We really need out of state reciprocity. This “I can walk/drive in this state carrying but not in this one” should all be moot now

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Maryland’s rules for concealed carry gun permits in jeopardy after Supreme Court ruling

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said his team is examining the high court’s ruling to see how it affects the issuance of permits in Maryland, known legally as “wear and carry” permits.

www.thebaltimorebanner.com

A Few things rub me the wrong way in the above.

Del. Vanessa Atterbeary, a leading advocate for stricter gun laws in Maryland, said she’s disappointed in the ruling.
“We’re in the wake of all these mass shootings. We have had an incredible amount of gun violence going on in our country, and what the Supreme Court wants to do is have people walking around carrying a gun for no reason,” she said.
Atterbeary, a Howard County Democrat, said she worries that disagreements and dust-ups — over parking spaces, over business disputes — could turn violent if more people are carrying guns.

“It is up to the attorney general and the state legislature to best protect the citizens in our state and figure out a way to combat the Supreme Court ruling, and try to maintain the strictness that we have in being able to carry a weapon,” she said.

-----------------------------------
The above statements from Atterbury are contradictory.
"--what the Supreme Court wants to do is have people walking around carrying a gun for no reason,”

NO ya dumb Biotch. IT is not for NO REASON. it is FOR MANY REASONS.

ALSO with regards to: " It is up to the AG... to best protect the citizens..."
-------------------------------------

Well, when the AG's are releasing hardened criminals out of prison early, Brandon has Open Border policies that 10's of thousands of Illegal immigrants and drug cartel, murdering gang bangers are permitted their Come to America free pass, then The AG etc are NOT protecting the citizens at all now, are they?

 

[Lalez]

A Few things rub me the wrong way in the above.

Del. Vanessa Atterbeary, a leading advocate for stricter gun laws in Maryland, said she’s disappointed in the ruling.
“We’re in the wake of all these mass shootings. We have had an incredible amount of gun violence going on in our country, and what the Supreme Court wants to do is have people walking around carrying a gun for no reason,” she said.
Atterbeary, a Howard County Democrat, said she worries that disagreements and dust-ups — over parking spaces, over business disputes — could turn violent if more people are carrying guns.

“It is up to the attorney general and the state legislature to best protect the citizens in our state and figure out a way to combat the Supreme Court ruling, and try to maintain the strictness that we have in being able to carry a weapon,” she said.

-----------------------------------
The above statements from Atterbury are contradictory.
"--what the Supreme Court wants to do is have people walking around carrying a gun for no reason,”

NO ya dumb Biotch. IT is not for NO REASON. it is FOR MANY REASONS.

ALSO with regards to: " It is up to the AG... to best protect the citizens..."
-------------------------------------

Well, when the AG's are releasing hardened criminals out of prison early, Brandon has Open Border policies that 10's of thousands of Illegal immigrants and drug cartel, murdering gang bangers are permitted their Come to America free pass, then The AG etc are NOT protecting the citizens at all now, are they?

This is all moot. Marylands Communist politicians can scheme and cry all day, doesn’t matter.

Maryland is now a shall issue conceal carry state. If they really want to cry and push it, Maryland may just be a Constitutional Carry state in short order.

Also police enforcing KNOWN unconstitutional laws can be a real issue, the civil penalties will be staggering

 

[jcutonilli]

Law expert discusses impact of SCOTUS decision on NY gun law in Maryland​

Again, what am i missing? all the local talking head R-tards are acting like this doesn't apply to Maryland.

The expert is talking about a technicality. The opinion technically only addresses the NY law in question. The reasoning used in the opinion can be used to challenge the MD law. There is an case in the 4th circuit challenging the same provision in the MD law that was on hold pending the outcome of the case. It will resume and we will find out soon (about a month) how the state will respond.

 

[kcbrown]

But they aren't common. That is part of my point. Just because they aren't banned, doesn't mean they are common. I'd be surprised if there were 10,000 functional military style flame throwers in private hands in the entire US. So that could trigger unusual, and they sure are dangerous.

But "in common use" isn't quite the test. This is the test, the only test:

We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.

With respect to arms, there are two aspects: keep, and bear. The principle behind prohibition of "dangerous and unusual" weapons is affray. That is the historical justification for prohibitions on carry of such weapons in public, and that is the national historical tradition that we've inherited.

But that's very different from keep. The problem of "affray" doesn't apply to "keep", because you don't terrorize the public merely by owning something, and in any case the historical tradition that's based on "affray" doesn't include keep at all, only carry. Unless the government can show that bans on keep of "dangerous and unusual" weapons are compatible with the nation's historical traditions (which means, essentially, compatibility with the understanding the founding generation had of the scope of the right to arms), those bans are facially Unconstitutional. That is what this latest decision means.

And the government would have a difficult time showing that. The American Revolution was won precisely because the founders owned "dangerous and unusual" weapons. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the founders would approve of a ban on the very instruments they used to win their liberty, the very instruments that made the Constitution possible in the first place. But that's precisely what would have to be argued, successfully, in order to establish that bans on keep of "dangerous and unusual" weapons are compatible with this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.

I am not advocating for a flame thrower ban. But Thomas went to some effort to make mention that there are historical bans on dangerous and unusual weapons and that would be okay.

Yes, but again, those historical bans were against carry, not keep.

 

[delaware_export]

whats the consensus view of cases held for this ruling being sent back down or whatever the legal term is, where they say, reconsider with this ruling …? Timeframe? Time to process? Will they announce before end of next week? End of session?

Next up: states without reciprocity and zero non resident issue

CA doesn’t issue to out of state people and has zero reciprocity. MD? Do they issue to non Residents?

as noted no other right ends when you cross state lines.

the 9th would probably stonewall something like this. The 4th? Probably too

 

[press1280]

whats the consensus view of cases held for this ruling being sent back down or whatever the legal term is, where they say, reconsider with this ruling …? Timeframe? Time to process? Will they announce before end of next week? End of session?

Next up: states without reciprocity and zero non resident issue

CA doesn’t issue to out of state people and has zero reciprocity. MD? Do they issue to non Residents?

as noted no other right ends when you cross state lines.

the 9th would probably stonewall something like this. The 4th? Probably too

By the end of the session those held cases should get sent back to their respective lower courts.

Those states like CA will indeed be sued by non-residents. Those cases IMO should be a slam dunk but never underestimate an anti judge who will come up with some nonsense like CA7 did with Illinois' irrational law.

 

[press1280]

The expert is talking about a technicality. The opinion technically only addresses the NY law in question. The reasoning used in the opinion can be used to challenge the MD law. There is an case in the 4th circuit challenging the same provision in the MD law that was on hold pending the outcome of the case. It will resume and we will find out soon (about a month) how the state will respond.

I don't know how the state will respond but all their briefings over the years have tethered themselves to the other may issue jurisdictions, so I don't know what they could possibly come up with other than an emotional plea that violence will escalate

 

[press1280]

Security guards and private detectives are presently limited to carrying solely between home & agency assignments. Some have been challenged by LEO for stopping in route to urinate or grab take out lunch. Will such a restriction stand under this court decision?

Presumably those types of permits would go away as anyone who can legally carry would be asking for an unrestricted permit. I guess this has already happened in MD

 

[jcutonilli]

whats the consensus view of cases held for this ruling being sent back down or whatever the legal term is, where they say, reconsider with this ruling …? Timeframe? Time to process? Will they announce before end of next week? End of session?

Next up: states without reciprocity and zero non resident issue

CA doesn’t issue to out of state people and has zero reciprocity. MD? Do they issue to non Residents?

as noted no other right ends when you cross state lines.

the 9th would probably stonewall something like this. The 4th? Probably too

While there is a possibility that they will be GVR'd by the end of June, they tend to make these decisions at conferences. None of the cases appear to have been scheduled for the last conference and the next conference is not until 28 Sept.

 

[jcutonilli]

I don't know how the state will respond but all their briefings over the years have tethered themselves to the other may issue jurisdictions, so I don't know what they could possibly come up with other than an emotional plea that violence will escalate

I am pretty sure they will not say MD is now shall issue. I suspect they will reinterpret what G&S means based on some other onerous requirements they think they can justify.

 

[fidelity]

The lawyers behind this epic Constitutional SCOTUS victory, Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, were more or less fired by their law firm (Kirkland and Ellis) today - told they either had to drop all their 2A clients or leave. Unbelievable.

WSJ: You Won Your Gun Case. You’re Fired

If they successfully defended alleged child molesters or terrorists, bet the firm would have kept them. Wonder how many of the woke in that firm have carry permits.