NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[motorcoachdoug]

If I remember correctly if the MGA was called to Annapolis for a special session on the gas tax problem, then they can only take care of the gas tax problem and nothing else can be on the table. A whole new session would have to be called and that would have to come from RINO Lawnchair Larry to deal with the G&S problem.

 

[Allen65]

If I remember correctly if the MGA was called to Annapolis for a special session on the gas tax problem, then they can only take care of the gas tax problem and nothing else can be on the table. A whole new session would have to be called and that would have to come from RINO Lawnchair Larry to deal with the G&S problem.

IIRC the Governor has the sole authority to call a special session, but by law he must call it if a majority of both houses of the MDGA petition him to do so. See:
https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html#14

 

[E.Shell]

All the lefty agonizing over this and Dobbs is interesting. No less than the AP is reporting a one million voter registration switch from D to R.

Voters switch lopsidedly to GOP, in warning for Dems

Tens of thousands of suburban voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains of recent years are suddenly becoming Republicans.

apnews.com

A bunch of new RINOs, looking to skew the primaries?

 

[Apd09]

Right, but after the ruling I dont see how state parks and highway rest areas can be declared sensitive. It seems they should fall when challenged.

IANAL but I’d imagine parks will fall under the guise of park rangers patrolling. So if rangers did not carry before, they just have park rangers issued a sidearm and say now we’re protecting them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DC-W]

The state police wear and carry page has a section on prohibited places. I think it is safe to assume that some of those places will not be able to remain correct? like "Within 1,000 feet of a demonstration in a public place", "In or around State-owned public buildings and grounds", "On Chesapeake Forest Lands, In State Forests, In State Parks", "In State Highway Rest Areas, unless properly secured within vehicle". I dont see any way that state parks and highway rest areas will be able to remain 'sensitive places' after the new ruling. Thoughts?

The MSP list lacks context and misses some things. MSI has a better guide here. Just scroll down.
Maryland Wear and Carry Permits

 

[budman93]

IANAL but I’d imagine parks will fall under the guise of park rangers patrolling. So if rangers did not carry before, they just have park rangers issued a sidearm and say now we’re protecting them.

I dont think they can do that, Thomas specifically said you cant say a place is sensitive and not allow carry there just because law enforcement is presumptively available. Plus even if that would fly I can't think of the last time I saw a uniformed ranger or dnr police at parks in Maryland except at boat ramps and toll booths and such. I've never seen one when hiking and that is when you are the most isolated and no one is available to help quickly except yourself.

The MSP list lacks context and misses some things. MSI has a better guide here. Just scroll down.
Maryland Wear and Carry Permits

Thanks that is better, I did know about the hunting exception for parks and the rest of the 1000 ft from demonstrations tones it down quite a bit. Still seems like a lot that is ripe for a challenge.

 

[lazarus]

You are probably correct, but it will take a specific court order to force the State to comply.

This. And I wouldn't be surprised if something like the demonstration part holds up in the end. US has a pretty long tradition of TEMPORARY bans of arms in locations for established reasons. Now there might be something else, like the demonstration must supply armed security and screen people entering the location of the protest or something like that. But I'd be kind of surprised if that didn't stand up, in some form, even with the new scrutiny.

Other things like state forests and parks and highway rest stops is almost certainly going to get jettisoned. Same thing with "around" state buildings. IN State buildings will probably stand. I suspect sensitive places will require another SCOTUS level suit to get much better clarity on that, but IMHO Thomas made it easy for some of the low hanging fruit. Legislative assemblies, polling places and courts as the examples given aren't remotely "a state park".

Public transportation is also likely to fall, but will likely require getting to SCOTUS (though maybe not). A lot depends on how much the circuits are going to shit or get off the pot on the painfully apparent SCOTUS decision.

I can see some real SCOTUS soul searching on things like government buildings where the pubic normally does not access, or where armed security is present even if the public does normally access it to decide if that is considered sensitive. But a lot of stuff like "within X distance of a church or public park" (Hello Baltimore) doesn't stand a chance.

 

[PapiBarcelona]

Sorry but, Heller said no NFA stuff....Can't wait to see this place go up in flames when NYSRPA loses their case"."

Watsup dude..... Where you been at?

 

[lazarus]

I dont think they can do that, Thomas specifically said you cant say a place is sensitive and not allow carry there just because law enforcement is presumptively available. Plus even if that would fly I can't think of the last time I saw a uniformed ranger or dnr police at parks in Maryland except at boat ramps and toll booths and such. I've never seen one when hiking and that is when you are the most isolated and no one is available to help quickly except yourself.

Thanks that is better, I did know about the hunting exception for parks and the rest of the 1000 ft from demonstrations tones it down quite a bit. Still seems like a lot that is ripe for a challenge.

This. Thomas was really clear the availability of law enforcement is not the determining factor. I think it is going to take a combination of law enforcement availability AND a traditionally more secure environment. He gave the examples of legislative assemblies, polling places and courts. Based on that, and law enforcement being presumptively available not being determinative to me means law enforcement MUST be available as one of the pre-conditions.

For example, within the secure areas of Airports could continue to be considered a sensitive place. Courts, polling places and legislative assemblies (duh). In police stations, jails, and prisons. I suspect trains and metros is going to get struck down, less because police are generally available (though they'd likely need to increase presence. For example, riding the metro, it isn't like I see armed transport cops at every station and often riding the trains), but as much because it forecloses a major method of travel for people. For planes, you can still travel with a firearm, you just can't "bear" the firearm in the secured area. How's that gonna work with the metro? I guess with the train they can add secure baggage storage and up police presence and then call it a secure area.

I think government buildings where the public normally cannot access, or the public can, but armed security/law enforcement is present will be allowed to continue to be called a sensitive place. Musuems might be able to be (many screen the public and armed security/police are available).

IMHO, one requirement of a sensitive place is that secure storage should also be mandatory to be provided to the public for no additional cost if there is an entry fee, or at most, no more cost than the cost to maintain it (so, like 50 cents or a dollar to rent a locker for the day, the secure storage, not the security or screening itself).

Schools are probably going to be allowed to be considered sensitive places if there is an SRO (colleges and universities probably won't).

 

[lazarus]

Also, PS, isn't this ******* awesome that we are debating just how much freedom we have now! Not "oh god, the 2nd just got gutted". It is more like, "Do we get EVERYTHING on the dessert menu? Or only like everything we can eat in a sitting?"

 

[Rabu Rabu]

Also, PS, isn't this ******* awesome that we are debating just how much freedom we have now! Not "oh god, the 2nd just got gutted". It is more like, "Do we get EVERYTHING on the dessert menu? Or only like everything we can eat in a sitting?"

I love it

 

[Allen65]

Also, PS, isn't this ******* awesome that we are debating just how much freedom we have now! Not "oh god, the 2nd just got gutted". It is more like, "Do we get EVERYTHING on the dessert menu? Or only like everything we can eat in a sitting?"

Now the other side will understand how to live with the crumbs instead of taking the whole cake. But it will take time to make sure all the slices are securely on our plate.

 

[BeoBill]

Just don't rule out the Machiavellian bastids in DC. You KNOW they're working day and night on Gun Control Industry money to find ways around the ruling.

 

[Lalez]

Just don't rule out the Machiavellian bastids in DC. You KNOW they're working day and night on Gun Control Industry money to find ways around the ruling.

25 states are already Constitutional Carry, cats outta the bag.

People carrying pistols is normal in the vast majority of the United States and not a big deal.

If I was a Marylander I would be tempted to carry now, permit or no permit as your carry laws have been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Apd09]

Now the other side will understand how to live with the crumbs instead of taking the whole cake. But it will take time to make sure all the slices are securely on our plate.

Clarence has sone thoughts on this in an upcoming book, put down you iPhone and start paying attention.

“I think we as citizens have lost interest and that's been my disappointment. That certainly was something that bothered Justice Scalia, that people tend to be more interested in their iPhones than their Constitution. They're interested in what they want rather than what is right as a country," he said.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

www.businessinsider.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Apd09]

Now the other side will understand how to live with the crumbs instead of taking the whole cake. But it will take time to make sure all the slices are securely on our plate.

Clarence has some thoughts on this in an upcoming book, put down you iPhone and start paying attention.

“I think we as citizens have lost interest and that's been my disappointment. That certainly was something that bothered Justice Scalia, that people tend to be more interested in their iPhones than their Constitution. They're interested in what they want rather than what is right as a country," he said.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

www.businessinsider.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Apd09]

Sorry for double post the app said an error occurred in posting so I posted again but looks like the first ended up on here.

Now the other side will understand how to live with the crumbs instead of taking the whole cake. But it will take time to make sure all the slices are securely on our plate.

Clarence has some thoughts on this in an upcoming book, put down you iPhone and start paying attention.

“I think we as citizens have lost interest and that's been my disappointment. That certainly was something that bothered Justice Scalia, that people tend to be more interested in their iPhones than their Constitution. They're interested in what they want rather than what is right as a country," he said.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

www.businessinsider.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BeoBill]

25 states are already Constitutional Carry, cats outta the bag.

People carrying pistols is normal in the vast majority of the United States and not a big deal.

If I was a Marylander I would be tempted to carry now, permit or no permit as your carry laws have been ruled unconstitutional.

I am. But why chance losing it all because of a bad conviction or temporarily waiting for the bad conviction to be thrown out?

Patience, grasshopper.

I've been waiting at least a decade for this...

ETA: Have you ever known a paid lobbyist or corrupt politician to give up their high-dollar quest because a law was passed or a restriction was struck down? And states with CC have no bearing on this conversation because THEY are the low hanging fruit for the Gun Control Industry. They feel they have won the battle (but not the never ending war) in states like MD. They fear their complete victory more than anything else, because then there would be no boogeyman to use to shake down the weak minded.

 

[Decoy]

I just signed up for my 2 day Maryland class at Cindy's in Glen Burnie if anyone wants to join me, Thursday, July 14th and Friday, July 15th. I think there are 9 spots left.

Link

 

[Afrikeber]

Right, but after the ruling I dont see how state parks and highway rest areas can be declared sensitive. It seems they should fall when challenged.

Without going into naming specific locations, there is a state park adjacent to Camp David so I could definitely see that being deemed as a sensitive location for obvious reasons.