Victory in MSI HQL suit

[CrueChief]

I wouldnt put much thought into it, its likely just long stay mental health reporting (example:involuntary).

Not some rando in a cubicle looking through copies of decades of whatever is in your manilla folder at all your private medical health visits have in them.

The latter would take forever to do for one issue, would cause a lot of grief between local.gov and medical health providers, probably cause a lot of legal issues and lawsuits, and create layers of more restrictive policy for local.gov employees to be able to look through that stuff.

While the premise of this is most certainly true. Just wait until all our health records are in one giant database for some AI bot to surf. For our own convenience of course.

 

[scottyfz6]

While the premise of this is most certainly true. Just wait until all our health records are in one giant database for some AI bot to surf. For our own convenience of course.

My father setup the state system for mental health checks. Its very robust, and secure because the state health dept understands what could happen if the records could even be seen by the police.

The SP do not have access to anything, they can only do a search of an encrypted database by entering in your info which it encrypts and looks for a match. and if there is a match it only kicks out that there is a match, no info. They have a single person who they call who has access and can look deeper and only give a yes or a no for if the person is prohibited.

 

[Ponder_MD]

While the premise of this is most certainly true. Just wait until all our health records are in one giant database for some AI bot to surf. For our own convenience of course. Safety.

It's for the Greater Good.

 

[swinokur]

MD has asked for an En Banc hearing from the 4 CA. They have to decide whether to hear it or not. If they do and Md wins, then we have to ask SCOTUS for a writ of Certiori.

If they the Court refuses, it’s over unless MD decides to appeal to SCOTUS

I think I got it right but IANAL

 

[Steel Hunter]

MSI has filed a response to the request for rehearing en banc.

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=503&catid=4&m=0

 

[Mark75H]

Link doesn't work for me

 

[swinokur]

Works for me

 

[dblas]

Link doesn't work for me

It takes you to the file area of all motions and rulings, the document in the link is currently the second one on the list.

 

[Apd09]

As a layman (in law) that response seems very persuasive. It states facts that refute the defendants stance. It cites numerous case law examples supporting their position.
It also very clearly explains Bruen and why it is not applicable for pre purchase shall issue permits while also reiterating “public safety” and “means end scrutiny” are no longer permissible.

I fully expect this sound legal based document to be disregarded in favor of judges who feel their personal opinion supersedes Supreme Court edict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalke

 

[cantstop]

MSI has filed a response to the request for rehearing en banc.

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=503&catid=4&m=0

Good stuff! As stated before, it is currently the second item in the list.

 

[PowPow]

Good stuff! As stated before, it is currently the second item in the list.

I didn't like the last paragraph on page 3:

"Petitioners have conceded that the HQL Requirement is an additional layer on top of Maryland’s 77R process, the existing, rigorous scheme that already ensures that prohibited persons may not acquire a handgun. At oral argument, Petitioners admitted that a person who receives an HQL cannot go to a store that sells handguns, purchase a handgun, and leave the store with it. Rather, the person must undergo still another background check conducted by the Maryland State Police, and it is that 77R background check that determines eligibility to possess a firearm, not the HQL. Id. ..."

It makes it sound as if such a process can actually do such a thing. It was probably just a quote from the petitioners argument, but restating it seems to lend that notion credibility.

 

[dblas]

I didn't like the last paragraph on page 3:



It makes it sound as if such a process can actually do such a thing. It was probably just a quote from the petitioners argument, but restating it seems to lend that notion credibility.

It is actually a factual statement. The 77R does indeed prevent prohibited persons from aquiring a handgun through a legal purchase or transfer.

 

[Muleskinner]

None of this is going to matter...not one bit. In a few years the balance of the court will swing back to the left and all of these pro 2A rulings will once again be reversed and this time the dems are going to go nuclear. I expect nothing less than a full frontal attack on the entire 2A. You don't want to ban assault weapons? Fine we will just declare the 2nd amendment only applies to militia units (which we will make illegal) and everyone else turn in your guns. It's just a matter of time..

And no, millions of you aren't going to change your stance as "law abiding" and will stumble over each other as you run to the local police station to comply.

The republican majority who removed the constitutional "right" to an abortion has set a precedent...A democrat controlled court can and will reverse any and all pro 2A legislation with one simple opinion. Civilians do not have the right to keep and bear arms...it's coming...

 

[dblas]

None of this is going to matter...not one bit. In a few years the balance of the court will swing back to the left and all of these pro 2A rulings will once again be reversed and this time the dems are going to go nuclear. I expect nothing less than a full frontal attack on the entire 2A. You don't want to ban assault weapons? Fine we will just declare the 2nd amendment only applies to militia units (which we will make illegal) and everyone else turn in your guns. It's just a matter of time..

And no, millions of you aren't going to change your stance as "law abiding" and will stumble over each other as you run to the local police station to comply.

The republican majority who removed the constitutional "right" to an abortion has set a precedent...A democrat controlled court can and will reverse any and all pro 2A legislation with one simple opinion. Civilians do not have the right to keep and bear arms...it's coming...

Patently waiting.

 

[Occam]

The republican majority who removed the constitutional "right" to an abortion has set a precedent...A democrat controlled court can and will reverse any and all pro 2A legislation with one simple opinion. Civilians do not have the right to keep and bear arms...it's coming...

Dobbs didn't remove a right's protection from the constitution. It correctly pointed out that the Roe decision incorrectly conjured a protection where none was spelled out at the national level, thus returning it to the states. The Bill of Rights does spell things out (as it relates to the 2A) and the SCOTUS had multiple times pointed out that the BoR refers to specific things the government can't infringe upon at the personal level. There is zero comparison to Dobbs/Roe. The 2A exists in the BoR. The Roe framework doesn't exist, and so matter belongs to the states. That's all there is to it.

 

[whistlersmother]

Dobbs didn't remove a right's protection from the constitution. It correctly pointed out that the Roe decision incorrectly conjured a protection where none was spelled out at the national level, thus returning it to the states. The Bill of Rights does spell things out (as it relates to the 2A) and the SCOTUS had multiple times pointed out that the BoR refers to specific things the government can't infringe upon at the personal level. There is zero comparison to Dobbs/Roe. The 2A exists in the BoR. The Roe framework doesn't exist, and so matter belongs to the states. That's all there is to it.

You know that, I know that, he knows that, we all here know that.

The average idiot voter on the street doesn't know that and will use the argument anyway because it heard it on the propaganda channel.

 

[Georges2nd]

Did I also saw something montgomery county filed abeyance to that TRO ?

As a layman (in law) that response seems very persuasive. It states facts that refute the defendants stance. It cites numerous case law examples supporting their position.
It also very clearly explains Bruen and why it is not applicable for pre purchase shall issue permits while also reiterating “public safety” and “means end scrutiny” are no longer permissible.

I fully expect this sound legal based document to be disregarded in favor of judges who feel their personal opinion supersedes Supreme Court edict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalke

It's a matter that wet underware old fogie maryland employees that does nothing all day long

 

[coinboy]

It is actually a factual statement. The 77R does indeed prevent prohibited persons from aquiring a handgun through a legal purchase or transfer.

I thought that was the purpose of the 4473?

 

[dblas]

I thought that was the purpose of the 4473?

It does, only as effectlvely as the information provided by the states.

 

[esqappellate]

MSI's Opposition to the County's Motion to Hold the PI appeal in abeyance in the Fourth Circuit. https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=506&catid=4&m=0