"Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

1
Maryland can’t ban those with gun-carry permits from carrying in large swaths of the state. That’s the ruling handed down by United States District Judge George L. Russell, a Barack Obama appointee, on Friday. He found many, though not all, of the state’s latest gun-carry restrictions likely violate the Second Amendment. He issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of those restrictions. “Plaintiffs are correct that the public has a strong interest in upholding constitutional rights and the State is not harmed by an injunction preventing it from enforcing unconstitutional laws,” Judge Russell wrote in Kipke v. Moore. “Therefore, because Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in their challenge to the private building consent rule and the regulations on public demonstrations and locations selling alcohol, the balance of the equities and the public interest tip in Plaintiffs’ favor as to those claims, and the Court will enjoin enforcement of those provisions.”

The ruling makes Maryland the latest state to run headlong into further constitutional issues as it attempts to respond to the Supreme Court finding its previous gun-carry restrictions were also illegal. In 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the High Court ruled permitting laws that gave too much subjective leeway to officials were unconstitutional and then went on to establish that modern gun laws only clear the Second Amendment if similar laws existed at the Founding. Lawmakers in Maryland and several other states affected by the decision were outraged. They proceeded to craft similar Bruen-response laws that vastly expanded areas off-limits to even licensed gun carriers. Those laws often barred gun carry in parks, stadiums, restaurants, transportation hubs, at protests, or even in specific neighborhoods (such as New York City’s Times Square). They also flip the presumption for carrying on publicly accessible private property by making it a crime unless the owner posts a sign allowing it. Federal judges in New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii have already found Bruen-response laws unconstitutional. Now Maryland joins that list.

“The deprivation of a constitutional right ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable
injury.’ Thus, in the context of an alleged constitutional violation, the likelihood of irreparable harm necessarily depends on the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim,” Judge Russell wrote. “Accordingly, because Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits as to their challenges of the firearm restrictions in private property, locations selling alcohol, and within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations, they have also established irreparable harm as to those claims only.” Judge Russell decided not to block restrictions on carrying on school grounds, in government buildings, and at stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, or casinos. Still, gun-rights advocates celebrated his ruling. Maryland Shall Issue, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition all served as plaintiffs in the case, which was combined with another challenge. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, called the ruling a warning to other states pursuing similar laws. “Maryland is one of a handful of states that have adopted new statutes designed specifically to get around the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 Bruen case, by spreading a very wide blanket over areas where lawful concealed carry is prohibited,” he said in a statement. “This is a signal that sort of legislative waltzing is in trouble.”

Maryland Shall Issue put it more succinctly. “It’s a big win!” the group tweeted. “Some of the most egregious restrictions are enjoined from enforcement.” The rulings against Bruen-response laws in New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii have been appealed and most remain in effect as of today. Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D.) did not respond to a request for comment on whether he planned to appeal.
https://thereload.com/federal-judge-blo ... m=referral
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

4
NonServiam wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 9:56 am If one is utilizing concealed carry, they shouldn't worry about "gun free zones." No one is supposed to know you're carrying anyway, so no one will know you're violating an arbitrary rule. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.
But what you suggest is the biggest threat the US faces right now which are those like you are suggesting who only respect the rule of law when it does not inconvenience them or stop them from doing what they want.

It's Chūnibyō!
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

5
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 11:29 am
NonServiam wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 9:56 am If one is utilizing concealed carry, they shouldn't worry about "gun free zones." No one is supposed to know you're carrying anyway, so no one will know you're violating an arbitrary rule. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.
But what you suggest is the biggest threat the US faces right now which are those like you are suggesting who only respect the rule of law when it does not inconvenience them or stop them from doing what they want.

It's Chūnibyō!
This disrespect of the "rule of law" victimizes no one. No one is harmed by it. I'm okay with that. If you want to follow stupid laws in some obsequious deference to an authority which gives exactly zero fucks about you, have at it. I'll go my own way.
The following statement is true: the previous statement was a lie.

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

6
NonServiam wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:14 pm
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 11:29 am
NonServiam wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 9:56 am If one is utilizing concealed carry, they shouldn't worry about "gun free zones." No one is supposed to know you're carrying anyway, so no one will know you're violating an arbitrary rule. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.
But what you suggest is the biggest threat the US faces right now which are those like you are suggesting who only respect the rule of law when it does not inconvenience them or stop them from doing what they want.

It's Chūnibyō!
This disrespect of the "rule of law" victimizes no one. No one is harmed by it. I'm okay with that. If you want to follow stupid laws in some obsequious deference to an authority which gives exactly zero fucks about you, have at it. I'll go my own way.
Exactly It's Chūnibyō!.

No sign of Cop no need to stop.

It's Chūnibyō! Second year middle school syndrome. Deplorable and illegal.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

7
On the other hand, unconstitutional laws are meant to be challenged. If no body challenges them, no one will have standing in court and the laws will not be changed. It takes people going against laws to get them changed. Civil rights era was full of people breaking unjust laws and getting arrested. I’m too old for that, but I understand the reasoning why one would.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

8
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:25 pm On the other hand, unconstitutional laws are meant to be challenged. If no body challenges them, no one will have standing in court and the laws will not be changed. It takes people going against laws to get them changed. Civil rights era was full of people breaking unjust laws and getting arrested. I’m too old for that, but I understand the reasoning why one would.
Certainly, challenge the law, but don't just break the law because you can get away with it.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

10
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:27 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:25 pm On the other hand, unconstitutional laws are meant to be challenged. If no body challenges them, no one will have standing in court and the laws will not be changed. It takes people going against laws to get them changed. Civil rights era was full of people breaking unjust laws and getting arrested. I’m too old for that, but I understand the reasoning why one would.
Certainly, challenge the law, but don't just break the law because you can get away with it.
I see it as civil disobedience.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/resou ... sobedience
Someone has to if an unjust law is to be challenged.
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
There is a distinction between respecting the totality of laws as an institution and singling out an unjust law to be challenged by civil disobedience.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

12
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:35 pm
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:27 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:25 pm On the other hand, unconstitutional laws are meant to be challenged. If no body challenges them, no one will have standing in court and the laws will not be changed. It takes people going against laws to get them changed. Civil rights era was full of people breaking unjust laws and getting arrested. I’m too old for that, but I understand the reasoning why one would.
Certainly, challenge the law, but don't just break the law because you can get away with it.
I see it as civil disobedience.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/resou ... sobedience
Someone has to if an unjust law is to be challenged.
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
There is a distinction between respecting the totality of laws as an institution and singling out an unjust law to be challenged by civil disobedience.
It's not civil disobedience if you hide the fact that you are disobeying.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

13
featureless wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:40 pm Bummer is, civil disobedience in California with regard to firearms will likely land you a felony where you'll be screwed out of 2A rights for the rest of your days...
Yep. Most of us can’t afford to be so noble to resist. It is partly what the gun prohibitionists expect, for most of us to quietly give in.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

14
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:45 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:35 pm
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:27 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:25 pm On the other hand, unconstitutional laws are meant to be challenged. If no body challenges them, no one will have standing in court and the laws will not be changed. It takes people going against laws to get them changed. Civil rights era was full of people breaking unjust laws and getting arrested. I’m too old for that, but I understand the reasoning why one would.
Certainly, challenge the law, but don't just break the law because you can get away with it.
I see it as civil disobedience.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/resou ... sobedience
Someone has to if an unjust law is to be challenged.
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
There is a distinction between respecting the totality of laws as an institution and singling out an unjust law to be challenged by civil disobedience.
It's not civil disobedience if you hide the fact that you are disobeying.
We’ll just have to disagree, it most certainly is civil disobedience. Disobeying an unjust law knowing the consequences.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

15
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:48 pm
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:45 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:35 pm
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:27 pm

Certainly, challenge the law, but don't just break the law because you can get away with it.
I see it as civil disobedience.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/resou ... sobedience
Someone has to if an unjust law is to be challenged.
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
There is a distinction between respecting the totality of laws as an institution and singling out an unjust law to be challenged by civil disobedience.
It's not civil disobedience if you hide the fact that you are disobeying.
We’ll just have to disagree, it most certainly is civil disobedience. Disobeying an unjust law knowing the consequences.
If no one knows you are disobeying the unjust law even knowing the consequences how is that a protest likely to change the law.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

17
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 2:43 pm You’re taking a risk. Do you think it would be wise for transgender women and men to purposefully announce they are going into a bathroom an unjust law dictates they shouldn’t use? It’s still civil disobedience even when unannounced.
Yes, that's the only way to get the laws changed. And yes, it's a great risk but then so was sitting in the front of the bus or in my case, simply supporting a demonstration.

It all depends on what the goal is. Is it to just get by because you can or get the laws changed. Don't pretend the goal is getting the laws changed when it's really simply easy to get away with it. Unannounced Invisible and Unnoticed civil disobedience is simply getting away with breaking the law. It's "Don't see a cop, no need to stop!"
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

18
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 3:32 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 2:43 pm You’re taking a risk. Do you think it would be wise for transgender women and men to purposefully announce they are going into a bathroom an unjust law dictates they shouldn’t use? It’s still civil disobedience even when unannounced.
Yes, that's the only way to get the laws changed. And yes, it's a great risk but then so was sitting in the front of the bus or in my case, simply supporting a demonstration.

It all depends on what the goal is. Is it to just get by because you can or get the laws changed. Don't pretend the goal is getting the laws changed when it's really simply easy to get away with it. Unannounced Invisible and Unnoticed civil disobedience is simply getting away with breaking the law. It's "Don't see a cop, no need to stop!"
I’m not into forcing a person endanger their lives just so a point is made. I doubt you have any comprehension of what your stance would require. In effect you’d want every transgender person walking around with a T on display so bigots could complain and have them arrested. I think not, your position is inhumane and unconscionable.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

19
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 3:46 pm
sig230 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 3:32 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 2:43 pm You’re taking a risk. Do you think it would be wise for transgender women and men to purposefully announce they are going into a bathroom an unjust law dictates they shouldn’t use? It’s still civil disobedience even when unannounced.
Yes, that's the only way to get the laws changed. And yes, it's a great risk but then so was sitting in the front of the bus or in my case, simply supporting a demonstration.

It all depends on what the goal is. Is it to just get by because you can or get the laws changed. Don't pretend the goal is getting the laws changed when it's really simply easy to get away with it. Unannounced Invisible and Unnoticed civil disobedience is simply getting away with breaking the law. It's "Don't see a cop, no need to stop!"
I’m not into forcing a person endanger their lives just so a point is made. I doubt you have any comprehension of what your stance would require. In effect you’d want every transgender person walking around with a T on display so bigots could complain and have them arrested. I think not, your position is inhumane and unconscionable.
Once again, you are simply making stuff up and misrepresenting or more likely failing to actually read what I post.

All I suggested was honesty. Don't try to claim you are trying to change the unjust laws by simply hiding your actions.

Stop just lying, particularly to yourself.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

21
Kipke v. Mooree and Novotny v. Moore have been combined.

Firearm prohibition groups Brady Center and Giffords Law Center have jointly filed an amicus brief in the case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 6.41.0.pdf
In recognizing the constitutionality of restrictions on firearms in
sensitive places where people gather regularly and peacefully, the
Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment is not to
interfere with the government’s ability to preserve our right to engage
in civil discourse without being inhibited by the presence of weapons.
Museum visitors have a First Amendment right to receive, access,
and engage with this information. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S.
753, 762–63 (1972) (“It is now well established that the Constitution
protects the right to receive information and ideas.” (quoting Stanley v.
Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969))); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319
U.S. 141, 143 (1943) (same); Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 522
(4th Cir. 2003) (“[The First Amendment] protects both a speaker’s right
to communicate information and ideas to a broad audience and the
intended recipients’ right to receive that information and those ideas.”).
This right is impinged upon by the threat of firearm-related violence.
As studies show, exposing people, especially children, to gun violence in
their communities interferes with their ability to learn.8

Re: "Federal Judge Blocks Many of Maryland’s New ‘Gun-Free Zones’"

22
Yes: if they don't know you're doing it, they can't prohibit you from doing so. Your right to privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures protects you.

Unless you're a woman in a red state seeking a certain small group of medical procedures. Then your right to privacy is superseded by Christian nationalists, because their desire to control women is stronger than their respect for the Constitution. To prove it, they'll use their guns to prevent women from accessing health care.

Let's remember what this last election means. I think liberals should all out red hat hypocrisy. To do otherwise appears complicit in the hypocrisy.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eye Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest