Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland’s Gun Ban .. here we go again

[Acer-m14]

In February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Second Amendment does not protect the most popular rifles in the country – including AR-15s – as well as all standard capacity detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to confirm that it’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller protects the most popular semi-automatic rifles and magazines.

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland's Gun Ban

 

[carpediem]

They aren't going to hear this case.

 

[dsdmmat]

They aren't going to hear this case.

Direct contradiction of previous Supreme Court ruling. They should jamb it up the 4th ass and break it off.

 

[Grimscale]

If they do not clarify the status of these bans, which are in direct violation of the Constitution AND previous SCOTUS rulings, then they effectively say that the Rule of Law is a farce and their own existence is a fraud.

And if they DO agree to hear it, and the opposition tries to use Mother Jones as a reference, it should be immediately objected to as a biased source of false information!

 

[Blimey]

Extending the 2nd to the most popular rifle in the US is obvious. But, I don't see the court hearing it. They will punt yet again. We need another liberal justice to retire, then this will be heard.

 

[Blimey]

If they do not clarify the status of these bans, which are in direct violation of the Constitution AND previous SCOTUS rulings, then they effectively say that the Rule of Law is a farce and their own existence is a fraud.

They already have in not so many words; their lack of words affirms this view. I can't even buy a handgun in my county (and Heller was started to address handgun ownership) without four references. Why four? Why not 10? Why not 30? Why any? And then I have to wait a year for the permit anyway.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

They already have in not so many words; their lack of words affirms this view. I can't even buy a handgun in my county (and Heller was started to address handgun ownership) without four references. Why four? Why not 10? Why not 30? Why any? And then I have to wait a year for the permit anyway.

It's all designed to fuck us over and wherever possible make it as difficult and painful as possible to own handguns.

In addition to the BS 4 references, there's the fact that they sometimes want your references to be in the same town, and to have known you for at least 5 years! That effectively screws the guy who has just moved here and wants to apply for a permit.

Of course, given that this is NY, and more people are moving out than in, that doesn't happen that often...

 

[Robin]

Roberts is a blackmail compromised POS!
Robin

 

[nortatoga]

They already have in not so many words; their lack of words affirms this view. I can't even buy a handgun in my county (and Heller was started to address handgun ownership) without four references. Why four? Why not 10? Why not 30? Why any? And then I have to wait a year for the permit anyway.

It's all designed to fuck us over and wherever possible make it as difficult and painful as possible to own handguns.

In addition to the BS 4 references, there's the fact that they sometimes want your references to be in the same town, and to have known you for at least 5 years! That effectively screws the guy who has just moved here and wants to apply for a permit.

Of course, given that this is NY, and more people are moving out than in, that doesn't happen that often...

Have either of you really read Heller v DC ?

 

[Phazer]

We need another liberal justice to retire,

Like, Roberts?

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Have either of you really read Heller v DC ?

It's been a while, but, yes. And your point will be what,- that Heller does not address us being able to carry outside the home?

 

[nortatoga]

It's been a while, but, yes. And your point will be what,- that Heller does not address us being able to carry outside the home?

Read the Quote in my Signature from the Heller ruling ( concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues)

 

[Blimey]

Have either of you really read Heller v DC ?

I'm not sure the quote in your sig means what you think it means. The ruling speaks of prohibitions and then uses the same word to describe the prohibitions to which it refers: possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or those in sensitive places. There is nothing I see affirming that the SCOTUS agrees a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons is sound. Moreover, the fact that sensitive places is specifically called out necessitates that prohibiting in all scenarios is not acceptable.

And finally, none of that is apropos to my complaint in any case. "laws imposing conditions and qualification on commercial sale" is not the same as ownership. It's not even legal for you to give me a gun without a permit and four references.

 

[nortatoga]

I'm not sure the quote in your sig means what you think it means. The ruling speaks of prohibitions and then uses the same word to describe the prohibitions to which it refers: possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or those in sensitive places. There is nothing I see affirming that the SCOTUS agrees a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons is sound. Moreover, the fact that sensitive places is specifically called out necessitates that prohibiting in all scenarios is not acceptable.

And finally, none of that is apropos to this topic in any case. "laws imposing conditions and qualification on commercial sale" is not the same as ownership. It's not even legal for you to give me a gun without a permit and four references.

It means that CCW is not protected by the 2nd amendment! Now click on the link for the Yale Law Review also in my signature.

 

[Mosinitis]

After Supreme Court will fuck you in the ass by refusing to hear this case, Justice Thomas or Justice Gorsuch will serenade you with a minority opinion. The spin from the corrupt republican party will be: "we need to work harder (stay active and contribute money) to appoint more conservative Justices".
Really?????? They were all presented to us as conservatives.

 

[Mosinitis]

I laugh at all of you who still believe in the system. Watch how I will be proven right.

 

[Blimey]

It means that CCW is not protected by the 2nd amendment! Now click on the link for the Yale Law Review also in my signature.

Really? It does? Apparently the lawyers for this plaintiff don't agree:
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to concealed carry restrictions

Justice Thomas also seems not to agree.

Why do the plaintiffs and Thomas (at least) disagree with you? Because they don't have the same understanding of your quote as you do, and neither do I.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Concealed Gun Restrictions

In an eight-page-long dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that the Peruta case “raises important questions that this Court should address. The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry — as opposed to the more general right to public carry — was untenable.

“Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively,” Thomas wrote.

That is verbatim from a supreme court judge. Thus any assertion that this is settled law is clearly incorrect.

 

[nortatoga]

Really? It does? Apparently the lawyers for this plaintiff don't agree:
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to concealed carry restrictions

Justice Thomas also seems not to agree.

Why do the plaintiffs and Thomas (at least) disagree with you? Because they don't have the same understanding of your quote as you do, and neither do I.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Concealed Gun Restrictions



That is verbatim from a supreme court judge. Thus any assertion that this is settled law is clearly incorrect.

We will see when and if the SCOTUS takes the Norman v. Florida case ? ( It was a shame that thread turned into a Crap-Feast ) Only 5 state restrict open carry and DC, Frontal challenges to CCW have failed. Get a ruling that Open Carry is constitutional would that not cause states to ease there CCW licensing ( no more restricted licenses in NY for example? ) As I read the Peruta case the scope of it was about California CCW a loan. Not a either or CCW or Open Carry case!

 

[Phauxtoe]

Didn't SCOTUS actually say (not sure where) the Right to Keep and Bare arms is at least one of these, if not both...
CCW or Open Carry

that would be the "bare" part.

 

[nortatoga]

Didn't SCOTUS actually say (not sure where) the Right to Keep and Bare arms is at least one of these, if not both...
CCW or Open Carry

that would be the "bare" part.

I think that would be what I have underlined in red in my signature" Quote " from the second paragraph of the Heller ruling.

 

[Phauxtoe]

I think that would be what I have underlined in red in my signature" Quote " from the second paragraph of the Heller ruling.

HA! i can't read that on my phone. too small and black on black!

 

[BerettaGuy]

If they do not clarify the status of these bans, which are in direct violation of the Constitution AND previous SCOTUS rulings, then they effectively say that the Rule of Law is a farce and their own existence is a fraud.

And if they DO agree to hear it, and the opposition tries to use Mother Jones as a reference, it should be immediately objected to as a biased source of false information!

Since Heller and McDonald, the ruling of the Supreme Court rulings ARE a farce when the Circuit Judges make rulings that flip them the bird. All these liberal assholes that know what we need or don't need, pass laws for US not themselves.

 

[Glenn B]

If they do not clarify the status of these bans, which are in direct violation of the Constitution AND previous SCOTUS rulings, then they effectively say that the Rule of Law is a farce and their own existence is a fraud.

And if they DO agree to hear it, and the opposition tries to use Mother Jones as a reference, it should be immediately objected to as a biased source of false information!

They do not have to hear the case to make that clarification.

 

[spat]

Have either of you really read Heller v DC ?

I'm sure they read it more than the 2nd circuit did.

Doesn't matter what it says if it's ignored.

 

[spat]

I think that would be what I have underlined in red in my signature" Quote " from the second paragraph of the Heller ruling.

NY does not have a ban on concealed carry. It doesn't have a ban on open carry. It has a ban on possession.

The only relevant laws in N.Y. are "criminal possession of a weapon", all degrees of which fly in the face of Heller and the 2A.

NY could rewrite them so that they banned (or licensed) CCW and possible be in compliance with Heller, but they haven't and they won't until someone forces them to.

 

[nortatoga]

NY does not have a ban on concealed carry. It doesn't have a ban on open carry. It has a ban on possession.

The only relevant laws in N.Y. are "criminal possession of a weapon", all degrees of which fly in the face of Heller and the 2A.

NY could rewrite them so that they banned (or licensed) CCW and possible be in compliance with Heller, but they haven't and they won't until someone forces them to.

Yes a ban on possession unless you have a license ( concealed carry and carrying openly could cause you to lose that license )

It was a shame that thread about the Florida open carry had to turn into a Crap-Fest!!

 

[spat]

Yes a ban on possession unless you have a license ( concealed carry and carrying openly could cause you to lose that license )

It was a shame that thread about the Florida open carry had to turn into a Crap-Fest!!

Requiring a license is a ban.

You can have anything with a license, and with enough time and money, a license can be had for anything.

You can have a full auto GAU-8 in NY if you get the licence, would you say they are not banned ?

How difficult does the license need to be to get, how expensive for you to consider it a ban ?

 

[nortatoga]

Requiring a license is a ban.

You can have anything with a license, and with enough time and money, a license can be had for anything.

You can have a full auto GAU-8 in NY if you get the licence, would you say they are not banned ?

How difficult does the license need to be to get, how expensive for you to consider it a ban ?

Can you get a license to open carry in NYS?

 

[spat]

Can you get a license to open carry in NYS?

Sure, pl400

The only ban is possession, once you've got that license you just need to not scare the sheeple.

 

[nortatoga]

Sure, pl400

The only ban is possession, once you've got that license you just need to not scare the sheeple.

How do you think a SCOTUS ruling that open carry is constitutionally protected would the effect pl400?