As in so many other blue states, Maryland’s legislature is working on a Bruen response bill — the Gun Safety Act — that would drastically crack down on gun right including no-go zones for concealed carry permit holders. Members of Patriot Picket have been there in Annapolis letting Delegates know that with Bruen now the law of the land, they can expect a fight over whatever Second Amendment restrictions they pass.
Migraine Man writes . . .
In recent weeks we have been on the bricks in Annapolis, occupying the public sidewalk space between the legiscritters’ office buildings and the State House where they hold General Sessions in the evenings. Often, our elected representatives will pass by our hand-held signs with nary a sideways glance. Some will scurry quickly and avoid eye contact, and others will feign being engaged on their cell phones.
This week we decided to take it up a notch. We deployed a 45-foot banner declaring “PURE HOPLOPHOBIA HERE!” It was unavoidable.
We responded to multiple queries of, “What’s hoplophobia?” with “The irrational fear of firearms.” It was quick, to the point, and even encouraged multiple follow-on conversations.
We would like to thank Baltimore Delegate Frank Conaway, Jr. (D – District 40) for spending significant time with us discussing the need of Baltimore residents to have access to self-defense means.
CA is crafting its own version of CCW restrictions in defiance of Bruen.
I think that the anti-2A side is going to have an increasingly difficult time defending its stance once SC and FL pass their permitless carry laws and over half the country will be formally recognizing the RKBA (yes, I know…not all the freedom States have passed true constitutional carry, but it’s better than what we have here in CA, where we cannot open carry, and must still ask permission and pay money to conceal carry).
With any luck you will have several other federal circuit court judgements for the 9th to have to consider as precedent by the time the law is enacted to be challenged.
ALL gun laws that infringe RKBA for non-criminal Citizens, are unconstitutional in that under a constitutional Republic, the public servants can only act upon those things they are specifically privileged to act upon…ALL ELSE ABSOLUTELY DENIED.
SEE: FEDERALIST PAPER 49 BY MADISON. “CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS”
=
NOTE: The 1968 Gun Act is unconstitutional in that it gives up “supremacy” of Acts of Congress under Article 6 in that States and Local authorities can nullify rights secured by Act of Congress regarding RKBA.
=
How can Congress enact RKBA laws to secure the 2nd, only to have State/Local nullify??
Which law is “law” – the law SECURING a right or the law negating a right?
=
Congress, cannot do this for then it also negates Supreme Court rulings too.
=
The rights you do not understand and support, are rights you don’t have.
=
Hell, I’d even say criminals who’ve completed their sentence (ie not on parole but fully done) should have their 2nd amendment rights restored! What some guy did in his twenties should not dog his constitutional rights in his 50’s.
I agree with you, Kyle. The problem is that it is very difficult to get out from under a felony conviction. There are many traps for the parolee to fall into. I am not talking about committing other crimes, I am talking about the administrative bull pucky hoops they have to jump through. In CA, there is a process for felons who have successfully completed their sentence and parole/probation. It is a finding by a judge that the individual has been rehabilitated. I don’t know what all gets restored after such finding and, of course, the state finding has no effect on federale restrictions. Of course, in order to get a courtt ordered certificate of rehabilitation, the former felon has to have the funds to hire an attorney. There are even fewer who can wend their way through the legal bull pucky on their own. We are not talking about thousands of felons such as were released from prison in CA because of the “danger” of the CoVD, but perhaps one or two out of a thousand who can successfully complete their debt to society. And lest someone think I am some bleeding heart CA sheep, I firmly believe in the death penalty and I firmly believe in long sentences for career criminals. I spent 25 years working in various courts of felony jurisdiction and have no sympathy for criminals. My nom de plume is a sarcastic one.
Nope . other way around .
it just reenforces their sense of virtue signalling moral superiority. They’re convinced they’re the sane ones valiantly fighting to hold back the tide of insanity sweeping the country .
In their minds , Bruen is as morally repugnant as Dred Scott was in the 1850’s , and they have a higher moral duty to do everything they can to undermine , and eventually overturn it .
It’s not clear, was the Democrap in favor of having access to firearms for self-defense, or opposed. I could venture a good guess.
Surprisingly, Delegate Conaway is in favor of firearms for self-defense, and even commented that he opposes licensing because “it seems silly to need to ask permission to act on a protected right.” He’s in favor on Constitutional carry, but understands the monumental opposition that receives in the People’s Republic of Maryland.
Very cool. Kudos.
I think it’s important to show respect and recognition to those that may, traditionally, based on party alone, be in opposition to our rights when they engage in true dialogue. So many “in power” (on both sides, the R’s generally don’t understand rights either) seem to believe they know everything, and can learn nothing by actually listening and considering opposing viewpoints.
It’s heartening to see that happening. Doubly so when it contradicts the racist slander used against pro-freedom folks.
“We responded to multiple queries of, “What’s hoplophobia?” with “The irrational fear of firearms.””
Those were just those that bothered to stop and ask.
The problem is, the vast majority who saw that long word didn’t stop to ask, and are now just baffled as to what the banner said.
A much better banner would include “Hoplophobia is the irrational fear of firearms.” under it…
I think a bunch of states either see something wrong with Bruen in a legal sense or they are just being openly obstinate about it.
Chief Justice John Roberts made his opinion on states ignoring Bruen public and I think that SCOTUS is going to have clarify that just because a state may have disdain for the Bruen decision it is indeed the law of the land.
Bruen goes far beyond the ability to carry, it gives lower courts a test to apply the 2nd amendment to firearms cases and state laws.
Some state is going to end up with the proverbial foot in their ass and the others will quickly fall into line.
“I think a bunch of states either see something wrong with Bruen in a legal sense or they are just being openly obstinate about it”
its both for the democrat leader states.
legally they see it as wrong because it did away with the interest balancing they relied on to control the outcome of most cases in their favor. Bruen removed that control.
they are being openly obstinate and resistant about it because they don’t have that control over court cases any longer.
it was an eye opener for them. if you look at the arguments in Bruen, you see New York trying to rely on the same types of arguments they used under interest balancing. its the same in the other cases now too for the other states. they don’t know how to deal with it, they got so used to controlling the outcome through interest balancing they don’t know how to do it based upon the actual constitution where they can’t have control over the outcome. so now they are desperately searching for something that will work in the analog aspect, they are currently reaching into the 19th century like California trying to use 19th century restrictions on bowie knifes to justify their magazine ban, its not going to work but its good popcorn worthy entertainment.
they should have known this was eventually coming though. McDonald and Heller put a pretty solid shot across their bow.
The same strategy is being employed in the State’s briefs filed in the California federal courts in response to challenges to the AR, mag limits, and Roster of Approved Fireamrs cases. California’s bill to block Bruen is remarkably similar to the ones passed in NY and NJ, but is still pending, and I assume the one now pending in Maryland but is still pending in the Legislature. It drops good cause, increases fees and training requirements, and massively restricts where concealed firearms can be carried. We assume that all of these bills had the same author/sponsor–Herr Bloomberg.
In a way that is excellent. Once the argument falls apart in one federal circuit it will be increasingly untenable everywhere it is tried and less effort will be needed to fight it effectively. Then they will need to devote a lot of time and energy in attempting their goals under much harsher conditions. With that said I would recommend any conservative state to push rights as far as they can.
Rob S.,
“Some state is going to end up with the proverbial foot in their ass …”
How exactly will that happen? The nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court certainly are NOT going to don tactical gear and enforce their decision on any state which ignores it. Who then would enforce their decision? If you think the United States Justice Department will enforce the Bruen decision on any state which is openly ignoring it, I have ocean-front property in Nevada to sell to you.
There is a law on the books and it’s only been used once.
The case United States v. Shippset set the bar for punishment by SCOTUS. If Garland will not abide or follow Bruen then he can be charged.
Charged with contempt of court, The U.S. Supreme Court.
While it sounds radical, I don’t think there is anyone in the United States who wants a Supreme Court criminal trial. SCOTUS has the power to charge people with contempt. Garland isn’t brave enough to chance it and will be forced to enforce the Bruen decision in it’s entirety. No justices wearing tactical gear will be needed.
“Today United States Attorney General Merrick Garland told the states to follow the Bruen decision to the letter or end up with a proverbial foot in their ass” because if they didn’t he would be charged with contempt of The U.S. Supreme Court.
If SCOTUS starts simply GVR’ing (summary Grant of the cert petition, Vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Reverse) decisions of, say, the Ninth or Second Circuits that are playing footsie with Bruen, that will send a message.
But what up is REALLY needed is for someone in the various test cases to start adding monetary claims against the individual public officials involved for conspiracy to violate civil rights. Bruen is now “clearly established,” and state officials who are virtue signaling by “defying” SCOTUS aren’t going to get qualified immunity. Start creating an economic cost for violating people’s rights and the decision tree for these folks gets a lot more complicated.
“and state officials who are virtue signaling by “defying” SCOTUS aren’t going to get qualified immunity.”
How so? Because this sounds really interesting.
entities who intentionally defy court decisions, yes even SCOTUS decisions, are acting outside the bounds of “qualified immunity” because its a violation of law and “qualified immunity” doesn’t apply for intentional violation of law
seems like they want to provoke a series of lawsuits to just bog down the opposition…
Exactly Frank. They have almost unlimited taxpayer funds to spend on fruitless cases and they hope to wear down the opposition by bankrupting them. Trial time is very expensive. We are lucky there are attorneys willing to work for reduced fees who by the by, also happen to be real constitutional experts. Next time one goes to bad mouth attorneys, think of all the attorneys working on our behalf.
Don’t misunderstand my comments commending attorneys. I know better than most individuals that there are some really scummy attorneys practicing. However, wait until you are arrested on a bogus charge. You will suddenly find yourself in strong favor of legal representation by a knowledgable attorney when you are the object of persecution by an unscrupulous prosecuting attorney. The Rittenhouse case was an example of an unscrupulous prosecutor. I won’t bother to list all of his violations of the standard of practicer because the list is too long.
Here’s the Senator that has crafted the Law (still in discussion at this point) that essentially considers ALL areas as sensitive areas and therefore off-limits to Carry.
The Hoplophobia is great with this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR8lNLZSaD8
these legislation idiots use “sensitive areas” in an attempt to enact a de-facto ban on carry. that’s because they are exploiting the use of the term/concept in the Buren case. New York went wild with it, even though the justices made it reasonably clear but they did not clearly define it in the decision.
Douchebag looks and sounds just like the kind of cretin to subvert your civil rights.
Maryland is simply copying what Virginia did after the Brown versus Board of Education decision in the 1950s. Defy the Supreme court.
The Anti-gun people and media will start screaming “State Rights!” “10th Amendment” when ever Bruen comes up.
Biggest bunch of hypocrites in the universe and no shame at all.
Actually they started screaming the 10th Amendment because of the abortion issue at the Federal level. And I’m all for that.
I hope these nut jobs all move to Colorado or California. There they can have all their “free” government abortions, “free” condoms “free” sez change operations.
While the rest of us can start open carrying machine guns, swords, or anything else we want to do. And live our lives in peace without being pestered by these people.
The supremes, specifically Thomas and Alito, will need to metaphorically slap these states upside the head sooner or later.
2×4 usually works well.
A series of GVR orders from SCOTUS would do nicely.
states who defy the Supreme law of the land and violate civil rights, only to be slapped down by the courts, only to respond with a different set of violations, are pending themselves up for massive civil rights fines.
citizens in such states should all get in on the recovery of financial compensation from their criminal governments
Wake up and smell the coffee: there is no entity which is willing to enforce the Bruen decision. The nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are physically incapable of enforcing it. The U.S. Justice Department certainly isn’t going to enforce it. And the U.S. military is not going to enforce it. Who then to enforce it?
“Wake up and smell the coffee: there is no entity which is willing to enforce the Bruen decision.”
Now you’re sounding just like the folks after the Brown v. Board of Education SCotUS decision. (among others)
What changed between then and now?
That’s your answer. Blacks just started showing up at white schools and started sitting at the front of the bus…
Bingo Geoff! For example it took over a decade of “civil disobedience” by citizens (while exercising a Constitutional guaranteed right, affirmed by a SCOTUS ruling) until the oh so enlightened folks of Boston stopped throwing rocks at school buses.
The Court does not need to enforce the rule with force. What will happen is that the lower courts will enjoin unconstitutional laws, and any state or police officer who tries to enforce the enjoined law will be open to civil rights law suits that will cost them millions. Officers who intentionally and with force seek to enforce such laws will be open to punitive damages claims that will be personal liabilities not covered by their employers or their insurers. The Courts will dismiss any criminal cases that are brought against persons exercising their rights.
This is sufficient enforcement without calling in the National Guard.
The Leftist Scum ™ are all about ‘civil disobedience’ when it came to smoking weed, we’ll just copy their playbook… 🙂
I think I figured it out.
Progressives are all about the feels. They “feel” like they have to do “something” about “gun violence.”
Whether or not they are willing to admit it, on some level of their consciousness, they know that criminals, by literal definition, are immune to any legal remedies they can throw at the problem. One, five, ten, or a hundred, the number of laws one must break to rob a store, hijack a car, or mug a pedestrian, makes no difference to the one intent on doing so.
So the only remaining alternative available to a gun-hater is to write laws that affect the law-abiding. The more they infringe on the law-abiding, the more “something” has been done, and the better they “feel” about the situation.
Nothing good is actually accomplished, but so what, this is the life of a Progressive.
“Progressives” wasting citizens tax dollars, quite a racket they have.
I started to use a phrase whenever I encounter an anti-gun idiot spouting off on how America needs to restrict firearms. I ask them why they are engaging in “Hate Speech”? They usually have a stunned look and ask, What are you talking about? I then explain that they are attempting to associate legal citizen gun owners with criminals and just like accusing the 13% of inciting violence, it is Hate Speech. Many do not know how to react. I then walk away. Point made.
“the 13%”
What is this reference?
I would advise people anywhere in the USA to not comply with any unconstitutional laws passed by these Democrats wherever possible. Civil disobedience should be the watch words for no gun registrations, no limitation in magazine capacity, no banning of any semi-automatic weapons, and no violation of your fourth amendment rights to privacy to name a few items you can in fact do something about. They do not have the manpower or the will to come to your home and try to enforce those types of rules. Experiences in NY, CT and NJ which are very Blue states shows that non-compliance works. Where they tried to register AR15’s or confiscate magazines the results were so bad that the State Police Supts. told their Governors they would only enforce those laws when violations were found in the commission of another crime. Fight back and don’t give an inch. Defend your constitutional rights at all costs.
Reading all these comments it makes me wonder punishment. Some comments said that someone can be held in contempt of SCOTUS, but who is that someone and how are they penalized? It seems there should be some type of punishment for legislatures and governors that pass obviously unconstitutional laws. Any ‘monetary’ penalties will be paid by the taxpayers. We try to punish people that break the law, even people held in contempt of court faces fines and/or jail time but these legislators and governors are subjected to no penalties. This needs to change.
Comments are closed.