User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:03:42 AM EDT
[#1]
 Surprised, I am not.
Can't trust any branch of the .gov to understand simple words..."shall not be infringed' |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:05:53 AM EDT
[#2]
Well that sucks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:06:37 AM EDT
[#3]
This doesn't appear to be the case Gura was involved in.
The one where the MD AG said carrying rifles openly was a-okay. ETA: One of the court's concerns could have been that since Marylanders aren't actually "people" they may not have "rights". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:07:51 AM EDT
[#4]
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:08:28 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it? I believe so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:09:41 AM EDT
[#6]
Cowards.
You get put on the bench for FUCKING LIFE. Man up and make the damn decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:09:48 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:11:28 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it? I believe so. I think three justices have to agree to hear a case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:12:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. This. SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:14:07 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. This. SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:14:13 AM EDT
[#11]
I really don't give a flying F––ck what they think. I will do as I please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:15:09 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. That was what I was thinking. Leave it alone the way it is...or they might just decide our freedoms don't count outside of our front doors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:15:43 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. This. SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear. I believe there are several other cases. I haven't followed them too closely, Gura and his guys are doing a lot of work in this area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:15:43 AM EDT
[#14]
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.
Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:26:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... FWIW I've heard of more Marylanders that have CCWs than New Jersey residents that have them. 
And of course all of them beat the number of non-LEO's in Illinois with CCW's - that is, exactly zero. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:27:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. That was what I was thinking. Leave it alone the way it is...or they might just decide our freedoms don't count outside of our front doors. I think there were some problems with this case. It's my understanding some better ones are making their way through the court systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:33:46 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... One of the things you can gat an MD CCW for is if you deal with large sums of cash for your job. The problem is your employer has to sign off on it, and you can only carry it while working. That said, I knew a lot of HVAC techs that had their own company... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:35:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it? I believe so. I think three justices have to agree to hear a case. Four |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:37:52 AM EDT
[#19]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:43:09 AM EDT
[#20]
not the SAF case
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:46:54 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it? I believe so. I think three justices have to agree to hear a case. 4 justices. Refereed to as the "Rule of 4." Petitioners seeking an appeal submit a petition for writ of certiorari, which 4 justices must agree on to grant certiorari. i dont recall the exact translation of certiorari, but it effect it means "we are sure we have jurisdiction of this case." The details of the process by which cert is argued/granted are somewhat mysterious (like most internal matters of the USSC). There are also cases in which cert is automatic. Like anything involving voting in a southern state |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:49:22 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. That was what I was thinking. Leave it alone the way it is...or they might just decide our freedoms don't count outside of our front doors. I think there were some problems with this case. It's my understanding some better ones are making their way through the court systems. It would be much better to have a strong case decided in favor of the 2nd amendment over this case. A strong case leaves no "wiggle room" for the wording of the verdict. Some bad precedents have been set by decisions on weak cases being interpreted differently by judges at lower courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 12:22:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Cowards. You get put on the bench for FUCKING LIFE. Man up and make the damn decisions. By nit hearing the case, they did make a decision |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 12:27:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. This. SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear. This, we want Guerra's case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 12:27:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. This. SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear. This, we want Guerra's case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 1:49:42 PM EDT
[#26]
This may be better for everyone in the long-run, but the poor guy in MA is gonna get to stay in prison now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 1:53:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well that sucks. No, it's good. This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court. This. SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear. Several. The North Carolina state of emergency law, another Chicago case, I think one in California over may issue... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 1:54:25 PM EDT
[#28]
This was about a guy carrying without a permit. NOT that the state would not issue him one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 2:00:07 PM EDT
[#29]
It is so simple it is Frightening, and it is yours , not the Government's or it's enforcers. The only drawback is that using it can be disastrous when faced with 100 to 1 odds. Life is like the Alamo, not the movies. Very few will stand beside you.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 2:18:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 2:20:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this. chess, not tiddlywinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 2:25:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this. chess, not tiddlywinks. Oh I understand where they're coming from but I still think it's fucked up. So what if they take the case, hand down a ruling that people have a right to firearms outside the home for protection and some lower court tries to twist that ruling. They can just take that case too. It isn't like these fuckers are over worked, they work half a year then go back to golfing and whatever other shit they do. Part of their job is to stop injustices in the lower courts and they sure as hell aren't doing that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 2:27:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this. chess, not tiddlywinks. Oh I understand where they're coming from but I still think it's fucked up. So what if they take the case, hand down a ruling that people have a right to firearms outside the home for protection and some lower court tries to twist that ruling. They can just take that case too. It isn't like these fuckers are over worked, they work half a year then go back to golfing and whatever other shit they do. Part of their job is to stop injustices in the lower courts and they sure as hell aren't doing that. The system is fucked, don't get me wrong –– but if you're counting on SCOTUS to get you out of jail, you're barking up the wrong tree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 2:28:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this. chess, not tiddlywinks. Oh I understand where they're coming from but I still think it's fucked up. So what if they take the case, hand down a ruling that people have a right to firearms outside the home for protection and some lower court tries to twist that ruling. They can just take that case too. It isn't like these fuckers are over worked, they work half a year then go back to golfing and whatever other shit they do. Part of their job is to stop injustices in the lower courts and they sure as hell aren't doing that. Heller was 5-4. We would have lost this case with the current court makeup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2011 4:10:09 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is. Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger. Riiiight... FWIW I've heard of more Marylanders that have CCWs than New Jersey residents that have them.
And of course all of them beat the number of non-LEO's in Illinois with CCW's - that is, exactly zero. You miss my point. As shitty as the laws in those 2 states are, they are at least consistent and are applied roughly equally to everyone. Maryland is the opposite - CC is allowed, but only when certain ambiguous criteria are met, and the final arbiter is 1 guy. The process is also opaque - for all anyone knows the Superintendent of the State Police throws darts or rolls dice to decide who gets one. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
