Judge halts Maryland’s ban on carrying guns in places selling alcohol and near demonstrations

[HARK!]

A federal judge on Friday blocked several restrictions Maryland lawmakers tried to impose on the ability to carry a firearm, while leaving other gun control measures in place.

Judge George L. Russell III, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Maryland’s restrictions banning the carrying of a firearm in places selling alcohol, private buildings or property without owner’s consent and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.

He reasoned there was no historical basis to leave those laws in place in light of the Second Amendment challenge.

Judge halts Maryland’s ban on carrying guns in places selling alcohol and near demonstrations

A federal judge on Friday blocked several restrictions Maryland lawmakers tried to impose on the ability to carry a firearm, while leaving other gun control measures in place.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The judge would be correct in terms of precedent.
(and just logically speaking)

The "places that sell alcohol" provision was always one that thought made very little sense.

I know the impetus behind it was "we don't want people getting drunk and carrying a firearm", which is perfectly valid. However they were often far too broad.

A) there's already laws that would prohibit consuming alcohol while carrying
B) just because a place sells/serves alcohol, doesn't mean a person is drinking any while they're in there

For instance, if I go a restaurant that sells alcohol, and I have a diet coke or lemonade while I'm dining there, that presents no more or less public risk than if I were carry at dinner in a restaurant like Bob Evans (which doesn't serve alcohol).


However, if judges are going to start taking up more cases like this and leveraging precedent to do so, I'd prefer the efforts were more directed in the theme of establishing reciprocity through the Full Faith & Credit clause due to the ability to carry being a licensed status, and states having an obligation to honor licenses from other states. That's the basis for driver's licenses, and (prior to the scotus ruling) the basis for why it was suggested that other states had to honor a marriage license from an issuing state (even if the marriage laws weren't identical).

Incidentally, I believe it was Massachusetts's marriage license recipients who first made the case of FF&C (I think Mass. was the first - or one of the first - states to legalize it back in the early 2000's) as a basis for suggesting that other states had to honor their marriage license.

Meanwhile if I, as an Ohio CHL holder, wanted to carry in Mass., I'd be in some major trouble.

 

[HARK!]

The judge would be correct in terms of precedent.
(and just logically speaking)

The "places that sell alcohol" provision was always one that thought made very little sense.

I know the impetus behind it was "we don't want people getting drunk and carrying a firearm", which is perfectly valid. However they were often far too broad.

A) there's already laws that would prohibit consuming alcohol while carrying
B) just because a place sells/serves alcohol, doesn't mean a person is drinking any while they're in there

For instance, if I go a restaurant that sells alcohol, and I have a diet coke or lemonade while I'm dining there, that presents no more or less public risk than if I were carry at dinner in a restaurant like Bob Evans (which doesn't serve alcohol).


However, if judges are going to start taking up more cases like this and leveraging precedent to do so, I'd prefer the efforts were more directed in the theme of establishing reciprocity through the Full Faith & Credit clause due to the ability to carry being a licensed status, and states having an obligation to honor licenses from other states. That's the basis for driver's licenses, and (prior to the scotus ruling) the basis for why it was suggested that other states had to honor a marriage license from an issuing state (even if the marriage laws weren't identical).

Incidentally, I believe it was Massachusetts's marriage license recipients who first made the case of FF&C (I think Mass. was the first - or one of the first - states to legalize it back in the early 2000's) as a basis for suggesting that other states had to honor their marriage license.

Meanwhile if I, as an Ohio CHL holder, wanted to carry in Mass., I'd be in some major trouble.

There is a difference between a unalienable right, and a privilege.​

​

License​

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act,

License

Definition of License in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

June 23, 2022, 2:34

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun rights groups

The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Wings like Eagles]

None of the restrictions Maryland lawmakers tried to impose would make a difference in making the public safer.

 

[HARK!]

None of the restrictions Maryland lawmakers tried to impose would make a difference in making the public safer.

Despite having some of the most Draconian gun laws on the books; Baltimore often has the highest murder rates in the country.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There is a difference between a unalienable right, and a privilege.​

​

License​

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act,

License

Definition of License in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

June 23, 2022, 2:34

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun rights groups

The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.

www.nbcnews.com

The DC vs. Heller ruling was one that established gun ownership as an individual right, but not an unlimited one.

In the case of gun ownership, it's not an unlimited right. Otherwise, there'd be no basis to complain about the gun violence in some major cities. As we'd have no right to deny most of them the ability to own and carry a gun.

However, if people on the left were going to make the case that "if this other state was willing to issue me a marriage license, then these other states have to honor it", the same should be true of concealed handgun licenses.

There's no compelling reason to deny universal CCW reciprocity.

Per Violence Policy Center (an anti-gun organization), they released a study that ended up not proving the point they thought it was proving.

Among the nations 13 million concealed carry permit holders, we, collectively have a homicide rate of 0.6 per 100,000. Meaning if you had a nation of 13 million people, only comprised of US CCW holders, we'd have a lower murder rate than the UK (and most other other European countries)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Despite having some of the most Draconian gun laws on the books; Baltimore often has the highest murder rates in the country.

That's true...but the same is true of St. Louis, residing in a state that has some of the most lax gun laws in the country.


This is the same critique I use against the anti-gun liberals...which is that there's no hard linear correlation between strictness of gun laws and rates of murder and violence. There's a plethora of "cherry pickable" examples of each scenario, but at the end of the day, strictness of gun laws and rates of gun ownership aren't a good predictor of rates of violent crime.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Despite having some of the most Draconian gun laws on the books; Baltimore often has the highest murder rates in the country.

That is always the case, these feel good laws make no one any safer, in fact they create kill zone's (gun free zones) for predator's to inflict as much violence as possible.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is always the case, these feel good laws make no one any safer, in fact they create kill zone's (gun free zones) for predator's to inflict as much violence as possible.

The problem with the "gun free zones" is that the kind of person who would commit such an act, isn't deterred by a little "gun-busters" sign in the window....so unless that "gun free zone" is accompanied by a police officer and metal detector, it's literally just a sticker in the window.

But on the flip side, having a lax gun policy (in high crime inner city areas) isn't making anyone a whole lot safer either on the whole. You can find some isolated situations where it may come in handy, but by in large, it's not going to have a meaningful impact on the stats.

For instance Chicago and St. Louis are two midwestern cities... with very different gun laws. Both are dangerous. If they did a freaky friday "gun law swap" tomorrow, I wouldn't expect the stats for either city to change by all that much.


While I, as a CCW holder, have appreciation for the specific isolated benefits that my permit affords me for very specific circumstances, letting everyone pack heat isn't going to change the trajectory in terms of inner city gang violence.

While my having my Glock on me can be advantageous in a specific scenario like "6' 6" 280lbs unarmed drunk guy decides he wants to beat me up in a parking lot"...am I deluded enough to believe that my Glock is a "game-changer" should I find myself in a bad inner city neighborhood and confronted by 5 people from a gang (also armed) with their guns already drawn and telling me hand over my stuff? No... In fact, even reaching for it at that point would likely lead to me getting turned into swiss cheese.

 

[HARK!]

The DC vs. Heller ruling was one that established gun ownership as an individual right, but not an unlimited one.

Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one
step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted
in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.
But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-
end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead,
the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms
regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits
the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one
step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted
in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.
But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-
end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead,
the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms
regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits
the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

So what's your point on this?

That any gun control is an infringement?

A right is either limited or unlimited.

If the suggestion is that it's unlimited, then there's no logical basis for removal of guns rights from people with felonies or severe mental health conditions.

 

[HARK!]

So what's your point on this?

The point is that now Maryland residents have a little less to fear from defacto Authoritarians who would throw them into a cage for carrying personal protection on the dangerous streets that the defacto Authoritarians created.

Pretty cool! Huh?

Yep, it's just like when the chiefs got together to outlaw volcanoes; on the premise that too many virgins were being tossed into the volcanoes; but it was the chiefs that were throwing almost all of the virgins into the volcanoes to begin with.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The point is that now Maryland residents have a little less to fear from defacto Authoritarians who would throw them into a cage for carrying personal protection on the dangerous streets that the defacto Authoritarians created.

Pretty cool! Huh?

If you recall from my first post in the thread, I said the judge's ruling was the right one. (and went on to elaborate that I wish they'd focus more efforts on reciprocity...you think I like having to leave my gun in a safe in Ohio when I travel a lot of the northeastern states?)

I'm pointing out that the angle of "there should be no restrictions" is a losing angle.

Not to mention, if the "dangerous streets of Baltimore" is the result of Democratic authoritarians in the Maryland state government, what would be your explanation for the dangerous streets of places like Cleveland & St. Louis?

Ohio and Missouri are both red states with republican governors and "permitless carry"... odd that the "good guys with guns" haven't cleaned up those streets yet isn't it?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, there's more to this inner city crime issue than just "let the good guys carry so they can scare the bad guys"?
(Hint: there is more to it... do you honestly think that a pack of 10 members of an East Cleveland street gang are afraid or intimidated by a rando suburbanite having a .40 tucked in their waistband?)

 

[Wings like Eagles]

The problem with the "gun free zones" is that the kind of person who would commit such an act, isn't deterred by a little "gun-busters" sign in the window....so unless that "gun free zone" is accompanied by a police officer and metal detector, it's literally just a sticker in the window.

Agreed - criminals do not follow laws

But on the flip side, having a lax gun policy (in high crime inner city areas) isn't making anyone a whole lot safer either on the whole. You can find some isolated situations where it may come in handy, but by in large, it's not going to have a meaningful impact on the stats.

Gun policy only works on law abiding citizens.

For instance Chicago and St. Louis are two midwestern cities... with very different gun laws. Both are dangerous. If they did a freaky friday "gun law swap" tomorrow, I wouldn't expect the stats for either city to change by all that much.

Not familiar with St. Louis - but it looks like in Chicago no one is following the gun laws.

While I, as a CCW holder, have appreciation for the specific isolated benefits that my permit affords me for very specific circumstances, letting everyone pack heat isn't going to change the trajectory in terms of inner city gang violence.

Gang on gang violence no, but gang on law abiding citizen yes

While my having my Glock on me can be advantageous in a specific scenario like "6' 6" 280lbs unarmed drunk guy decides he wants to beat me up in a parking lot"...am I deluded enough to believe that my Glock is a "game-changer" should I find myself in a bad inner city neighborhood and confronted by 5 people from a gang (also armed) with their guns already drawn and telling me hand over my stuff? No... In fact, even reaching for it at that point would likely lead to me getting turned into swiss cheese.

For someone that large I would recommend a 1911 in .45ACP, a 9mm glock not going to cut it, also take care who you hang with and where.

 

[HARK!]

Ohio and Missouri are both red states with republican governors and "permitless carry"... odd that the "good guys with guns" haven't cleaned up those streets yet isn't it?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, there's more to this inner city crime issue than just "let the good guys carry so they can scare the bad guys"?
(Hint: there is more to it... do you honestly think that a pack of 10 members of an East Cleveland street gang are afraid or intimidated by a rando suburbanite having a .40 tucked in their waistband?)

Have you read any John Lott?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Have you read any John Lott?

Yes

 

[HARK!]

Yes

Blows holes in those anecdotal arguments; doesn't he?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Blows holes in those anecdotal arguments; doesn't he?

Yes - you were right on target.

blows holes, I see what you did there

 

[HARK!]

Yes - you were right on target.

blows holes, I see what you did there

He presents a bulletproof case.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Gun policy only works on law abiding citizens.

That's technically only a half truth...

Within the confines of "post acquisition", yes what you're saying is true, in terms of pre-acquisition, laws can certainly have an impact.

If "Bad Guy already has a gun"...sure, I don't expect them to follow laws.

However, if laws prevent certain gun sales in the first place, that certainly has an effect.

Not familiar with St. Louis - but it looks like in Chicago no one is following the gun laws.

If you're not familiar with St. Louis... they're in a state that affords "constitutional carry" (and have for a decade). If you'll notice on that list, there's a good mix of "strict" and "lax" gun locales represented.

They literally have triple the murder rate (per 100k) as Chicago, and a murder rate per 100k that's on par with Haiti and dangerous Mexican border towns.

Gang on gang violence no, but gang on law abiding citizen yes

But I don't think the two can be separated (at least not entirely). For instance, if I go to Cleveland for a sporting event (and they're coming to Cleveland to "conduct business"), and I'm still going to end up crossing paths with them at some point.