MD: 21 State Attorneys General Ask Supreme Court to Void Maryland Gun Law

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,091
    113
    Texas
    A coalition of 21 state attorneys general is asking the Supreme Court to strike down a Maryland law that denies concealed carry permits unless applicants can convince local officials they have a “good and substantial reason” to be granted one by local authorities.




    Apart from West Virginia, the other states that participated in the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah.


    The case is Malpasso v. Pallozzi.
    (BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO and MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOLASSOCIATION,INC., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI,in his official capacity as Maryland Secretary of State Police, Respondent)
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Nope. Even though, I agree with the sentiment, I think it's bad practice for for states to dictate what goes on in other states. Maryland, should not be compelled to genuflect to anyone but the voters in the state.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Nope. Even though, I agree with the sentiment, I think it's bad practice for for states to dictate what goes on in other states. Maryland, should not be compelled to genuflect to anyone but the voters in the state.

    I would generally agree that states should have the final say on issues of state sovereignty, except this case involves the exercise of a right recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental individual right. As amici point out, there has been widely varied and inconsistent application of Heller, and McDonald and SCOTUS should step in and clarify the law, one way or the other.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,091
    113
    Texas
    Seeing as how those states had to submit a brief to the federal level SCOTUS and hope they read it and find it persuasive, I find it...amusing...to describe them as "dictate[ing] what goes on in other states."
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,686
    77
    Camby area
    Seeing as how those states had to submit a brief to the federal level SCOTUS and hope they read it and find it persuasive, I find it...amusing...to describe them as "dictate[ing] what goes on in other states."


    Yes. This isnt so much other states dictating another state's law, it is other states asking the SCOTUS to tell the state to knock it off because they are breaking federal law. (or at least going against prior SCOTUS rulings that are VERY similar, eg Heller)

    So its more like when one older kid decides to play a game with younger kids that is banned by a general playground rule, the younger kids think there is nothing they can do because they dont know any better, and other older kids on the playground go to the teacher on duty to overrule his bad decision and make him play by the rules and make it fair for the little kids.

    Or your redneck constituents voted you in to reenact a form of slavery, and so you enact a form of slavery. Many constituents dont see anything wrong, partly because they arent affected, and possibly because they voted for their reps to do exactly what they did. The legislators dont think anything is wrong, but many citizens who are harmed see a problem, as do surrounding states. So those states are stepping in to help the little guy being harmed.
     
    Last edited:

    cbhausen

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Feb 17, 2010
    6,379
    113
    Indianapolis, IN
    Nope. Even though, I agree with the sentiment, I think it's bad practice for for states to dictate what goes on in other states. Maryland, should not be compelled to genuflect to anyone but the voters in the state.

    I don’t even know where to begin with this one... so I will just ask this question: Is your opinion here consistent when it comes to all civil rights violations which may have or may in the future be violated by a particular state?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    I don’t even know where to begin with this one... so I will just ask this question: Is your opinion here consistent when it comes to all civil rights violations which may have or may in the future be violated by a particular state?

    I was going to ask this same question.
     

    Spear Dane

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 4, 2015
    5,119
    113
    Kokomo area
    I don’t even know where to begin with this one... so I will just ask this question: Is your opinion here consistent when it comes to all civil rights violations which may have or may in the future be violated by a particular state?

    Not to mention he carries that same attitude with him to work...and he's a cop.
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    I wish we could get this kind of support at the state level to keep ****holes like Chicago from dictating law to the entire rest of the state.
     

    Jump62

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2014
    112
    12
    Fenwick Island
    As someone who escaped across the bay Bridge and left The Peoples Republic of Marylandstan in 2007 the democrats have been chipping away at the 2A for decades, a handgun roster built in such a way if Acme Phasers makes an affordable 40w handphaser unless the Handgun Board gives it clearance it can not be sold in the state. The reason for this board was to keep the dreaded " Saturday Night Special " out of citizens hands and save the children. Or how about the shell casing law that had every new pistol had to have a casing sent to the State Police during the sale process and kept on file, found out when the new Governor came in he found that the casing reading machine had not been operational for 10 years and the state police had 40 or so barrels of casings that could help is solving crime and no master file to ID pistols casing found at a crime scene. Then we got from Martin O'Mally ( aka MOM ) a response to the free fire zone called Baltimore, The Firearms Safety Act of 2013. ARs and AK are not legal but if the AR is equipped with a heavy barrel it OK or an AR-10 is ok. A PTR-91 is banned but a PTR-32 can be sold. No 30 round magazines can not be sold in the state but you can bring back a many as you can haul from a freer state. But the best part of this legal lunacy is that a citizen must purchase and undergo various items to get a Handgun Qualification License ( the HQL ) in order to buy a handgun and exercise a constitutional right. Even with the HQL the citizen must still fill out a 4473 and a Maryland Form 77r, wait for a approved or not approved message then 7 days of LGS jail. The FSA of 2013 was suppose to fix Baltimorgue KIA rate, the body count is 338 so far this year (2019). There is more to this law or other misadventures but the disease has been coming to me in LSD ( Lower Slower Delaware ), people from Maryland escaping the taxes and a high cost of living are moving to Delaware and bring their desire to have the " safety " net that they had in Maryland to Delaware so last year in the Delaware Senate a bill that was word for word the Maryland FSA of 2013 was brought up. So Maryland and its' refugees are effecting the state I live in, I might be just a dumb grunt and I'm sure there is a better legal argument but this a push back, a start of what Maryland has done to it's citizens rights and bringing these rights back to them and putting a stop to this.
    You in Indiana are lucky to avoid this mess but it has to stop and I have a feeling between passive/active resistance and using the state and federal courts the skids will put on this. It's coming to me again in Delaware in 2020 with a ban on assault weapons, a license to own weapons and to buy them and no mags over 15 rounds. Watch what happens in Virginia this year, some one is going to blink. One of my ancesters in 1775 at Williamsburg didn't blink.

    Jump62
    aka Paul
    a desentant of CPT Ezekiel Burton
    Williamsburg Militia
     

    cbhausen

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Feb 17, 2010
    6,379
    113
    Indianapolis, IN
    I don’t even know where to begin with this one... so I will just ask this question: Is your opinion here consistent when it comes to all civil rights violations which may have or may in the future be [STRIKE]violated[/STRIKE] committed by a particular state?

    I’m quoting myself to make a minor correction to my question to Kut. I did not ask this to start a dogpile. I seriously want to know when (if ever, possibly, in Kut’s opinion) it’s okay for the States to come together in legal action in support of the rights of the citizens of a particular State.

    How about come together in legal action in denial or infringement of the rights of the citizens of a particular State?

    And, what about applying these two scenarios to groups of States vs. the Federal government?

    There are plenty of historical examples. Does one always believe every state should always go it alone or is “dogpiling” okay only if one agrees with the cause?

    This merits careful thought.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,735
    113
    Indy
    Nope. Even though, I agree with the sentiment, I think it's bad practice for for states to dictate what goes on in other states. Maryland, should not be compelled to genuflect to anyone but the voters in the state.

    We fought an entire war to force some states to respect the rights of all people within their borders.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I don’t even know where to begin with this one... so I will just ask this question: Is your opinion here consistent when it comes to all civil rights violations which may have or may in the future be violated by a particular state?

    Absolutely. California, Illinois, and New York would be equally wrong if they appealed to the Supreme Court to make Indiana observe the Civil Right laws that they had implemented in their own state.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I’m quoting myself to make a minor correction to my question to Kut. I did not ask this to start a dogpile. I seriously want to know when (if ever, possibly, in Kut’s opinion) it’s okay for the States to come together in legal action in support of the rights of the citizens of a particular State.

    How about come together in legal action in denial or infringement of the rights of the citizens of a particular State?

    And, what about applying these two scenarios to groups of States vs. the Federal government?

    There are plenty of historical examples. Does one always believe every state should always go it alone or is “dogpiling” okay only if one agrees with the cause?

    This merits careful thought.

    Never. If there is a state law that needs to be changed, it should be the residents of that state to leading the way, not some AG, in another state, 500 miles away. If people don't like outside the state don't like it, don't go to that state. My issue is jurisdiction. Even if a state law violates the Constitution, I don't believe that other states should be able to challenge it.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    We fought an entire war to force some states to respect the rights of all people within their borders.

    And the funny thing about it, was that the South was right (states rights), they just were wrong in how they applied the notion (slavery). Despite the loss, I am still a firm believer in States Rights; even though incorporation has been settled.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Nope. Even though, I agree with the sentiment, I think it's bad practice for for states to dictate what goes on in other states. Maryland, should not be compelled to genuflect to anyone but the voters in the state.
    Maryland should be compelled to uphold the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    And the funny thing about it, was that the South was right (states rights), they just were wrong in how they applied the notion (slavery). Despite the loss, I am still a firm believer in States Rights; even though incorporation has been settled.

    Not absolutely. Clearly there is a point where the federal government needs to constraints the sovereignty of the states, or there’d be no point in a stat’e membership with the union. I would put that point further towards the state’s rights side than it is now. But, rights that are fundamental to liberty must be upheld. We shouldn’t be the United States, where some are free, and some are tyrannies. The South absolutely did not have it right. They had no moral right to enslave people. A nation of states founded on liberty should put a proper boundary around liberty.

    I used to disagree with Incorporation. I’ve evolved to believing that Incorporation is correct and necessary for a free nation. A state should have the right to set its own policies and laws but within some boundaries that require a free state. If Maryland is so opposed to the idea of citizens free to protect themselves, they should succeed and go it alone.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Not absolutely. Clearly there is a point where the federal government needs to constraints the sovereignty of the states, or there’d be no point in a stat’e membership with the union. I would put that point further towards the state’s rights side than it is now. But, rights that are fundamental to liberty must be upheld. We shouldn’t be the United States, where some are free, and some are tyrannies. The South absolutely did not have it right. They had no moral right to enslave people. A nation of states founded on liberty should put a proper boundary around liberty.

    I used to disagree with Incorporation. I’ve evolved to believing that Incorporation is correct and necessary for a free nation. A state should have the right to set its own policies and laws but within some boundaries that require a free state. If Maryland is so opposed to the idea of citizens free to protect themselves, they should succeed and go it alone.

    I disagree with incorporation. Sure, those rights should be protected, but by the States rather than the Federal Government. I would be an anti-Federalist, as I don’t believe that our national government should be as strong as it is.
     
    Top Bottom