Federal Court Declares Maryland Gun Carry Restrictions Unconstitutional in Landmark Ruling

[kelly1mm]

Just saw on MSN feed

"A federal court in Maryland has delivered a significant victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, ruling that three provisions of the state's restrictive carry law are unconstitutional.

The case, Novotny v. Moore, was decided by Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

In a 13-page ruling, Judge Russell granted summary judgment and issued an order enjoining the state from enforcing the provisions that restrict carrying firearms in the following locations: (1) establishments selling alcohol for on-site consumption, (2) private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and (3) within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.

“We are pleased that the Court found Maryland’s draconian ‘anti-carry’ rule to be unconstitutional,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Such a provision flies in the face of this nation’s history and tradition. Of course, we will examine the court’s opinion and weigh our options for appeal to continue to challenge other provisions we believe are unconstitutional.”"

At some point the Maryland taxpayers are going to tire of paying gun rights groups legal fees .......


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-declares-maryland-gun-carry-restrictions-unconstitutional-in-landmark-ruling/ar-BB1r6EbM?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=67a751e14d4549079daf06e476e01f2d&ei=49

[former9thward]

1. Did I miss something at the link?

Where is the part about Maryland taxpayers paying gun rights groups legal fees?

[kelly1mm]

2. No you did not miss it. However in federal civil rights cases against a government the government

will have to pay 'reasonable' attorney fees for the prevailing side. This is standard in the Federal Courts because if not, almost no one would have the resources to take on the government. Because the attorney fees are only paid if they win, it acts as a filter to cut down on frivolous suits.

These particular law firms have raked in millions of dollars in attorney fees in the past decade, almost all from blue states that keep trying to buck the USSC, only to lose even with Judges appointed by Democrats.

[former9thward]

5. Thank you.

[dsc]

3. So I can't prevent people from

carrying guns in my own house?

[kelly1mm]

4. Not exactly. The MD law was written that private property owners had to preemptively give

consent for the carrying of weapons on their property. Kind of the reverse of the 'No Firearms Allowed' signs you sometimes see. It is more of a burden shift saying if someone does not want to allow firearms on their property they have to make that know, rather than what MD codified saying they had to make it known that they did allow firearms.

[speak easy]

8. So tenants can't have firearms without the landlord's consent?

[kelly1mm]

9. Under the now-unconstitutional MD law, yes. Most states don't have any specific rules on this.

what I found are the following 4 states rules:

Minnesota: A landlord cannot restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests. Minnesota Statute 624.714

Tennessee: A private landlord can prohibit tenants, including those who hold handgun carry permits, from possessing firearms within a leased premises. Such a prohibition may be imposed through a clause in the lease. Tennessee Statute 39-17-1307(b).

Virginia: Public housing prohibits landlords from restrictions on gun possession for tenants – Virginia Rental Housing Act 1974 Tennessee 55-248.9.6.

Wisconsin: This state has a complicated maze of where a weapon can or cannot be possessed. W Stat. § 175.60(21)(b).

Otherwise a landlord could, as a provision of the lease, prohibit firearms in the rented apartment at least as far as I can tell.

[speak easy]

10. "a landlord could, as a provision of the lease, prohibit firearms"

That seems reasonable. Granting landlords power beyond the four corners of the lease does not.

[Xoan]

6. sICK Fs

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. The root of the problem is the Subversive Court is rewriting the Constitution to suit its ideology.