Gov. Larry Hogan directs police to suspend gun carry standard

[Kurr]

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan directs police to suspend gun carry standard

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan directed the state police to suspend the states "good and substantial reason" standard for permits to carry handguns.

www.foxnews.com

 

[eric001]

Maryland is just trying to get ahead of the legal steamroller here. They'll claim that "we're no longer enforcing that aspect of the law" and try to wait until the winds change and resurrect it in the future. Hopefully the courts will see this as the game it really is and invalidate it completely.

 

[2tonic]

This is just CYA for a political animal like Hogan.
He's no friend of 2A.

 

[MarylandTacomaRider]

Not going to lie, but I was pretty shocked in a good way that my former governor would actually do this!

 

[JAL]

In the fallout of the Bruen decision, SCOTUS issued four Orders granting certiorari for review, vacating the lower court decision, and remanding them back to their respective Circuit Courts for redo while taking into consideration the Bruen decision. One of them was Bianchi, et al v Frosh, MD Atty Gen. Bianchi challenged Maryland's "Assault Weapon" ban. Maryland's governor knows his "assault weapon" laws are about to bite the dust. We'll have to see what they do next. Hoping it's not the tantrum NJ, NY, DE, CA and WA are throwing.

The other three were a Hawaii concealed carry case, the New Jersey magazine ban, and California's magazine ban. In addition, the 9th Circuit did the equivalent of a SCOTUS GVR, sending Rupp v Bonta back to its District court. California's magazine and assault weapon bans are about to bite the dust . . . along with their "show cause" carry permit law.

John

 

[rooster]

SCOTUS also said that actions like this don’t remove their ability to examine a law. Paraphrasing of course but I remember reading something to that effect in the NY case.

 

[JAL]

SCOTUS also said that actions like this don’t remove their ability to examine a law. Paraphrasing of course but I remember reading something to that effect in the NY case.

True - with the rationale that it doesn't "moot" a challenge to it as said Executive Order could be just as easily undone, reversed, or vacated as was the act of issuing it.

John

 

[eric001]

SCOTUS also said that actions like this don’t remove their ability to examine a law. Paraphrasing of course but I remember reading something to that effect in the NY case.

True - with the rationale that it doesn't "moot" a challenge to it as said Executive Order could be just as easily undone, reversed, or vacated as was the act of issuing it.

John

I'm not saying either of you are wrong--probably b/c you're right about this.
BUT...you just used clearly understood logic.
Democrats have proven themselves nearly incapable of understanding "clearly understood logic"
when that logic disagrees with what they want to do and how they want to do it.