RANDY

It looks like you are correct. He just hasn't been here since 2020

Charles has been banned from several guns forums over the years including this one.

On Sunday, a day before, a family member contacted SAPD about items found in the possession of Pardo's son, including a rifle and pistol ammunition, black tactical gear and an improvised explosive device made from a mortar-style firework But the wording is vague, do they mean they found a rifle. But also ammo for a pistol, or just the ammo for a rifle and piston.

So if i am following this correctly. The 5th circuit ruled in favor of the officer, and the SC has bascially said you used the wrong standard. Go back and take another bite of the apple using this standard.

I agree. I don't think officers should be able to create the imminent danger (initial agressor) to themselves, then be able to claim self defense. Watched a video some time back of an officer in a pursuit and was yelling in the radio that the suspect just rammed their vehicle, but the dash cam shows the officer T boning the suspects vehicle in the drivers door.

If you were admitted then you answer yes, which is a disqaulifier. If you were just an outpatient seeing a therapist and left after your session then you answer NO.

The state not replying is their way of pleading the 5th.

A Caetona style reversal would be hilarious.. My fear though that is if SCOTUS passes then the lower courts will take that as a green light to proceed with allowing AWB.

@MRE You may be confusing the 7th C of A federal cases which are asking for en banc with the Caulkins ILSC case that is pending at Scotus.

So basically if SCOTUS does what they should and follow their own precedence then they should issue a ruling for the two judges to recuse and reverse the decision.

My question is. If the judges had recused themselves, as they should, the ruling would of still be 3-2 which is a lose. So what are we expecting to be the wanted outcome from SCOTUS in this case.

Dave maybe thinking stay of the PI pending appeal.

But if you look at the history the judges initials in the entry is JCM which is Josh Morrison

He was the prior states attorney for Fayette county

My gut feeling is they will remand to give the feds a chance to come up with a better argument. But if they come back with the same BS there goose is cooked.

Sounds like the Government has already been told you loose and the plaintiff wins.

Hearing rumors that West Virginia is asking Maryland for reciprocity and if they don't respond they will be filing against Maryland which will go straight to SCOTUS

The whole thing read like a 5 year denying getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I think their strategy was to ride on the coat tail of prior rulings in Wilson and Friedman, but both of those cases were used intermediate scrutiny which basically gets invalided by Bruen,

The always say that when a law is ruled unconstitutional then it is like it never existed. So therefore the state should be required to pay back all the money collected all the way back to 1968.

Possibly argued but not decided as of the time of the case listing.

I still get mail addressed to my grandmother from the soil conservation service about her farm and she past away in 1967

And this is one of those cases where the state will spend way more in legal gymnastics than what it would cost if they just everybody their dollar back.

I did an address change on my CCL and FOID on January 11 of this year. The FOID went active again on March 6 and I got it in the mail 6 days later. My CCL is still showing under review for the address change.

Jeffrey, I guess the only good thing on my end is because the address change wasn't my doing, I only had to pay $6 for address changes as opposed to the $80

I did a change of address on January 11 of this year do to being 911'ed I am still showing under review on my FOID and my CCL both are still valid until the new cards arrive, sometime in the next 20 years.