Howard County, Maryland has introduced an emergency bill to remove the current ban on electronic weapons. The bill is in response to a lawsuit challenging the ban as violating the Second Amendment.
The last direct action by the United States Supreme Court was on Caetano v. Massachusetts. The Court unanimously held, in the Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf), that:
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).The Caetano case was about electric weapons. There are a number of States and local governments that have universal bans on electric weapons. Howard County, Maryland, is one of them. From the baltimoreson.com:
Howard County lawmakers introduced an emergency bill Wednesday that would lift a ban on electronic weapons in response to a federal lawsuit that challenges the county's longstanding restrictions on the use and sale of Tasers and stun guns.The Howard County Council is scheduled to vote on the repeal of the ban on Tuesday, 21 February. The Howard County Police Chief has stated the police department does not enforce the ban.
In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland in late January, Leah Baran, a Marriottsville resident, is suing Baltimore City and Baltimore and Howard counties — which have electronic weapons bans in effect — to allow her to carry a stun gun.
The Maryland case is the latest in a string of lawsuits Second Amendment supporters have enjoyed using the Caetano decision. Such lawsuits have had success in New Jersey, New Orleans, and the District of Columbia. Another lawsuit is being pursued in New York State.
Internet searches have not revealed legal challenges to similar bans in Hawaii and Rhode Island.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
1 comment:
I can not see any states authority to challenge the wording of the supreme courts ruling. Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 " when a state law conflicts with a federal law the federal law is supreme" this clearly backs up the Heller case and others. this is a frivolous case and the attorneys should be reprimanded for filing it. When the United States Supreme court hands down a ruling, in this case several rulings that are definitely in compliance with the constitutional mandates and the attorneys are agents representing the state the federal government should respond with a law suit against that state and recover administrative costs and order the governor of that state to terminate the attorneys for malfeasants in office.
In the first place states can not sue the federal government in federal court. Read Article three carefully Paragraph two. the supreme court has original jurisdiction for any issue between the states and the federal government. therefore federal district courts and federal courts of appeal do not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. the judges that did hear the case should be reprimanded or removed. they have violated article three Paragraph two. then read section two. The supreme court has original jurisdiction in all cases involving the federal government of the united states. Imposing jurisdiction where they officially had no jurisdiction. In other words they violated their oath of office to uphold the constitution, an impeachable offense.
If President Trump is going to get control of the government he needs to start reading the constitution and applying it to the letter. it is the only way to drain the swamp. stop letting attorneys and judges interpret the constitution and start forcing compliance with what is written. Your fired is not just a saying it is the way to an end of this high level corruption. the white house has a bowling alley. He should be rolling heads instead of bowling balls.
Post a Comment