Tweet
Crossing your eyes might help read Maryland's response to the cert request. They kinda sorta boned themselves a few times, already. God Bless our nepotistically-appointed Attorney General. He'll save gun rights, yet.
Give our boy Gansler credit for not playing with words: he says citizens with concealed handguns are downright scary and then argues that public safety demands law-abiding people be denied fundamental rights, because guns will make them turn violent. Or something.
Gansler argued that guns in the hands of Baltimore inner-city residents (he called them out specifically) would result in super-violent streets because access to the gun would cause harm. Somehow. This argument requires one of two things to be true (Gansler didn't get into the details of how this transformation occurs): Maryland residents - especially those from Baltimore's inner city (wink, wink...'those people') - are more bestial than the residents of other states and large cities in the USA; or - conversely - inanimate objects can truly modify people's souls from good to evil. Wes Craven will be happy to know he called that one.
Note this is not the first time Maryland has taken this approach: our state had laws on the books against inter-racial marriage all the way into the 60s. Don't let the fact it was a border state - or our governor's recent declaration that we are a Progressive paradise - make you think Maryland has been the fulcrum of civil rights progress. When it comes to civil rights, Maryland has historically been more Alabama than California.
Even gay rights...fence sitters. They could pass gay marriage today, but prefer to sit it out with a "we'll recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Kinda."
Maybe, but keep in mind we may not like the outcome. There are a lot of 'law and order' issues coming up and several of "our justices" have been philosophically sympathetic to the state's role in such matters. As long as the right stays above the fray of public safety concern (per Heller and McDonald) we should be OK. But the related issues (permits, training, etc.) might find a receptive ear. That is where games will be played and I suspect everyone knows it.
For all the fun I have at Gansler's expense, the man is not an idiot. He is positioning the public safety rubric knowing he cannot win the core (he has all but acknowledged that), but because he wants to position his swing for secondary effect - namely, 'reasonable regulations'. I actually suspect Gansler is ahead of the other states in this regard. We might be fighting in Maryland for a long time. Unlike California, we have a tight delegation in the state house and the real management is done by a small group led by one man: Senate President Mike Miller. How powerful is the man? They named the Senate Building after him, and he ain't dead, retired, retiring or dying. He is still 'just an elected official', and they named the Senate building after him because of his power. That's about as obvious as you get.
I went to one of Mike Miller's parties and the governor spent the whole night kissing his keister. Not a quick show-and-tell of the governor, but a whole night of butt-kissing in front of the people. The governor actually told people he was there all night because of Mike. It was shocking to me, and I am pretty cynical.
That tight delegation means they can better position for changes. You won't get a renegade faction passing something overwhelmingly anti-gun that we can openly attack with ease. It will be subtle.
Maryland may have their pants around their ankles today, but that is living with legacy from many years ago. The boss today is smart and capable. Everything hinges on Mike. FWIW, he comes from a somewhat conservative district and will never say anything anti-gun out loud. There are more private single-owner gun ranges - like mine - in his district than public ones in the whole rest of the state. Weekends here are like the Fourth of July, year round.
Maybe...
Give our boy Gansler credit for not playing with words: he says citizens with concealed handguns are downright scary and then argues that public safety demands law-abiding people be denied fundamental rights, because guns will make them turn violent. Or something.
Gansler argued that guns in the hands of Baltimore inner-city residents (he called them out specifically) would result in super-violent streets because access to the gun would cause harm. Somehow. This argument requires one of two things to be true (Gansler didn't get into the details of how this transformation occurs): Maryland residents - especially those from Baltimore's inner city (wink, wink...'those people') - are more bestial than the residents of other states and large cities in the USA; or - conversely - inanimate objects can truly modify people's souls from good to evil. Wes Craven will be happy to know he called that one.
Note this is not the first time Maryland has taken this approach: our state had laws on the books against inter-racial marriage all the way into the 60s. Don't let the fact it was a border state - or our governor's recent declaration that we are a Progressive paradise - make you think Maryland has been the fulcrum of civil rights progress. When it comes to civil rights, Maryland has historically been more Alabama than California.
Even gay rights...fence sitters. They could pass gay marriage today, but prefer to sit it out with a "we'll recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Kinda."
Seriously though, I do think Scalia will take the opportunity to clarify a few things and certainly NOT in a round-a-bout way. Both barrels for sure.
For all the fun I have at Gansler's expense, the man is not an idiot. He is positioning the public safety rubric knowing he cannot win the core (he has all but acknowledged that), but because he wants to position his swing for secondary effect - namely, 'reasonable regulations'. I actually suspect Gansler is ahead of the other states in this regard. We might be fighting in Maryland for a long time. Unlike California, we have a tight delegation in the state house and the real management is done by a small group led by one man: Senate President Mike Miller. How powerful is the man? They named the Senate Building after him, and he ain't dead, retired, retiring or dying. He is still 'just an elected official', and they named the Senate building after him because of his power. That's about as obvious as you get.
I went to one of Mike Miller's parties and the governor spent the whole night kissing his keister. Not a quick show-and-tell of the governor, but a whole night of butt-kissing in front of the people. The governor actually told people he was there all night because of Mike. It was shocking to me, and I am pretty cynical.
That tight delegation means they can better position for changes. You won't get a renegade faction passing something overwhelmingly anti-gun that we can openly attack with ease. It will be subtle.
Maryland may have their pants around their ankles today, but that is living with legacy from many years ago. The boss today is smart and capable. Everything hinges on Mike. FWIW, he comes from a somewhat conservative district and will never say anything anti-gun out loud. There are more private single-owner gun ranges - like mine - in his district than public ones in the whole rest of the state. Weekends here are like the Fourth of July, year round.
You forgot the smiley on the end of that. 
(July 16th). Correct?
Comment