SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

[Hit and Run]

Today has been slow as hell at work, so I took the time to write the author of a BalSun article. I felt the article was bland and neutral, so I felt the desire to share some thoughts with the author.

Article:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-stay-gun-ruling-20120308,0,4550765.story

My letter to the author:

<<

Mr. Fenton,

Thank you for choosing to report on the topic of the Woollard handgun case. It is my belief that the more people know about the issues that concern our safety, the most safe we will be as a society.

I do wish, however, that you had taken a more critical look at the claims made by those who oppose this ruling. How would allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection endanger us? In order to get one of these permits, one must undergo lengthy state and FBI background checks, a lengthy mental health background check, fingerprinting, reference checks, etc. The point is, the only people who can get a permit to legally carry a firearm are those who are statistically the least likely to ever harm anyone. The only change that this ruling made to the existing system was to make the State Police issue a permit to carry to an individual who passes these tests.

In conclusion, I would like to direct your attention to the states that surround us: Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- all states that will issue a permit to carry a firearm to any individual who can pass their background checks. I personally am licensed to carry a firearm in all of those sates. Maryland's leaders would have you believe that by recognizing this right that these states have become more dangerous -- that is simply not the truth.

Thank you for your time, and thank you for your efforts and I sincerely hope you continue to pursue truth in this world.

Regards,


James H. Mangle

Nuclear Engineer and Law Abiding Firearm Owner.

>>

I tried to be as kind and friendly as possible. Those of you who know me understand I am far more blunt in person.

Thoughts? Suggestions for the future?

I figure for the time being the Woollard case is a chance to educate the masses as this is "braking news."

You could add some FBI crime statistics as in Maryland is ranked 8th per 100,000 while states like Maine (open carry, shall issue for concealed carry) is ranked 50th as in safest state in nation. Or maybe better compared to VA at 34th (higher number is safer).

 

[Maryland Hunter]

Today has been slow as hell at work, so I took the time to write the author of a BalSun article. I felt the article was bland and neutral, so I felt the desire to share some thoughts with the author.

Article:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-stay-gun-ruling-20120308,0,4550765.story

My letter to the author:

<<

Mr. Fenton,

Thank you for choosing to report on the topic of the Woollard handgun case. It is my belief that the more people know about the issues that concern our safety, the most safe we will be as a society.

I do wish, however, that you had taken a more critical look at the claims made by those who oppose this ruling. How would allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection endanger us? In order to get one of these permits, one must undergo lengthy state and FBI background checks, a lengthy mental health background check, fingerprinting, reference checks, etc. The point is, the only people who can get a permit to legally carry a firearm are those who are statistically the least likely to ever harm anyone. The only change that this ruling made to the existing system was to make the State Police issue a permit to carry to an individual who passes these tests.

In conclusion, I would like to direct your attention to the states that surround us: Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- all states that will issue a permit to carry a firearm to any individual who can pass their background checks. I personally am licensed to carry a firearm in all of those sates. Maryland's leaders would have you believe that by recognizing this right that these states have become more dangerous -- that is simply not the truth.

Thank you for your time, and thank you for your efforts and I sincerely hope you continue to pursue truth in this world.

Regards,


James H. Mangle

Nuclear Engineer and Law Abiding Firearm Owner.

>>

I tried to be as kind and friendly as possible. Those of you who know me understand I am far more blunt in person.

Thoughts? Suggestions for the future?

I figure for the time being the Woollard case is a chance to educate the masses as this is "braking news."

Very well written, logical and to the point, both polite and professional. You get a

MH

 

[swinokur]

The flaw in the state's argument is that by preventing lawful concealed carry it prevents crime and aids public safety.

Only problem is that law abiding citizens are not committing the crime and making MD unsafe.

MD obtuse? You betcha.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

A stay should not be offered, because no laws have changed.

Judge Legg stated the Second Amendment is an acceptable good and substantial reason.

True. Sorry, I keep forgetting that. That in essences, makes his ruling stronger and more pointed.

 

[esqappellate]

Refering back to #5715 .

I left off my origonal post with only a subtle hint of the desired/ semi likly result.

To prevent either application gridlock , or having the entire investagative staff of MSP do nothing but investigate permit applications , Md should bring their process closer to the typical of the other 41 states , rather than emulating a Top Secret/ Code Word background investigation.

Agreed. All the of the other current crap on the application only makes sense from a G&S perspective, which dramatically reduces the number of applications while allowing for a full background investigation Once G&S goes MD will have little choice but to dramatically simplify the process ala VA or FL. They simply don't have the resources to blow on investigating thousands more applications. It would be a tremendous waste for them to try. Money matters, even to the state. Btw a TS background investigation is far, far more intrusive but also very expensive.

 

[Kashmir1008]

What page is the opinion posted on again?

Today has been slow as hell at work, so I took the time to write the author of a BalSun article. I felt the article was bland and neutral, so I felt the desire to share some thoughts with the author.

Article:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-stay-gun-ruling-20120308,0,4550765.story

My letter to the author:

<<

Mr. Fenton,

>>

Sounds good to me

You could add some FBI crime statistics as in Maryland is ranked 8th per 100,000 while states like Maine (open carry, shall issue for concealed carry) is ranked 50th as in safest state in nation. Or maybe better compared to VA at 34th (higher number is safer).

Additionally I try to re-enforce the fact that nearly all other States already have these laws

I was having a conversation with a liberal friend of mine and he was shocked to learn how many other States have allowed CCW for years. All without wild west shootouts or carnage in the streets. It took the wind right out of his sails. Many people just really don't know.

I tend to not go overboard with statistics unless they present very straight forward data. Many stats are easy to skew and bend towards either side of an argument. Many of the stats presented by either opposing side are suspect as a result.

That said:

Many of the arguments and mindsets opposing CCW or guns in general are based on ideas and misconceptions that are flat out wrong and can be supported by statistics. such as:

Great Britain is safer than the US because they don't have guns:

The argument about the UK being safer is a myth. While true that there are fewer gun crimes because they are not allowed to own guns. But the U.K. violent crime rate is 4 times what we have here in the U.S. (if we didn't have red cars, there would be no red cars involved in accidents)

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-015/EN/KS-SF-07-015-EN.PDF - Table 3 pg 5


The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents,

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls - Table 1
________________________

Argument: Crime will get worse if everybody is carrying guns.

In this chart from the U.S. Justice Dept. You will see over the last 15 years crime has steadily decreased. During the same period concealed carry has swept the nation and 42 States now recognize their citizen's right to self defense.

I'm not arguing that CCW caused the drop in crime, but certainly it isn't causing crime. In the absence of any real impact to public safety, there is no reason to deny the individual their rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

_________________________

Argument: People carrying guns, even if legal, may be tempted to do
something criminal.

If you look at Florida's statistic on crimes commited with a gun by citizens with a concealed carry permit you will see that over 2 million permits have been issued and only 168 people committed a gun crime after they were issued the permit. Statistically insignificant.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Clearly Law abiding citizens who are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights are not a threat to public safety.

Across the 40+ States that now have "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws statistics have demonstrated that that we are responsible, contentious citizens, who take carrying of a firearm very seriously.

________________________________

Argument: Epidemic of accidental deaths from firearms / 1,000s of children killed each year. Also known as the “Your gun could go off accidently in public and kill someone” argument.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf - Pg 35 Table 10

Total number of people killed by accidental discharge – 613
Number children (under 15) killed by accidental discharge - 65
Total number of people who drown – 3443
Total number of homicides by firearms – 12,632
Number child (under 15) homicides - 264
Total number of people killed in automobile accidents – 43,945
Total number of people killed in falls (this one surprised me) - 22,631

Note that all these stats are from essentially neutral parties (i.e. no NRA or Brady bunch groups)

Pretty telling IMO.

 

[Inigoes]

I keep forgetting that.

It appears AG Gansler is forgetful also.

The anti's are fighting tooth and nail to contain the right inside the home.

Gansler doesn't want to the the first to open the perverbial pandora's box. He's fighting with the only thing he can, which are techicalities and rules of order, and no substance.

Sucks to be him. lol

 

[gamer_jim]

Talked with a friend of mine who is an attorney in another state to get his take on Legg's opinion. Not sure if this is old news by now but I appreciated his input. I did get his permission to use it but asked me to leave his name off. he really doesn't want to be contacted about this. Emphasis added by me.

The ruling has effect in the State of Maryland only, but it will be reviewed as persuasive authority in other jurisdictions. When a court strikes down language of a statute on constitutional grounds, the remainder of the statute survives.

In this decision, the court did not strike down the permit requirement, the issuing scheme, the procedures of review, or the procedures of appeal. It did, however, strike down the requirement that the applicant show a reason for wanting the permit.

In time the legislature in Maryland will amend the statute, either re-wording that segment to survive "intermediate scrutiny," or it will simply strike that requirement from the permit process. In the mean time, the ruling has that effect on all pending and past applications, as well as future ones.

The case was not tried, as you probably realize. The parties came to an agreed statement of facts and law for the court, and submitted it to the judges for summary judgment. The court concluded that considering the facts and law and all inferences in the light most favorable to the State of Maryland, the Plaintiffs were still entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

If the State of Maryland should choose to appeal, it would go to the federal appeals circuit to which Maryland belongs. It is highly unlikely that a stay would be issued in the mean time.

I had asked my friend specifically about how the Stay process works, like in this situation. I imagine a world where 4th Circuit takes the appeal but a Stay is not granted between now and then, which means for the time being G&S is unconstitutional. So we should then be able to file our permit apps now as 4th Circuit or SCOTUS is not likely to view this as an emergency. (à la Gore v Bush)

Thought it was interesting how my friend mentioned this being a legislative issue, and since we are in the middle of MD's legislative session I could see them passing something as an emergency to plug this whole and get MD back to "may issue". Another reason to get your permit app in now.

 

[krucam]

It appears AG Gansler is forgetful also.

The anti's are fighting tooth and nail to contain the right inside the home.

Gansler doesn't want to the the first to open the perverbial pandora's box. He's fighting with the only thing he can, which are techicalities and rules of order, and no substance.

Sucks to be him. lol

Some people on calguns were 'iffy' of Woollard's importance due to it being outside their realm and circuit. Gene Hoffman reminded them that if nothing else, no future Judge has to worry about being the first one to establish the right "Outside the Home"...

Congrats Mr's Gansler and Fader...

 

[ToneGrail]

Dems argued against a recent bill in PA requiring voters to show valid ID. Argument is this restricts thousands without valid ID, intended to strip them of rights, attacks a large chunk of dem support.

Change the argument. Dems don't want folks to have guns because they are ? They complain and cry for one thing but when you try and apply the same ideas to another idea, put on the brakes.

Just ranting. I cannot stand people who talk out of both sides of their mouth. If you stand for something.... Then stand for it.

It's all about protecting their constituency. If law-abiding people have guns, they will kill the criminals (thwarting attempted robberies) who vote for the Dems. If the same criminals are asked for ID at the voting booth, they won't be able to vote for the Dems. Pretty simple if you ask me.

 

[Dogabutila]

This helps New Jersey doesn't it?

 

[Inigoes]

This helps New Jersey doesn't it?

And New York
And Illinios
...

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

That's one reason I really REALLY hope this is upheld. Even if they get their stay and appeal, it gives us an even bigger chance to set pro-2A precedent. God knows our friends in the other holdout states could use some good news.

 

[MDFF2008]

This helps New Jersey doesn't it?

Not directly but indirectly

New Jersey's Judge threw together some half assed POS ruling about how guns are bad and how New Jersey's policies are A ok.

New Jersey is also in the 3rd Circuit.

But if there is a split in the circuits, it almost assures the Supreme Court will get involved.

 

[2ndCharter]

It's all about protecting their constituency. If law-abiding people have guns, they will kill the criminals (thwarting attempted robberies) who vote for the Dems. If the same criminals are asked for ID at the voting booth, they won't be able to vote for the Dems. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Yet we need to have notarized signatures to petition to have a referendum on that vote. Makes no sense.

What I would like to see, which obviously isn't going to be "fixed' here, is a detailed denial. For example, John Smith is denied post Woollard. I'd bet the denial letter will state something ambiguous such as "after review of your background investigation, we regrettably....". In lending, there has to be a detailed denial. That would help keep everyone honest on the other side of things.

 

[NY Transplant]

That said:

Many of the arguments and mindsets opposing CCW or guns in general are based on ideas and misconceptions that are flat out wrong and can be supported by statistics. such as:

Great Britain is safer than the US because they don't have guns:

The argument about the UK being safer is a myth. While true that there are fewer gun crimes because they are not allowed to own guns. But the U.K. violent crime rate is 4 times what we have here in the U.S. (if we didn't have red cars, there would be no red cars involved in accidents)

Having lived in the UK from 1998-2003, I can tell you that Great Britain is not necessarily safer than the US, especially after 2000.

 

[JRoCc]

Not directly but indirectly

New Jersey's Judge threw together some half assed POS ruling about how guns are bad and how New Jersey's policies are A ok.

New Jersey is also in the 3rd Circuit.

But if there is a split in the circuits, it almost assures the Supreme Court will get involved.

The Supreme Court is not currently hearing any 2nd Amendment cases, correct? I thought their was an issue here in MD that went all the way up to the SC and they wouldn't hear the case. ??

 

[Lightning]

I never thought the “Crab Wrapper” (Annapolis Evening Capital) would ever come down on the side of the Second Amendment. However, their editorial implies that Judge Legg’s Ruling does not hurt the State’s Gun Control Measures.

This is just been one unbelievable week!!!!

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/ne...ling-not-a-serious-threat-to-gun-control.html

 

[MDFF2008]

The Supreme Court is not currently hearing any 2nd Amendment cases, correct? I thought their was an issue here in MD that went all the way up to the SC and they wouldn't hear the case. ??

It's widely suspected that they did not hear Williams vs Maryland because Williams committed a crime. Several other attempts to the Supreme Court also featured criminal defendants.

The Heller language hints the Supreme Court wants to address carry; but are waiting to be asked the right way.

 

[JRoCc]

It's widely suspected that they did not hear Williams vs Maryland because Williams committed a crime. Several other attempts to the Supreme Court also featured criminal plaintiffs.

The Heller language hints the Supreme Court wants to address carry; but are waiting to be asked the right way.

Ahh...that makes sense...thanks Greg.