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

[Bob A]

Gura is being a very good advocate -- that is what he supposed to do. It doesn't mean what he is saying is gospel.

Blasphemy?

Just so you don't start rending your garments.

 

[esqappellate]

Blasphemy?

Just so you don't start rending your garments.

 

[Rossi357]

I know Alan is not God, but I heard he recieved minor injuries when he got hit by a motorboat while walking his duck.

 

[Inigoes]

Odd, I hear that a lot!

Are you the NRA's lawyer?

 

[esqappellate]

Are you the NRA's lawyer?

Old saying: He who speaks the truth to power better have one foot in the stirrup

 

[Inigoes]

 

[esqappellate]

I know Alan is not God, but I heard he recieved minor injuries when he got hit by a motorboat while walking his duck.

Yeah, that damn boat nearly hit me too!!

 

[Inigoes]

I know Alan is not God, but I heard he recieved minor injuries when he got hit by a motorboat while walking his duck.

Yeah, that damn boat nearly hit me too!!

Wow, A duck that posts on the internet

 

[Threeband]

Wow, A duck that posts on the internet

.

 

[esqappellate]

Wow, A duck that posts on the internet

Now *that* was funny!

 

[esqappellate]

.

Great cartoon. Reminds me of the country song where every time he goes on line for a chat with 3 girls at a time from his Mac in his Momma's basement, he loses a bunch of weight, grows to 6'5", is a black belt in Karate and drives a Maserati.

 

[swinokur]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mr. Brad Paisley

"I'm so much cooler on line"

 

[Dead Eye]

Dead Eye, I hear you. Please don't judge too harshly. A lot of people just don't understand this very well. Lawyers are required ethically to represent their clients with zeal regardless of their personal beliefs and opinions. That doesn't sell your soul (I still have mine). You would want that from your lawyer, right? Your client comes first because the lawyer is representing the client's interests, not his own. The system depends on this. Each side zealously presenting their view of the world with evidence and argument to a neutral decision maker (judge or judge and jury), who can then assess and decide where the truth and justice under the law really lies. If one side isn't doing that zealously, the system breaks down and justice isn't served. The guilty go free, the bad guys win. If your lawyer doesn't make the argument, fails to find the controlling case or doesn't do his job, your rights are prejudiced and you may lose. Bad result, right? The model works really well when the both sides are represented by good lawyers doing their jobs.

ESQ, I hear what you are saying, but you also have your lawyer glasses on. In essence, you're so close to the issue, as well as, understand how the system currently works...

However, I know how I, and others, are being adversely and personally effected. I further understand the other political component of this issue. Yes, the AG is a lawyer, but he ALSO a politician To his staff and workers, I'll cede you the point, but to the AG himself, he CHOOSES the position for which he represents, he is not, therefore, just a lowly pawn but rather as much the puppet master himself. He is as much stone walling, dragging his feet, and stalling, in order to dream up what other crap he is going to throw into the mix next, in essence stalling. Atty Gura knows this, and as a result he crafted his last response accordingly, basically stating that the AG cannot counter with anything that remotely; smells, looks, or walks like "good and substantial".

What will be the REAL test, is whether or not the AG takes the injunction, or continues to conive, contrive, and whip up more silly stuff in order to continue to drag this mess out.

In essence, I understand what you are saying, and I also understand that the AG has a responsibility. I also know that if it weren't for AG Gura anticipating the AG's next move, this thing would drag on at infinitum. The REAL shame is that it even exists, let alone continues to drag on. We're not talking about parking tickets, or shop lifting charges, but rather a basic fundamental freedom. It should be as plain as the nose on one's face.

 

[esqappellate]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mr. Brad Paisley

"I'm so much cooler on line"

That's it! Great song.

 

[esqappellate]

ESQ, The REAL shame is that it even exists, let alone continues to drag on. We're not talking about parking tickets, or shop lifting charges, but rather a basic fundamental freedom. It should be as plain as the nose on one's face.

I agree that it is a shame that it exists. Section 5(ii) should have never been enacted into law. For that, shame on the MD legislature which passed the bill and shame on the governor who signed the bill. I can't in good conscience blame the lawyer who is charged by law with defending this piece of crap legislation in court, though. It is not reasonable, given where the 2A law is, to expect him to simply confess judgment and consent to the entry of an injunction invalidating the law. The 2A may seem apparent to us, but it isn't til the courts agree and that is a long process. His tactics are just that: tactics. It is part of litigation and everyone deals with it. He has not gone outside the bounds of ethics, as far as I know. Gura is handling it well.

 

[Mark75H]

I agree that it is a shame that it exists. Section 5(ii) should have never been enacted into law. For that, shame on the MD legislature which passed the bill and shame on the governor who signed the bill.

Wasn't it just 3 or 4 years ago the legislature enacted 4 or 5 laws that the courts struck down in just a month or two?

The MD legislature is known as being more than a little off its rocker

 

[esqappellate]

Wasn't it just 3 or 4 years ago the legislature enacted 4 or 5 laws that the courts struck down in just a month or two?

The MD legislature is known as being more than a little off its rocker

Don't get me started......... Ain't checks and balances wonderful.......?

 

[Mark75H]

Don't get me started......... Ain't checks and balances wonderful.......?

More than wonderful ... essential

 

[Mr H]

I know Alan is not God, but I heard he recieved minor injuries when he got hit by a motorboat while walking his duck.

Yet another "tragic boating accident"...

THE HUMANITY!!!

 

[Dead Eye]

I agree that it is a shame that it exists. Section 5(ii) should have never been enacted into law. For that, shame on the MD legislature which passed the bill and shame on the governor who signed the bill. I can't in good conscience blame the lawyer who is charged by law with defending this piece of crap legislation in court, though. It is not reasonable, given where the 2A law is, to expect him to simply confess judgment and consent to the entry of an injunction invalidating the law. The 2A may seem apparent to us, but it isn't til the courts agree and that is a long process. His tactics are just that: tactics. It is part of litigation and everyone deals with it. He has not gone outside the bounds of ethics, as far as I know. Gura is handling it well.

And that Sir, is where we will agree to disagree. Douglas Gansler ran for the AG position, knowing this law existed, therefore he accepted it. If he did not, he did nothing to try and change it. By doing so, he "bought" into the political realm. I couldn't do it. If I was the AG and someone asked me to defend someone's position as such, I'd gracefully bow out. Again, we are not discussing at what age this "fundamental" right exists, we are DENYING people's constitutional right.

Yes, I understand that you call that "representing his client". To the layman, however, we call it "culpable" (lawyer speak) and sleazy.