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

[Gambler]

Well, I just caught up on this thread from a week ago. LOTS of good info added recently, special thanks to esqappellate! The response from Gura was AWESOME!

 

[MJD438]

The real solution is to actually seek compensatory damages. Repeal doesn't moot that. Such damages are not sought in Woollard, at least that I can see in the Amended complaint. There are good reasons for that. Damages are just hard to specify in these types of cases.

A question - if this case goes to its ultimate conclusion in the fashion that we would like to see (G&S completely struck down as unconstitutional, and state has to significantly modify the permit process), wouldn't that then open up the possibility of compensatory remedies for any future issues of a G&S similarity in a Bivens action?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

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

"I'm so much cooler on line"

Technically, it's just, "Online"

 

[krucam]

Lets Talk...

Judge Legg wants a Teleconference meeting on Thursday, March 22nd to discuss the Stay Request.

03/20/2012 61 ORDER scheduling teleconference re 54[RECAP] Defendants Motion for Clarification and for a Stay Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 3/20/12. (jnls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.61.0.pdf

It states:

Dear Counsel:
Now pending is Defendants’ Motion for Clarification and for a Stay Pending Appeal. Docket No. 54. I would like to discuss the Motion with counsel, and a teleconference has been scheduled for March 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. The topics we will discuss will include the following:
1. Whether the “good and substantial reason” language is severable.
2. Whether the State will now issue a permit to Mr. Woollard.
3. Assume the excision of the “good and substantial reason” requirement. How would Maryland's permitting system compare with the system in force in other states?
4. In terms of handgun violence, how does Maryland compare with states with less restrictive permitting systems?
Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.

 

[Inigoes]

Judge Legg wants a Teleconference meeting on Thursday, March 22nd to discuss the Stay Request.

IMHO

Based on those questions, it doesn't look good for MD

 

[yellowsled]

can we all join? Id love to be a fly on the wall for that one....

 

[hairba111]

Sorry Sled E6 ain't a high enough pay grade

 

[yellowsled]

I'm Board eligible (E7) though. Darn....

 

[littlebr4d]

Judge Legg wants a Teleconference meeting on Thursday, March 22nd to discuss the Stay Request.


http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.61.0.pdf

It states:

Oooohh... I like the looks of that. A lot.

 

[hairba111]

I'll put a chit in for you if that will help.

 

[CrueChief]

how long for transcripts or can there be some one in the room with a speaker phone taking notes to post???????

 

[krucam]

For the 4 questions:

1. Whether the “good and substantial reason” language is severable.
2. Whether the State will now issue a permit to Mr. Woollard.
3. Assume the excision of the “good and substantial reason” requirement. How would Maryland's permitting system compare with the system in force in other states?
4. In terms of handgun violence, how does Maryland compare with states with less restrictive permitting systems?

#1 is asking what was in the original Prayer for Relief in the Complaint. 5ii from the Statute. It wasn't specifically addressed in the Opinion. Plaintiff's will obviously say it IS severable. The Defendants will bring up Public Safety and lose.

#2 is a "NO" as of last Friday's Pltf filing. Unless they found Mr Woollards app amongst the thousands in the works, I'm betting we still have a "NO".

#3 Sounds like a true Shall-Issue-State if executed. The existing Permit Application's various prying questions are a carry over of G&S and would also need to be addressed before MD can be like the other Shall-Issue states.

#4 Should be a clear "LOSE" for the State of MD. I'd like to get the numbers to back up my hunch...

 

[Inigoes]

For the 4 questions:


#1 is asking what was in the original Prayer for Relief in the Complaint. 5ii from the Statute. It wasn't specifically addressed in the Opinion. Plaintiff's will obviously say it IS severable. The Defendants will bring up Public Safety and lose.

Could be

If 5ii is not severable, the say good-bye to all of 5-306

 

[fightinbluhen51]

For the 4 questions:


#1 is asking what was in the original Prayer for Relief in the Complaint. 5ii from the Statute. It wasn't specifically addressed in the Opinion. Plaintiff's will obviously say it IS severable. The Defendants will bring up Public Safety and lose.

#2 is a "NO" as of last Friday's Pltf filing. Unless they found Mr Woollards app amongst the thousands in the works, I'm betting we still have a "NO".

#3 Sounds like a true Shall-Issue-State if executed. The existing Permit Application's various prying questions are a carry over of G&S and would also need to be addressed before MD can be like the other Shall-Issue states.

#4 Should be a clear "LOSE" for the State of MD. I'd like to get the numbers to back up my hunch...

Someone call John Lott (since last I checked, he was a UMD professor and has relentless studies). However, I'd assume that Gura has that information handy if he needs it.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Could be

If 5ii is not severable, the say good-bye to all of 5-306

While I seriously doubt THAT will happen, at that point, would we then have Constitutional Carry? (*wink wink, nod, nod*). I'm not holding my breath for that one.

 

[esqappellate]

A question - if this case goes to its ultimate conclusion in the fashion that we would like to see (G&S completely struck down as unconstitutional, and state has to significantly modify the permit process), wouldn't that then open up the possibility of compensatory remedies for any future issues of a G&S similarity in a Bivens action?

Don't need bivens for the state. Section 1983 will do just fine, actually better. Bivens is a direct action under the constitution aginst federal officers in their individal capacities. Bivens has never been applied to the 2A -- thats a hard argument As to damages under 1983, That may be possible. Premature now

 

[MJD438]

Don't need bivens for the state. Section 1983 will do just fine, actually better. Bivens is a direct action under the constitution aginst federal offers in their individal capacities. Bivens has never been applied to the 2A -- thats a hard argument As to damages under 1983, That may be possible. Premature now

Thanks. I realize that it is premature, was just asking to feed my curiosity.

 

[Inigoes]

While I seriously doubt THAT will happen, at that point, would we then have Constitutional Carry? (*wink wink, nod, nod*). I'm not holding my breath for that one.

That would be a pleasant unintended consequence, wouldn't it?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

That would be a pleasant unintended consequence, wouldn't it?

Yes, it would, but again, I'm definitely not holding my breath for that one!

 

[Inigoes]

Yes, it would, but again, I'm definitely not holding my breath for that one!

No, you shouldn't!

You would pass out, and we would have to shave your eyebrows