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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    No one here gave either you or Patrick permission to eat. You can use the bathroom however. now get back to work

    :lol2::sad20:

    For the record I am eating at some Vietnamese Restaurant in Annapolis as I cruise MDS.

    By the way, the Sailboat Show was great today.

    We'll probably see something in the morning. It won't likely have much ado about 2A. It's procedural. Based on previous pattern, it will come with a renewed MSJ and a demand for MD to respond.

    Count 30 days from now
    before anything of real interest happens.
     

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,725
    Bowie, MD
    All this hocus pocus is taking a toll. It's so bad I get butter flies prior to opening the thread to view new posts. An old guy just shouldn't have to put up with this <g>.
     

    ATTYSHOOTER

    Member
    Mar 31, 2009
    68
    Wollard Opposition

    Here is our opposition filed earlier this evening. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in a public forum except to thank everyone for their support.

    Best regards,

    Cary


    CARY J. HANSEL
    JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
    6404 IVY LANE, SUITE 400
    GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
    TELEPHONE: 301-220-2200
    FACSIMILE: 301-220-1214
     

    Attachments

    • 2A.Opp.pdf
      104.2 KB · Views: 235

    kronusthebonus

    Jackwagon
    Jul 26, 2010
    653
    Hampstead
    Here is our opposition filed earlier this evening. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in a public forum except to thank everyone for their support.

    Best regards,

    Cary


    CARY J. HANSEL
    JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
    6404 IVY LANE, SUITE 400
    GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
    TELEPHONE: 301-220-2200
    FACSIMILE: 301-220-1214


    Very nice !

    I suspect they will waffle a bit more, but sounds very convincing
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Here is our opposition filed earlier this evening. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in a public forum except to thank everyone for their support.

    Best regards,

    Cary


    CARY J. HANSEL
    JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
    6404 IVY LANE, SUITE 400
    GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
    TELEPHONE: 301-220-2200
    FACSIMILE: 301-220-1214

    Thanks Cary!! Keep up the fight and don't let this case ignore "most notably in the home"!!

    Docket updated with filings 9 and 9-1: http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html
    10/07/2010 9 RESPONSE in Opposition re 8[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss filed by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Raymond Woollard. Replies due by 10/25/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Here is our opposition filed earlier this evening. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in a public forum except to thank everyone for their support.

    Best regards,

    Cary


    CARY J. HANSEL
    JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
    6404 IVY LANE, SUITE 400
    GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
    TELEPHONE: 301-220-2200
    FACSIMILE: 301-220-1214

    Haven't we been saying this? The state isn't even arguing the issues in the complaint!
    Defendants do not contest the Complaint’s essential allegation: that they force handgun carry license applicants to prove a need to exercise their fundamental Second Amendment rights under arbitrary standards. Instead, Defendants offer three non-substantive claims: that Younger abstention applies because Plaintiff Woollard has not exhausted administrative remedies; that Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) lacks standing; and that the Complaint fails to adequately describe an equal protection violation.

    Regarding Younger Abstention claim in MTD
    Younger Cannot Require Plaintiffs to Exhaust State Administrative Remedies.
    It is easy to see why the Seventh Circuit has labeled Defendants’ Younger theory “frivolous.” Nader, 385 F.3d at 731. It is simply beyond dispute that Plaintiffs cannot be required to exhaust their state administrative remedies prior to initiating a lawsuit under Section 1983. See Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982). “[T]he existence of a state administrative remedy does not ordinarily foreclose resort to § 1983.” Wright v. Roanoke Redev’t & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 427-28 (1987). This is a very basic, well-established aspect of Section 1983 litigation.


    Younger Abstention Does Not Apply to Flagrant Constitutional Violations. Defendants’ careful avoidance of the complaint’s merits hints at the non-viability of their abstention request. Younger abstention does not apply where, as here, the “challenged provision is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. at 423; New Orleans, 491 U.S. at 367 (same) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54).


    However else the State may regulate this activity, the issue here is the government’s denial of this fundamental right on the grounds that a citizen has not proven his or her entitlement to exercise it. There can be no more flagrant violation of a constitutional right than a statutory scheme that places the burden on the individual to prove his or her entitlement to the right’s exercise, subject to the complete, unbridled discretion of a licensing authority. Younger cannot insulate such laws from federal court review.

    Also, Woollard is a SAF member, therefore SAF has standing. That was easy...

    Well done Cary...
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    When does everybody think we'll have an actual hearing? Late 2011 possibly ?

    I wouldn't think that late, but this really depends how much more the State wishes to file additional motions. If I were a betting man, I'd say they're not done yet.

    Hansel/SAF/Gura's response to the MTD addressed their first salvo well. Also, the last sentence in this latest filing states:
    The plaintiffs respectfully request a hearing.

    The Plaintiffs in Wollard aren't holding this one up at all... :innocent0
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Anyone Else Catch This Little Thing...?

    Pretty much as we expected.

    But did anyone catch this little piece of bait embedded in the Younger Abstention counter-argument starting on page 9:

    Defendants’ careful avoidance of the complaint’s merits hints at the non-viability of their abstention request.

    OK, we knew that. No surprise -- MD does not want to argue the merits of the law. But...

    Younger abstention does not apply where, as here, the “challenged provision is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.”

    ...

    For purposes of this motion, it is enough to observe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is the right to carry them in public.

    ...

    Younger cannot insulate such laws from federal court review.

    The Younger Abstention does not apply where "the constitutional violation is flagrant and readily apparent." For the state to continue arguing the Younger Abstention applies, it has to respond to the SAF claim that MD laws are facially unconstitutional.

    So far MD has done all it could to avoid the fight. This section of the SAF/Hansel argument pretty much requires MD to respond to the merits of our complaint just so they can continue to use Younger as a foot-dragging action. Put simply, to avoid talking about the real issues of the case and drag things out, MD needs to talk about the real issues of the case.

    The argument states "it is enough to observe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is the right to carry them in public", as fact. It is now up to MD to argue against that claim. If they do not, they risk appearing that they stipulate to its validity.

    Even if MD fights this with "no court has found in favor of public carry as a fundamental right", it starts the argument. We had ideas of the Gansler arguments based on analysis, and yesterday verified by his arguments in Williams (see other thread). So there won't be any real bombshells in his arguments. But he has to make them before we can see things progress. And to keep pushing Younger, he'll need to open at least some of them to debate. And this argument underpins the primary complaint we have.

    Not "check-mate", just "check". Gansler can dodge, but it gets harder each time.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    BTW, MDS member "mr h" wins for posting the 1000th post in a thread that did not involve fart jokes, "plus-sized" pictures or gay humor.

    What he wins I have no idea.

    Just pointing out how well these threads have gone. :thumbsup:
     

    ThumperIII

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2009
    455
    Maryland
    So what is the next normal step? Judge sets a hearing date or allows MD to try more delay arguments? Is whether the judge asks or tells (the parties) any indication of leaning? (Does judge ask MD if there are more arguments or does MD have to request)? Would it be oral or written when MD seeks more time from the judge?

    OR is it wide open on possibilities?
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    I have not listened to the oral arguments but I do want to know what the LEO saw him doing "near the woods" and why he had places his gun in the "bushes." Assuming, of course, that article was accurate
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,926
    Messages
    7,259,325
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom