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

Dogabutila · Mar 9, 2012

Guys, just remember for your UT permits you need a MD one now.

-.-

swinokur · Mar 9, 2012

Not really. If MD does not recognize UT, you don't need a MD permit to get UT

southern71 · Mar 9, 2012

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/CFPapp0811.pdf

NON-RESIDENT PROOF OF PERMIT
If you reside in a state that recognizes the validity of the Utah CFP or has reciprocity with Utah, you must obtain a CFP or CCW from your home state and submit a copy of it with your application for a Utah permit. For a list of reciprocal states visit: http://www.publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html Residency will be determined by your state-issued identification. If your state does not recognize the Utah permit this does not apply.

zombiehunter · Mar 9, 2012

To the people encountering lines at Live Scan with other permit applicants:

Have you asked them if they're part of MSI/MDS? I'd be really interested in knowing how pervasive this forum and MSI are. If there are 8 people in line and 1 is MDS that's not a big sample size, but if a bunch of you post what you see we can come up with a slightly more significant statistic and take a WAG at actual numbers

I'd love to see an interview with these Live Scan people telling how swamped they've been.

The first step in changing public sentiment is making it seem like everyone's doing it. In fact I think there's even an xkcd.com comic about that "peer consensus" or something.

Maryland Hunter · Mar 9, 2012

If you can, wear a MSI or MDS shirt, hat, or whatever when you go!

If you ask if people are members and they are not, be sure to give them the info they need.

MH

southern71 · Mar 9, 2012

Tried to order MDS swag but it is mostly out of stock.

Biggfoot44 · Mar 9, 2012

What's the scoop on "30 days" . I remember the language about to come into compliance or appeal.

What's that really mean , and when does the count start.

Papi4baby · Mar 9, 2012

Biggfoot44 said:
What's the scoop on "30 days" . I remember the language about to come into compliance or appeal.

What's that really mean , and when does the count start.

After the judge issue his summary (not sure what is called) the defendant (MD State) has 30 days to fight it.

esqappellate · Mar 9, 2012

Biggfoot44 said:
What's the scoop on "30 days" . I remember the language about to come into compliance or appeal.

What's that really mean , and when does the count start.

The losing party has 30 days to file a notice of appeal after the entry of a final judgment. That 30 days is tolled while a timely filed rule 59(e) motion is pending. Thus, the State's time for filing a notice of appeal has not yet begun to run. The notice is filed in district court. The 30 days will start once the district court rules on the 59(e) motion.

Maryland Hunter · Mar 9, 2012

Just got confirmation that my app was received by MSP today. :thumbsup:

I sent it priority yesterday, with tracking. It was $5 or so, came out to $7+ with the envelope. With everything up in the air right now, I want to have verification that they received it.

MH

krucam · Mar 9, 2012

New Filings

Defendants (MD AG's Office) just filed the following:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.0.pdf

Supplemental to 54[RECAP] MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment as permitted by 53[RECAP] Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,, pursuant to Rule 59(e) MOTION for Other Relief Motion for Clarification pursuant to Rule 59(e) MOTION to Stay re 53[RECAP] Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,, filed by Marcus L. Brown, Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein, Charles M. Thomas, Jr. . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fader, Matthew) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

It's a mouthful, but its a Supplement to their Motion for Stay, clarifying what they want clarified...got that? First paragraph of #57 reads:

On March 7, 2012, the defendants filed their Motion for Clarification or Amendment of Order and for Immediate Stay Pending Appeal (ECF No. 54). After filing the motion, defendants’ counsel received an e-mail from plaintiffs’ counsel requesting that the defendants supplement their filing by submitting a proposed order “addressing the clarification portion of [the] motion.”1

Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that in the absence of such a proposed order they did not know what the defendants were asking for. In response to plaintiffs’ counsel’s request, the defendants have prepared the attached draft order, which, as explained below, corresponds to one of two potential dispositions of the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief that the Court may have intended.

So, #57 leads you to their PROPOSED ORDER 57.1:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.1.pdf

CAS_Shooter · Mar 9, 2012

zombiehunter said:
To the people encountering lines at Live Scan with other permit applicants:

Have you asked them if they're part of MSI/MDS? I'd be really interested in knowing how pervasive this forum and MSI are. If there are 8 people in line and 1 is MDS that's not a big sample size, but if a bunch of you post what you see we can come up with a slightly more significant statistic and take a WAG at actual numbers I'd love to see an interview with these Live Scan people telling how swamped they've been.

The first step in changing public sentiment is making it seem like everyone's doing it. In fact I think there's even an xkcd.com comic about that "peer consensus" or something.

I was in LiveScan Glen Burnie this morning taking care of mine and the four that were in there for permit were all vocal about it. I have to think most that are there for that reason can't help but make small talk about it or ask others.

MRA · Mar 9, 2012

So, if I understand it right, 57.1 is simply a form for Judge Legg to sign IF he agrees with that view/opinion. Right?

krucam · Mar 9, 2012

MRA said:
So, if I understand it right, 57.1 is simply a form for Judge Legg to sign IF he agrees with that view/opinion. Right?

Yep...this is the AG's Office "just trying to help" the good Judge out...
:innocent0

Afield · Mar 9, 2012

krucam said:
Defendants (MD AG's Office) just filed the following:

So, #57 leads you to their PROPOSED ORDER 57.1:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.1.pdf

Really? Are they kidding?

Gura included a proposed order with their MSJ.

The state really is running out of ideas if their response is "how about saying you didnt really intend to provide injunctive relief after all."

I can't wait to see Gura's response to all of this.

MRA · Mar 9, 2012

From what I have read, the judge is a good writer and doesn't need any help. It always pissed me off when employees wrote something up for me. Maybe this will get the judge mad.

yellowsled · Mar 9, 2012

krucam said:
Defendants (MD AG's Office) just filed the following:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.0.pdf

It's a mouthful, but its a Supplement to their Motion for Stay, clarifying what they want clarified...got that? First paragraph of #57 reads:

So, #57 leads you to their PROPOSED ORDER 57.1:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.1.pdf

They just sound desperate, or am I misreading this?

MJD438 · Mar 9, 2012

krucam said:
So, #57 leads you to their PROPOSED ORDER 57.1:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.1.pdf

IANAL, so this is leading to some confusion on my part. As I read it, I am guessing they (MD AG) mean the following:

Good and substantial is no longer allowed as a reason for denial.
The Court never intended to tell MD to issue a permit.
Since the plaintiffs did not ask for a declaratory injunction granting relief (i.e., Woollard's permit), MD does not have to issue it anyway.

Will one of the legal eagles correct me if my logic is, most admittedly likely, incorrect?

tailboardtech · Mar 9, 2012

MJD438 said:
IANAL, so this is leading to some confusion on my part. As I read it, I am guessing they mean the following:

Good and substantial is no longer allowed as a reason for denial.

The Court never intended to tell MD to issue a permit.

Since the plaintiffs did not ask for a declaratory injunction granting relief (i.e., Woollard's permit), MD does not have to issue it anyway.

Will one of the legal eagles correct me if my logic is, most admittedly likely, incorrect?

thats what i got from reading it

OnTarget · Mar 9, 2012

Norton said:
There are a lot of VA people applying. Gray is also applying.

Norton, well, here's another one from WV.
Thanks.

JMira, thank you for your reply also.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

WWJBD

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Retired C&R Addict

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics