PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

BUFF7MM · Apr 19, 2012

Let me refraze my last statement, if judge Legg ruled 5(ii) unconstitutional why did he stay his his own order. I would have thought that the state would have to ask a higher court to stay a ruling. I'm sure it's been answered before and I just can't seem to find the answer in the last 50 or so pages.

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
until Judge Legg rules on the state's motion for a perm. stay pending appeal. The state has to ask the district court first. If the district court denies a stay, then they can ask the court of appeals for a stay pending appeal.

After this temp stay ends and if/when they ask the next court for another stay, how much time will pass between the stays?

If their is a few days betewwn the stays, would that be a good time for the people to had their app's returned to send in another between the stays?

USAFRavenR6 · Apr 19, 2012

cad68m_m said:
Got my Postal return receipt of my appeal to the Handgun Permit Review Board of my post stay Non-processed denial.

Do you mind sharing the letter you attached to your application when sending it requesting an appearance in front of the review board? I am about to complete mine and send it off but I am not as knowledgeable as all the rest when citing specific reasons with in the MD code. I am not going to take this letter verbatim but I did plan on using it as a reference when constructing my own to send off sometime this afternoon. Anyone for that matter? Thanks.

esqappellate · Apr 19, 2012

Buff7mm said:
Let me refraze my last statement, if judge Legg ruled 5(ii) unconstitutional why did he stay his his own order. I would have thought that the state would have to ask a higher court to stay a ruling. I'm sure it's been answered before and I just can't seem to find the answer in the last 50 or so pages.

The short answer is that the rules require it Rule 8 FRAP. More fundamentally, there is a different inquiry for a stay pending appeal than on the merits. Still on the merits, the state has to show that it is likely to prevail on appeal. Its an uphill climb.

esqappellate · Apr 19, 2012

Merlin said:
After this temp stay ends and if/when they ask the next court for another stay, how much time will pass between the stays?

If their is a few days betewwn the stays, would that be a good time for the people to had their app's returned to send in another between the stays?

If the state loses on the stay before judge Legg, they will immediately move for a stay from the CA. A few days at the most. Any stay that is issued by the CA will relate back to the March 5 decision and thus cover all apps. As what the state would do with apps? I have no idea. I doubt that they do.

Patrick · Apr 19, 2012

dlmcbm said:
To sum up what Patrick and esqappellate have said....... we don't have a flipping clue as to why they are doing what they do.

Yeah, pretty much.

BUFF7MM · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
The short answer is that the rules require it Rule 8 FRAP. More fundamentally, there is a different inquiry for a stay pending appeal than on the merits. Still on the merits, the state has to show that it is likely to prevail on appeal. Its an uphill climb.

And this is why I never studied to be a lawyer, just trying to keep up on this gives me a headache.
You've got to go home at night with a killer headache at times.

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
The short answer is that the rules require it Rule 8 FRAP. More fundamentally, there is a different inquiry for a stay pending appeal than on the merits. Still on the merits, the state has to show that it is likely to prevail on appeal. Its an uphill climb.

So are you saying that there is a good chance the 4th may not give the next stay if they do not think there is a good chance the MD will win the appeal?

If this is so, is it unrealistic to thing there is a good chance that the MSP may not be using G&S after sometime in June if the 4th court does not grant the stay?

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
If the state loses on the stay before judge Legg, they will immediately move for a stay from the CA. A few days at the most. Any stay that is issued by the CA will relate back to the March 5 decision and thus cover all apps. As what the state would do with apps? I have no idea. I doubt that they do.

So after having said that, and because we see the MSP treating the pre-stay apps different then the post stay app's, then maybe it would not be a bad idea for some people to be ready to turn in app's during these few days when there is no stay in place just in case there may be an advantage to having an app submitted without a stay?

esqappellate · Apr 19, 2012

Merlin said:
So after having said that, and because we see the MSP treating the pre-stay apps different then the post stay app's, then maybe it would not be a bad idea for some people to be ready to turn in app's during these few days when there is no stay in place just in case there may be an advantage to having an app submitted without a stay?

It would be utter speculation to venture there.

esqappellate · Apr 19, 2012

Merlin said:
So are you saying that there is a good chance the 4th may not give the next stay if they do not think there is a good chance the MD will win the appeal?

If this is so, is it unrealistic to thing there is a good chance that the MSP may not be using G&S after sometime in June if the 4th court does not grant the stay?

IF (big if) Judge Legg denies a permanent stay pending appeal, THEN the State will have a hard time winning a stay pending appeal from the CA4, particularly if Judge Legg writes a good opinion on why he is denying a stay. Not impossible, just difficult. I once ultimately won a case on the merits when the same court of appeals panel had previously enjoined pending appeal the very practice that I was defending on the merits. It can happen. That's just my personal opinion. I am trying not to drink the Kool Aid. Don't take it to the bank or anything.

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
It would be utter speculation to venture there.

But what the hell, right? At this point if I was planning to send in an app to be part of this as well as to do my part (however small) with placing pressure on the MSP, I would send it during that window opposed to today.

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
IF (big if) Judge Legg denies a permanent stay pending appeal, THEN the State will have a hard time winning a stay pending appeal from the CA4, particularly if Judge Legg writes a good opinion on why he is denying a stay. Not impossible, just difficult. I once ultimately won a case on the merits when the same court of appeals panel had previously enjoined pending appeal the very practice that I was defending on the merits. It can happen. That's just my personal opinion. I am trying not to drink the Kool Aid. Don't take it to the bank or anything.

Got it. Your giving us your double secret promise and assurance it will go this way! LOL JUST KIDDING. :innocent0

esqappellate · Apr 19, 2012

Merlin said:
But what the hell, right? At this point if I was planning to send in an app to be part of this as well as to do my part (however small) with placing pressure on the MSP, I would send it then opposed to today.

I try hard not to tell folks what to do here. You could sent it in today, knowing full well that it would be returned. You would then have standing to seek 5-312 Board review and thus keep the app alive that way. If the stay is lifted while the app is at the MSP or pending before the Board, you're golden. Or you can wait until the stay is lifted by Judge Legg and roll the dice that the CA4 won't impose a stay pending appeal. Bear in mind that if the state wins on appeal, the very first thing they will likely do is revoke any permits granted during this time. You could thus wait until after the CA4 rules on the merits or after the State seeks cert and is denied (assuming the State loses). Or Gura seeks cert and we win the SCT. These are all options open to all.

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
until Judge Legg rules on the state's motion for a perm. stay pending appeal. The state has to ask the district court first. If the district court denies a stay, then they can ask the court of appeals for a stay pending appeal.

Also I guess we are lucky that the SAF is driving this forward for the gun issues in general. I assume if Woollard just went out and hired his own attorney I guess he would have his carry permit by now and this case would be closed?

esqappellate · Apr 19, 2012

Merlin said:
Also I guess we are lucky that the SAF is driving this forward for the gun issues in general. I assume if Woollard just went out and hired his own attorney I guess he would have his carry permit by now and this case would be closed?

Not at all. The state would be doing the same thing, in all likelihood. They don't want Woollard to have his renewal either. Note: Gura represents Woollard personally, as well as SAF. SAF presence is great cuz 1. they have deeper pockets and 2. they can represent their membership in addition to Woollard. A big deal.

Patrick · Apr 19, 2012

Buff7mm said:
Let me refraze my last statement, if judge Legg ruled 5(ii) unconstitutional why did he stay his his own order. I would have thought that the state would have to ask a higher court to stay a ruling. I'm sure it's been answered before and I just can't seem to find the answer in the last 50 or so pages.

The judge is being careful.

The state is going to make a case for a stay that extends through the appeal. In a truly fair judicial system, the judge does not know how this will turn out until he gets all briefs and evaluates everything on the merits.

The time between original ruling and the stay ruling is only going to be about 3 months - about the time the state would take to give out a permit. So if the state wins their stay, they went through a lot of work for nothing and they might have to rescind permits already issued. Also, the state said they wanted time to consider legislative options to tighten up their law. The temp stay is in place to avoid these issues. It lets the legal evaluation of the state's claims move forward without significant pressure.

Under color of law, a stay is a valid thing to request. A temp stay was not a surprise - frankly I would have been surprised to not see one.

One advantage to us in this process is that if the court decides against an extended stay, it will have decided this on merits and without the state feeling the pressure of issuing permits while asking for the stay. In other words, it will be a carefully considered decision. This means that should it go our way, the chances that the state could go to the 4th and get an emergency stay is greatly reduced. That works both ways - if the state gets their way we're basically on hold until some time next year.

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
Not at all. The state would be doing the same thing, in all likelihood. They don't want Woollard to have his renewal either. Note: Gura represents Woollard personally, as well as SAF. SAF presence is great cuz 1. they have deeper pockets and 2. they can represent their membership in addition to Woollard. A big deal.

But because of this it could work out that everyone in the state ends up with a ccw. If the big dummies were smart and not so full of them selves that would have gave Mr. Woollard his ccw back and this would have all gone away. Maryland would always remained a May issues state.

I mean jeezzzz. He already had one ccw and just to keep him from renewing it for a 3rd time Maryland took a chance of loosing it's power and may end up with 1.000.000 ccw's to give out.

I don't think the MSP or the AG will be passing out many bonuses or promotions over this one.

Patrick · Apr 19, 2012

Merlin said:
Got it. Your giving us your double secret promise and assurance it will go this way! LOL JUST KIDDING.

Although the state seems to have an uphill lcimb to justify a stay using the same logic that failed them in the actual ruling, the simple fact is that it is up to the courts.

Big Changes (tm) could come with a stay. Federal Courts are loath to overturn a state law, especially one defended so energetically by the state. A judge could stay his decision on that reason alone - that in the interests of federalism he does not want to enforce a law change on his ruling alone. He could simply say, "Pretty sure I am correct, but the change is large enough to demand more than me saying it."

Gura/Hansel would probably argue that the judge need not worry what the 4th will think, because they can think for themselves and the state will go to them if the district court does not grant the stay. So "extra eyes" would surely review the case and the effect would not rest solely on this judge.

You cannot handicap these things. We've got an uphill climb of our own.

Merlin · Apr 19, 2012

esqappellate said:
Not at all. The state would be doing the same thing, in all likelihood. They don't want Woollard to have his renewal either. Note: Gura represents Woollard personally, as well as SAF. SAF presence is great cuz 1. they have deeper pockets and 2. they can represent their membership in addition to Woollard. A big deal.

But don't you think if Woollard had his own attorney that was just working on just getting his ccw renewed, and after this case got to the point where you could see where it was heading, don't you think the deals would be made between the attorneys in the back room before it went to far and the state lost control and turned into a shall issue state over this one ccw renewal?

It's better to give out 1 ccw that the state does not want to give out then 1,000,000 they do not want to give out.

PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

☠Buff➐㎣☠

Ultimate Member

Active Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

MSI Executive Member

☠Buff➐㎣☠

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics