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

[dblas]

Originally Posted by OnTarget

One thing concerns me, that is, if MD denies the permit applications, then it is hurtful when one applies for a CCW in another state, because these states sometimes ask if one has ever been turned down by another state and the reason why. It doesn't help.

You keep stating this every chance you get, how about specifics, which states, and which times (since you state "sometimes")?

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Afield

Does declaratory relief still get us what we want? Or will it take yet another suit? What is the point of a declaratory statement without an injunction against the offending text of law??

This is a little arcane (ok, a lot arcane). The difference between declaratory and injunctive relief is the latter is coercive while the former "declares" the law but doesn't actually coerce. The declaratory relief issued by the judge in this case declares that 5(ii) is unconstitutional and yes, that is what you want. The court has declared that the 2A applies outside the home and that Section 5(ii) is unconstitutional. And that's a huge constitutional holding.

Now Alan Gura asked for declaratory relief and he got what he asked for with the court's ruling. But he ALSO asked for two types of injunctive relief: 1. a mandatory injunction requiring the state to give Mr. Woollard his permit and 2. a prohibitory injunction barring the state from applying for enforcing Section 5(ii) (that's the G&S provision). The court's opinion and order never expressly addressed these injunctive requests for relief. I don't know why. Maybe it was an oversight or maybe he didn't think it was necessary (as the State suggests) and simply forgot to expressly address it. See below. Who knows. Hence the motion for Rule 59(e) clarification. It is was perfectly appropriate for the State to raise it.

Now, it does make a difference. An injunction is enforceable with the full weight of the court's contempt powers and is coercive. Under Rule 65(d), an injunctive order has to be quite detailed and specific for that reason. If you violate an injunctive order, the violator can (conceivably) go to jail or be fined for contempt. That fine can be designed to be punitive (that's criminal contempt) or a daily fine imposed until there is compliance (that is coercive and considered to be civil contempt as you hold the keys to your jail cell -- comply and you get out or the fines stop). You need a stay for sure to avoid the possibility of contempt when an injunction has issued.

In contrast, a declaratory judgment is not enforceable through contempt. Under SCT precedent, the Court has stated from time to time that declaratory relief is usually good enough when the defendant is the sovereign State as the courts will presume that the states don't need to be coerced but will comply with declaratory judgment. It is an expression of comity for another sovereign. Almost invariably, in this sort of constitutional litigation at this level, that respect is warranted and honored. As a rule, States don't defy federal court declaratory judgments. If they do, then the same court issues an actual injunction in an enforcement action and the fireworks begin. Won't be necessary in this case, I'm sure.

Indeed, in this case, the State's Rule 59(e)/stay motion states that the state's policy is to comply with an unstayed declaratory judgment, which is why they seek a stay even in the absence of an actual injunction so they don't have to comply pending appeal. That's smart. Thus, if the stay is denied by the district court and the court of appeals, presumably the State would comply with the court's declaratory judgment and process Mr. Wollard's application without regard to section 5(ii) and otherwise not apply Section 5(ii) to other new and pending applications. I would expect Alan Gura to press for clarification on that point in his papers. I would. I think he has already started that process in demanding that the state file a proposed order. That's smart. If the stay is granted, Mr. Woollard doesn't get his renewal permit and the State continues to apply Section 5(ii) to existing and new applications pending this appeal. What you are seeing here is some strong litigation skills from both the State and Alan Gura and his team. Fun to watch. Sorry you asked?

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by hvymax

I hope this is'nt as meaningless as Heller and McDonald.

In DC 2500 handgun owners, as will as the numerous folks who can now shoot an intruder in self defense, would disagree with you saying it's meaningless.

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by J.Brown

I'm wondering, did the judge leave his opinion vague in an attempt give md some room to wiggle? Only they didn't realize that and are now messing with the bull? It just seems this whole law suit has followed this trend and their not seeing the writing on the wall.

See post above.

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by hvymax

I hope this is'nt as meaningless as Heller and McDonald.

You are kidding, right? Heller and McDonald are the only reason you have *any* 2A rights in Maryland. They are absolutely HUGE

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

You are kidding, right? Heller and McDonald are the only reason you have *any* 2A rights in Maryland. They are absolutely HUGE

Not to mention what I said before about the gun owners of DC, Chicago too....

He suffers from a mental illness called BGOS (Battered Gun Owner Syndrome), a common though minority affliction in states that are not "shall issue".

[clandestine]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

You are kidding, right? Heller and McDonald are the only reason you have *any* 2A rights in Maryland. They are absolutely HUGE

Some people dont get it, they think one court ruling will erode a hundred years of precedent/law/ordinances.

Some people think having 2A rights means you should carry RPG's, point tommy guns at cops and "say Ha, ha, it my rights, you cant shoot till I do", shoot targets at the local playground, twirl guns while shopping at walmart, all with no legal recourse. Since Heller didnt allow that for them, they think Heller didnt do anything.

[Glaug-Eldare]

Originally Posted by clandestine

Some people dont get it, they think one court ruling will erode a hundred years of precedent/law/ordinances.

Some people think having 2A rights means you should carry RPG's, point tommy guns at cops and "say Ha, ha, it my rights, you cant shoot till I do", shoot targets at the local playground, twirl guns while shopping at walmart, all with no legal recourse. Since Heller didnt allow that for them, they think Heller didnt do anything.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Glaug-Eldare

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

What part of "Congress shall make no law", but still prohibit perjury and other forms of speech?

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

Not to mention what I said before about the gun owners of DC, Chicago too....

He suffers from a mental illness called BGOS (Battered Gun Owner Syndrome), a common though minority affliction in states that are not "shall issue".

Jeez, that's really sad, understandable after all these years of abuse from the anti gun zealots, but still sad. But, I bet it is treatable. All you need is some more victories.

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by clandestine

Some people think having 2A rights means you should carry RPG's, point tommy guns at cops and "say Ha, ha, it my rights, you cant shoot till I do", shoot targets at the local playground, twirl guns while shopping at walmart, all with no legal recourse. :

I don't know anyone like that. Can't imagine that anyone on these forums does that sort of nonsense. Heller and McDonald and the 2A protect the right to keep and bear arms by responsible, law-abiding citizens. I have no patience for the rest, who should probably best reside in jail, IMHO>

[Kharn]

Originally Posted by OnTarget

One thing concerns me, that is, if MD denies the permit applications, then it is hurtful when one applies for a CCW in another state, because these states sometimes ask if one has ever been turned down by another state and the reason why. It doesn't help.

Your justification is simply "Maryland did not find that I demonstrated 'good and substantial reason' for a handgun permit"

No shall-issue state is going to deny your permit due to failing to receive a may-issue permit.

[gprimr1]

Originally Posted by Kharn

Your justification is simply "Maryland did not find that I demonstrated 'good and substantial reason' for a handgun permit"

No shall-issue state is going to deny your permit due to failing to receive a may-issue permit.

http://marylandshallissue.org/faqs/t...-decison-faqs/

I would read the FAQ on that topic; that statement might not be entirely true.

[Boondock Saint]

Originally Posted by Kharn

Your justification is simply "Maryland did not find that I demonstrated 'good and substantial reason' for a handgun permit"

No shall-issue state is going to deny your permit due to failing to receive a may-issue permit.

Good info in this thread: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=11994

[dblas]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

Good info in this thread: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=11994

The question never came up in the FL, UT, VA or OH applications I applied for.

[MDresident]

The point most folks are missing is not the contistutional "right"; that is established. It is the Maryland state governing body that does not recogonize that right even as defined in the Bill of Rights it so ratified.
Folks thinking that Maryland will bow to indications that it is obstructing rights afforded its citenzenry by the constitution is unfounded. Do you have that much faith in Marylandisstan? Again, I hope I am wrong. I really do...
Motion for stay.
Motion for appeal.
Motion for this.
Motion for that.
Do you still think Maryland consideres the United States Constituion and the Bill of Rights as having pertinent relevance or authority?

It's for the children!
Guns are bad.
Our law abinding citenzenry are baaad!
The police will protect us all!
But, they are not obligated nor required to do so.
you can't sue us for negligence....
pay your taxes anyway

[Glaug-Eldare]

Originally Posted by MDresident

The point most folks are missing is not the contistutional "right"; that is established. It is the Maryland state governing body that does not recogonize that right even as defined in the Bill of Rights it so ratified.
Folks thinking that Maryland will bow to indications that it is obstructing rights afforded its citenzenry by the constitution is unfounded. Do you have that much faith in Marylandisstan? Again, I hope I am wrong. I really do...
Motion for stay.
Motion for appeal.
Motion for this.
Motion for that.
Do you still think Maryland consideres the United States Constituion and the Bill of Rights as having pertinent relevance or authority?

Would ya knock it off with those negative waves? If you're resigned to defeat, there's no point in you posting in this section. Seriously, there are bunch of other, perfectly good sections. Check 'em out.

[Mark75H]

Originally Posted by Glaug-Eldare

Would ya knock it off with those negative waves? If you're resigned to defeat, there's no point in you posting in this section. Seriously, there are bunch of other, perfectly good sections. Check 'em out.

There is such a thing as negativity and such a thing as reality ... I think its coming, its just not here yet (as many seem to assume).

[Klunatic]

Originally Posted by clandestine

Some people dont get it, they think one court ruling will erode a hundred years of precedent/law/ordinances.

Some people think having 2A rights means you should carry RPG's, point tommy guns at cops and "say Ha, ha, it my rights, you cant shoot till I do", shoot targets at the local playground, twirl guns while shopping at walmart, all with no legal recourse. Since Heller didnt allow that for them, they think Heller didnt do anything.

We won a big victory here. Think of it this way, the seeds of the 2a freedom tree were planted a few years back with Heller and others. The tree has taken root and flowered with the Woolard decision. The sun has shown on the dogs ass and now we are experiencing a little rain & BS from Gansler. Have patience this will only make it all the much sweeter when the tree bears fruit.

I can't imagine what we would be listening to had Legg ruled the other way. Smile we are in better shape now than in the last 30 years.

[MDresident]

Again, I hope I am wrong. I really do...

I really do hope I am wrong. But, I really just can't seem to float that happiness/victory balloon right now. Nothing, again, NOTHING, from the Maryland state government is in "our" favor. All favorited statements, comments and/or rullings are from the other courts.
Maryland will fight this till their cold dead hands no longer viable.
I trully wish it was different.
Does anyone know whtether the Wollard gentleman received his permit?
That would be relevant.