Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #6001
dblas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTarget View Post
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")?
dblas is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:18 PM   #6002
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afield View Post
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?


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.

Last edited by esqappellate; March 9th, 2012 at 09:22 PM.
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:22 PM   #6003
Gray Peterson
Member
 
Gray Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by hvymax View Post
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.
Gray Peterson is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:26 PM   #6004
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Brown View Post
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.


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:29 PM   #6005
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by hvymax View Post
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


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:48 PM   #6006
Gray Peterson
Member
 
Gray Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
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".
Gray Peterson is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:51 PM   #6007
clandestine
Firearm Technician
 
clandestine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
Posts: 24,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
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.
clandestine is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:56 PM   #6008
Glaug-Eldare
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by clandestine View Post
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?
Glaug-Eldare is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:59 PM   #6009
Gray Peterson
Member
 
Gray Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glaug-Eldare View Post
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?
Gray Peterson is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:09 PM   #6010
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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.


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:18 PM   #6011
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by clandestine View Post
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>


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:35 PM   #6012
Kharn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTarget View Post
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.
Kharn is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:42 PM   #6013
gprimr1
MSI Board Member
 
gprimr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,874
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
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.


__________________
2014
gprimr1 is online now  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:43 PM   #6014
Boondock Saint
Returnedish Member
 
Boondock Saint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: White Marsh
Posts: 13,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
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
Boondock Saint is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:55 PM   #6015
dblas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
The question never came up in the FL, UT, VA or OH applications I applied for.
dblas is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 10:01 PM   #6016
MDresident
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 125
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
MDresident is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 10:04 PM   #6017
Glaug-Eldare
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDresident View Post
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.
Glaug-Eldare is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 10:07 PM   #6018
Mark75H
Outboard boat racing guy
 
Mark75H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Outside the Gates
Posts: 5,056
Send a message via AIM to Mark75H Send a message via Skype™ to Mark75H
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glaug-Eldare View Post
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).


__________________
Ignorance is their best tool. Make education ours.

If the public's will is not done now, it will be in November 2014. - - - Register to vote: https://voterservices.elections.stat...erRegistration
Mark75H is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 10:08 PM   #6019
Klunatic
Senior Member
 
Klunatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Montgomery Cty
Posts: 1,393
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by clandestine View Post
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.


__________________
Klunatic
SAF Life Member
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
Utah Permit
Maryland 365 permit Rejected 5/13/13

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights, The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg, 5 Mar 2012

Take the Pledge to vote out your Representative's if they vote anti 2A
Scan the QR code www.mdwontforget.com/mailtool.php

Klunatic is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 10:15 PM   #6020
MDresident
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 125
Quote:
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.
MDresident is offline  
Closed Thread

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Tags
woollard


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2013, Maryland Shooters, LLC