2A applies to states by 14th Due Process Clause (State of Washington Supreme Court)

[krucam]

With or without Palmer, I truly think the ruling in McDonald will address restrictions on carrying (bearing) of arms, although they'll stop short and allow local decisions/regulations for concealed carry. These innuendos are throughout the McDonald transcript.

We'll hopefully be following CA and calguns.net model here in MD regarding Open Carry events soon...after a couple years of that, hopefully we can gather enough interest from non-gun owners to push through CCW.

 

[Splitter]

Yes, he is the pig, but still. I can't imagine Maryland rewritting there laws overnight.

I think the NRA and Brady had other reasons than money to fear going to court. Both sides knew they could loose and set there cause back 20 years.

Maryland will not re-write the laws as soon as McDonald and Palmer are decided in "our" favor (assuming they will be decided that way).

I am not speaking from a lawyer's perspective but rather as a history buff here:

What will happen is that the laws regarding restrictions on carry, etc.. will suddenly become moot. The laws might remain on the books, but they would not be enforceable. Well, sort of....

But that doesn't mean Maryland would suddenly change from may to shall. I think the legislature would have to vote on the change to the existing law. Then if they did not make the needed to change to bring the law into compliance with the SCOTUS, lawsuits would have to be filed to effectively get the change made.

This very much reminds me of the Jim Crow laws. Brown vs. BoE was a landmark decision, but it was narrow. Southern states did not change other laws to comply with Brown vs. BoE because they could argue that it did not apply. Seems to me that is where we are with Heller and even McDonald.

It took most of a decade beyond Brown vs. BoE (and I am digging DEEP into my memory here so forgive me if I get something wrong) for things to substantially change outside of that ruling. It took acts of Congress in the forms of the the Civil Right Act and Voters Rights Act to bring states and the private sector into compliance with the Constitution.

So if we assume McDonald and Palmer go our way, there is still a huge fight to win. Either a "conservative" US Congress needs to pass laws to bring national uniformity to carry laws (which would get challenged by the left immediately) or the Maryland legislature would have to take action. Those are probably the quickest means to turn Maryland into Shall Issue.

If neither the Congress not the state legislature acts, the battle will have to be won in the court system. Probably law by law.

It could take many years or it could take months, depends on the politicians as I see it.

Splitter

 

[Patrick]

Splitter...history is an excellent teacher. Thanks for your personal insight; Brown was way before my time.

Our fight would (will?) need to be framed as one against a diminishment of natural rights. Today the anti's still argue the "saves lives" and "militia only" positions, even though the Supreme Court demolished the militia argument and damaged the "for the children" argument.

The Court was pretty clear in Heller and avoided ambiguity on the "gun is for self defense" argument. Not sporting, not hunting...it is an extension of the natural (pre-existing) right to defend oneself from harm.

I think McDonald will be the same, at least as far as the question of incorporation is answered. This means the arguments made by the anti's are pretty much summed up to be "The Supreme Court is wrong and we will not bend."

History has not been kind to those kinds of people, either. But you are probably right: it won't stop them from trying.

 

[Patrick]

With or without Palmer, I truly think the ruling in McDonald will address restrictions on carrying (bearing) of arms, although they'll stop short and allow local decisions/regulations for concealed carry. These innuendos are throughout the McDonald transcript.

We'll hopefully be following CA and calguns.net model here in MD regarding Open Carry events soon...after a couple years of that, hopefully we can gather enough interest from non-gun owners to push through CCW.

Hoping...

 

[Splitter]

Look for Maryland politicians to fight with money.

Q: Why don't more people own full autos or suppressors?
A: Cost. Lawmakers knew exactly what they were doing. Limit production, price goes up. Make the paperwork expensive, fewer people buy.

When (and if) Maryland goes shall issue, politicians will be trying to put restraints on the process. Yeah, you can get one after 6 months of background checks. But we don't have the funds for all the personnel so it will really take 12 months (7 day waiting period? hah!). Oh, and because we don't have the funds, it will cost you $1000 for the permit.

Then each of those things will need to get hashed out in court.

Kinda of a worst case, but these people are zealots. I put nothing past them.

Splitter

 

[bigboybrad1974]

man it sucks that me have to go through all this bullcrap just to get something that we sould already have

 

[zoostation]

We've already seen somewhat of a preview of how states will treat this from the LEOSA of 2006. This was the federal law that Ted Kennedy fought and fought and fought, that allows current and retired sworn LEO's (who meet certain basic conditions) to carry in any state (including those outside their own) regardless of local laws. Shortly after this was passed, I was at in-service training and they were telling us to be careful about carrying in Massachusetts, because the Attorney general there had said he was going to prosecute anyway, regardless of what federal law said. Additionally, you have states like New Jersey who claim to abide by LEOSA, but have laws against carrying hollow-point bullets (while you can own hollow-point ammo in Jersey, you cannot carry it for self-defense unless you are an active NJ police officer). Thus New Jersey has effectively negated LEOSA as most police departments require officers to carry some sort of JHP ammo in their off-duty guns.

It is my understanding there have been several NYPD officers charged with possession of hollow-point ammo in Jersey after they were in some sort of altercation and it was discovered in their off-duty guns. This includes an NYPD officer who shot a subject trying to carjack him and his family on their way to Newark Airport.

So where I'm going with this, is if Heller is held to incorporate the 2A to the states, then these are the games you will see played. There's little doubt that SCOTUS will leave some room for state and local governments to have "reasonable" controls. You will see places like NY and Chicago (and MD) find all kinds of ways to make creative new "reasonable" controls. Magazine limits, types of ammo, colors of guns (must be black so they don't look like toys, it's for the children), etc. Many will not stand up in court, however it will be a somewhat arduous process taking years to fully establish case law about what the boundaries and reigns on states are.

 

[Patrick]

Look for Maryland politicians to fight with money.

Q: Why don't more people own full autos or suppressors?
A: Cost. Lawmakers knew exactly what they were doing. Limit production, price goes up. Make the paperwork expensive, fewer people buy.

When (and if) Maryland goes shall issue, politicians will be trying to put restraints on the process. Yeah, you can get one after 6 months of background checks. But we don't have the funds for all the personnel so it will really take 12 months (7 day waiting period? hah!). Oh, and because we don't have the funds, it will cost you $1000 for the permit.

Then each of those things will need to get hashed out in court.

Kinda of a worst case, but these people are zealots. I put nothing past them.

Splitter

Nope. Substantive Due Process requires that the government make a damn good case when they do anything to restrict or get in the way of a fundamental right. Delays in permitting are being specifically addressed elsewhere.

I think the opposite condition is likely to be fought (and eventually prevail): that fees levied against a fundamental right are illegal. Witness: Poll Taxes

 

[BondJamesBond]

Look for Maryland politicians to fight with money.

Q: Why don't more people own full autos or suppressors?
A: Cost. Lawmakers knew exactly what they were doing. Limit production, price goes up. Make the paperwork expensive, fewer people buy.

When (and if) Maryland goes shall issue, politicians will be trying to put restraints on the process. Yeah, you can get one after 6 months of background checks. But we don't have the funds for all the personnel so it will really take 12 months (7 day waiting period? hah!). Oh, and because we don't have the funds, it will cost you $1000 for the permit.

Then each of those things will need to get hashed out in court.

Kinda of a worst case, but these people are zealots. I put nothing past them.

Splitter

And in Maryland, Shall Issue will NEVER mean "Shall be allowed to use to defend yourself"

 

[MDFF2008]

Nope. Substantive Due Process requires that the government make a damn good case when they do anything to restrict or get in the way of a fundamental right. Delays in permitting are being specifically addressed elsewhere.

I think the opposite condition is likely to be fought (and eventually prevail): that fees levied against a fundamental right are illegal. Witness: Poll Taxes

Depending on how it works out, you could make an argument paying for a permit violates the spirit of the ban on poll taxes.

 

[Splitter]

Nope. Substantive Due Process requires that the government make a damn good case when they do anything to restrict or get in the way of a fundamental right. Delays in permitting are being specifically addressed elsewhere.

I think the opposite condition is likely to be fought (and eventually prevail): that fees levied against a fundamental right are illegal. Witness: Poll Taxes

Well, I hope you are right. Unfortunately, it basically costs them nothing to pass a silly law. It costs some private individual tons of money to fight such a law.

I think they count on that....how many people have sued Maryland after being denied a permit and how many have won?

I hope you are right!

Splitter

 

[Patrick]

Me, too.

All that being said, I'd gladly pay a small fee for the background check for a carry permit. As long as it can stand the test of reasonable scrutiny (match what others pay for similar checks), I am all for it.

Note that Gura created a couple of bail-outs for DC and the courts in Palmer: open carry, concealed carry, any carry and the use of background checks to avoid giving guns to prohibited people.

He sounded mighty reasonable.

 

[krucam]

Me, too.

All that being said, I'd gladly pay a small fee for the background check for a carry permit. As long as it can stand the test of reasonable scrutiny (match what others pay for similar checks), I am all for it.

Note that Gura created a couple of bail-outs for DC and the courts in Palmer: open carry, concealed carry, any carry and the use of background checks to avoid giving guns to prohibited people.

He sounded mighty reasonable.

Patrick...have you read the entire 77pgs of the McDonald transcript and if so, do you also read the into the suggestions of at least some form of carry/bear arms being likely following the McDonald decision?? I'm an eternal optimist and would like another's interpretation...

 

[Patrick]

Yes, read them all. I wish as you do but realistically it is highly unlikely. What I see is the groundwork for future cases.

I read the briefs, and while carry was mentioned several times by Gura, it is clear he was not asking the court to rule on those points.

I also read an interest in carry issues in questions from the bench, but the briefs are where the meat is at. Justice Thomas has gone so far as to say (recently) that orals should be done away with...that briefs are the only thing that matter to the court. Justice Roberts said he'd prefer orals to stay, but then admits that as a former prosecutor he likes the banter. Either way, orals are not where new questions are asked or entertained.

Where I think the orals help is in setting up and testing the rationale behind the decisions. The Court really does prefer to have agreement on the finer points, even when the opposing parties disagree on the proposed big picture.

So I saw this happening in discussion about jurisprudence...getting all to agree that whatever the outcome of the case, that the Court's view is enduring for cases beyond McDonald. In other words...incorporation will settle the need to separately argue all the future cases twice (federal and state).

And yes...there was an agreement of sorts that "to bear" meant to carry on your person for the purposes of defense against an attacker (the "Ginsburg Definition").

As far as carry goes, Scalia wrote in Heller that it was a reasonable question that deserved an answer, but that they would not give it until specifically asked to render that opinion. And the question in McDonald was quite narrow: incorporation.

We'll probably see hints as to which way a carry challenge should go, just as we did in Heller. Gura wrote Palmer using Scalia's "reasonable restrictions" dicta as a template. Gura proposed in Palmer a set of conditions to meet the Heller dicta. Anything he gets from McDonald will further refine his future arguments.

Note that Palmer will likely be decided in Circuit Court before McDonald is announced. The two are not related and Palmer gets nothing from McDonald other than moral support.

If judgment is decided in favor of Palmer, DC will have to appeal or submit. Likewise, Gura would need to appeal in the event of a loss.

The judge might find in favor of Palmer and then issue an order staying the decision, in expectation of a Supreme Court challenge. That means it might be heard faster (next year?), as it will involve a "pressing matter".

I don't know. How do you think the whole mess will fall out after McDonald? What rationale will MD use, assuming that the Court does not directly rule on open/concealed carry, but does drop enough hints to make it plain where things are going? How will MD respond to challenges against the handgun roster and AWB list when Heller determined that the "most common weapons" cannot be restricted?

And more importantly...who will fight with/for us? I don't trust the NRA to win.


And if you haven't gone through the latest Palmer stuff, I suggest you set aside some time. It's great reading. The two sides are openly taking shots at each other.

Better than a Grisham book anyday.

 

[krucam]

Yes, read them all. I wish as you do but realistically it is highly unlikely. What I see is the groundwork for future cases.

<snip>

I don't know. How do you think the whole mess will fall out after McDonald? What rationale will MD use, assuming that the Court does not directly rule on open/concealed carry, but does drop enough hints to make it plain where things are going? How will MD respond to challenges against the handgun roster and AWB list when Heller determined that the "most common weapons" cannot be restricted?

And more importantly...who will fight with/for us? I don't trust the NRA to win.

And if you haven't gone through the latest Palmer stuff, I suggest you set aside some time. It's great reading. The two sides are openly taking shots at each other.

Better than a Grisham book anyday.

My feeling in McDonald is that the Justices, having already opined on the prefatory (Militia) clause in Heller, will decide to put to rest the operative clause (RKBA). I could be wrong, but I believe that it won't be suggestive comments in the decision. The "bear" part will be addressed.

Regarding who "will fight for us"...MD is one of the few states, along with CA, IL, MA, HI that need a "LOT" of attention. We in MD have shown a very strong grass-roots effort thanks to MDS and MSI and that effort will continue through the elections in November. Once NRA sees this, they'll jump aboard...

Please provide any decent Palmer links you have. I've only been able to find the initial briefs by the parties...I do agree that Palmer could end up at the Supreme Court.

I hear you regarding this "drama" being better than a Grisham (or Clancy) book...

 

[Patrick]

EZLiving did an awesome job digging up anything good over here: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=23889

And yeah, if I look at the Heller decision and McDonald orals it does seem like some members of the court are itching to address the "bear arms" side of the house. It would be nice if they set some heavy-handed dicta or even outright decisions on the matter.

Like most everything on the court these days, it's going to be up to Kennedy. And he seems inclined to our view views on the issue. And this court seems willing to make some waves.

So you might be on to something...

 

[Boxcab]

Maryland Defense Fund!

We need is to start a "Maryland Defense Fund" to be used against Marylands silly gun laws. It will take years to fight all the battles and anywhere from $500K to $1M to pull it off. The sooner we start, the sooner my children can benefit from our efforts.

Will Maryland gun owners open thier wallets for this? I have my doubts.


-Boxcab

 

[BenL]

Look for Maryland politicians to fight with money.

Q: Why don't more people own full autos or suppressors?
A: Cost. Lawmakers knew exactly what they were doing. Limit production, price goes up. Make the paperwork expensive, fewer people buy.

When (and if) Maryland goes shall issue, politicians will be trying to put restraints on the process. Yeah, you can get one after 6 months of background checks. But we don't have the funds for all the personnel so it will really take 12 months (7 day waiting period? hah!). Oh, and because we don't have the funds, it will cost you $1000 for the permit.

Then each of those things will need to get hashed out in court.

Kinda of a worst case, but these people are zealots. I put nothing past them.

Splitter

+1

If you doubt this technique will be used, just look at D.C.

Heller was a clear and concise victory, right? Don't tell that to those still trying to get legal handguns in D.C. The local government has added so many requirements/red tape/fees/training/waiting periods, that the average person will just throw up their hands and say, "forget it. It's not worth it."

That's exactly what they were aiming for, and the same thing Maryland will do if forced to comply with some sort of CCW ruling.

 

[fcruzcba@live.com]

We need is to start a "Maryland Defense Fund" to be used against Marylands silly gun laws. It will take years to fight all the battles and anywhere from $500K to $1M to pull it off. The sooner we start, the sooner my children can benefit from our efforts.

Will Maryland gun owners open thier wallets for this? I have my doubts.


-Boxcab

i think that many would be up for this including myself contributing a couple $$$ for the fight i think is well worth the expense. I for one would try to donate often as posible so that our children if not ourselves could benefit from as u say our efforts.

 

[J.Q.Citizen]

I would be willing to send as much as I could possibly afford to help my two kids enjoy the freedoms that we should have never lost.