About the lawsuit against MSP

[Patrick]

Rather than BGOS, I'd suggest it's "Battered Gun Dealers Syndrome". Some dealers are releasing now, but many are not. That is driven by more than personal choice. They might have liability insurance with a particular clause requiring the ND. So releasing before the ND (or some other MSP certified option) is going to literally put them out of business.

Not everybody here has choices. Nobody is giving up a thing when it comes to their rights. But if a dealer does something that puts them out of business, I would not exactly stand and celebrate that Pyrrhic victory.

The reason this is in court is because we are not willing to wait. The only patience we ask people to have is with the dealers. Rail at the MSP all you want, but people here jumping on dealers for not doing something they well may not even have the ability to do is not useful. They are on your side, but stuck in a hard place at the same time. I have talked to several who are losing money because the guns they are sitting on are sold, but they cannot bring in more until they literally clear space in their safes. They cannot sell new guns because the sold ones are sitting waiting on MSP. One told me recently that he was selling 125 guns a week earlier this year and could still do it now, except he cannot store any more guns. So now he can only sell about half that. That is half his revenue just...gone. Given the choice, dealers would transfer them. But not all can do this. That is why we sued.

I am frustrated. I ask everyone to aim the frustration in the right direction. Call your lawmaker and tell them this is a violation of your civil rights and you expect them to stand for them.

And yes, I got guns on hold, too.

 

[Shinny]

Rather than BGOS, I'd suggest it's "Battered Gun Dealers Syndrome". Some dealers are releasing now, but many are not. That is driven by more than personal choice. They might have liability insurance with a particular clause requiring the ND. So releasing before the ND (or some other MSP certified option) is going to literally put them out of business.

Not everybody here has choices. Nobody is giving up a thing when it comes to their rights. But if a dealer does something that puts them out of business, I would not exactly stand and celebrate that Pyrrhic victory.

The reason this is in court is because we are not willing to wait. The only patience we ask people to have is with the dealers. Rail at the MSP all you want, but people here jumping on dealers for not doing something they well may not even have the ability to do is not useful. They are on your side, but stuck in a hard place at the same time. I have talked to several who are losing money because the guns they are sitting on are sold, but they cannot bring in more until they literally clear space in their safes. They cannot sell new guns because the sold ones are sitting waiting on MSP. One told me recently that he was moving 125 guns a week and could do it now, but the problem is he cannot store them anymore. So now he can only sell about half that. That is half his revenue just...gone. Given the choice, they would transfer them. But not all can do this.

Again, aim the frustration the right direction. Call your lawmaker and tell them this is a violation of your civil rights and you expect them to stand for them.

And yes, I got guns on hold, too.

In effect-gun control by delay. Manipulating the law into what they really want. That's just my opinion.

 

[Patrick]

In effect-gun control by delay. Manipulating the law into what they really want. That's just my opinion.

Damn right.

SB281 has a lot of room for more games. There are at least 8 places where the discretion to create new regs is left to the MSP politicos.

We're beating a path here that is probably going to be tread again.

 

[Gryphon]

Good point Patrick, that perhaps many have not thought of. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but if we are fortunate and the 4th Circuit decision in Woollard is vacated and the District Court's opinion affirmed, just imagine the waiting times to take a 16 hour MSP approved training course, and to have the MSP review and approve a CCW application. Thank you and MSI - I am sure regardless of the 7 day waiting period issue this is just the beginning.

 

[EHS1976]

SB281 has a lot of room for more games. There are at least 8 places where the discretion to create new regs is left to the MSP politicos.

That's why it's so important to provide comments during the notice and comment period for the proposed regulations. Otherwise, the regulation writers can promulgate whatever regulations they see fit within the constraints of the new law.

 

[dblas]

That's why it's so important to provide comments during the notice and comment period for the proposed regulations. Otherwise, the regulation writers can promulgate whatever regulations they see fit within the constraints of the new law.

They have to open the regulation period first and thus far there appears to be no hurry to do so.

 

[Ab_Normal]

That's why it's so important to provide comments during the notice and comment period for the proposed regulations. Otherwise, the regulation writers can promulgate whatever regulations they see fit within the constraints of the new law.

The lawmakers did what they wanted regardless of input. What makes you think the regulators won't do the same?

 

[Bobby Mercer]

Does the fact that there are no consequences to violating the law moot any damages one would seek for the violation of the law.

 

[Mr H]

The suit isn't about damages or penalties...

It's to make them follow the law so folks can have their firearms as they should, and that's pretty much it.

 

[Fireball]

Does this lawsuit draw complaint against MDSP serving as the NICS POC? This seems to be a large hangup for many of the FFLs who are currently not releasing...

 

[BondJamesBond]

If the Motion for Permission to Proceed Under Fictitious Names and Bar Public Identification of Plaintiffs Identities is denied, will the unnamed plaintiffs Doe (1 thru 5) be willing to proceed under their real names?

 

[Mr H]

I'm sorta thinking one would... but I don't believe they should have to.

This can be considered a public safety issue at that point, where 'outing' them opens them up to potential violence.

 

[Patrick]

There is no reason for the state to ask for that release. They get to depose all the plaintiffs either way. Moving to release the private names would be bad faith.

 

[BondJamesBond]

There is no reason for the state to ask for that release. They get to depose all the plaintiffs either way. Moving to release the private names would be bad faith.

Why does the defendant have a burden of good faith? The State's desire would be to get rid of this lawsuit ASAP. I guess it just depends on how the state responds to the motion and how Judge Fader rules.

 

[JADCecil]

Why does the defendant have a burden of good faith? The State's desire would be to get rid of this lawsuit ASAP. I guess it just depends on how the state responds to the motion and how Judge Fader rules.

I just the Judiciary Case Search and I do not see any special assignment of Judge Fader. Why do you think Judge Fader is presiding over this matter? I do not typically practice in Baltimore County and therefore I am not familiar with their assignment protocol.

 

[BondJamesBond]

I just the Judiciary Case Search and I do not see any special assignment of Judge Fader. Why do you think Judge Fader is presiding over this matter? I do not typically practice in Baltimore County and therefore I am not familiar with their assignment protocol.

He is specially assigned to review all motions. He either rules on them or has them sent to a trial judge for a hearing.

 

[Brooklyn]

Why does the defendant have a burden of good faith? The State's desire would be to get rid of this lawsuit ASAP. I guess it just depends on how the state responds to the motion and how Judge Fader rules.

I know nothing about this. But it is my guess that the state anti that stupid. This is not the kind of publicity they want. And the ruling on appeal can be quite brutal.....

Federal judges have even been known to to president s to get bent.....

 

[Gryphon]

He is specially assigned to review all motions. He either rules on them or has them sent to a trial judge for a hearing.

You are correct at least up until a few months ago (and I have no reason to believe there has been a change) all preliminary motions are routed to Judge Fader. He is semi-retired, but specially assigned as the first hurdle for motions, and I think he works from home. He typically draws up a memorandum and routes it to a sitting judge for action; particularly if there is to be a hearing. He no longer presides over actual hearings, so at most (if it is assigned to him preliminarily) all he is apt to do is make a recommendation. I have first hand experience with the presiding judge disregarding his recommendations. Here, I can't imagine the preliminary motions (expedited handling, John Doe, etc.) would be denied without first having a hearing. So Judge Fader's role may be less than anticipated.

Also, and I really don't know the answer, the Assistant AG representing MSP/Brown in the Woollard case is "Matthew Fader." I don't know if there is a relation or not, but if so, Judge Fader may have a conflict and need to recuse himself?

My guess is that MSP will ultimately respond by saying we are doing the best we can in the public's interest, the statute says what it says, we don't provide legal advice to FFL's, we haven't told anyone they can't release after 7 days . . . here look at this June 1 memo as an example!

Even so, and no matter how it gets resolved, I appreciate and applaud MSI's, AGC's, etc. efforts.

 

[JADCecil]

He is specially assigned to review all motions. He either rules on them or has them sent to a trial judge for a hearing.

Thank you for the clarification. Not sure what Baltimore County's docket looks like, but is it more likely that an "expedited" hearing would be held before a Temp. Restraining Order granted?

 

[Pmbspyder]

Patrick: the 17th will be Monday, can we expect some sort of response from MSP on this?

It seems they advised the ffls of the law, then went haywire when ffls actually started releasing. Any insight to the lawsuit would be appreciated, thanks.