CA4 Issues Stay, Expedites Appeal

[m4strmind]

Do you think there will be an armed uprising if SCOTUS doesn't uphold "bear" outside the home? I don't think that reaction would occur. People are sheep. If they aren't inconvenienced themselves, they will not do a damned thing about it.

Besides, say SCOTUS doesn't uphold "bear" or "outside the home," do you trust congress to correct the situation? Hell, as someone around here recently said from the time Heller was upheld by SCOTUS to now, we could have had another Amendment passed and ratified stating the 2A is obvious and that no state or federal authority can infringe the citizen's rights.

I do not have faith and trust in any politician to do the right thing. The only solution is to throw the bums out until enough of them do our bidding.

Besides, why gamble with the courts when they have just proven to you that they cannot be trusted to do the honorable, correct, and lawful thing? Always better to attack from all aides when you have the enemy on the run.

I honestly think there "should" be. Rather or not there would be is not something I think SCOTUS would risk.

You are right about the politicians. We need to vote most of them out. Smigil is the only one worth a Damn that I've seen lately.

 

[yellowsled]

Nope not me... look for the "Puddle Pirate", errrrr. I mean Coastie guy.

 

[rambling_one]

Nope not me... look for the "Puddle Pirate", errrrr. I mean Coastie guy.

I've got my binoculars up as we speak. Thanks.

 

[MDPrinter]

Why am I the only one who is standing up for those whose apps were returned minus fees paid to Livescan. I know that fee is separate to the CCW fee, but MSP surely knew those applicants will lose that money and didn't care. They gave back the CCW fees and said sorry about your luck as far as Livescan goes.

You knew the risk when you sent in the application and the livescan fee is separate from the MSP. Be happy they didn't just keep you $75 and deny you which at that point they could have.

 

[teratos]

those that are "prestay": since they got their apps in before the requirement changed (post stay), it would only seem logical that they would have to approve them. That said, if the original "stay" was dated back to the original Legg ruling, then the "prestays" wouldn't have a leg"g" to stand on. I dont see how they can legally deny them based on the requirements that were actually in place when we applied.

A stay says the State does not have to change its current way of doing things until there is a decision. They could deny every pre-stay app and it would be perfectly legal.

 

[yellowsled]

i guess my issue is i complied with current regulations (at that time) when it was submitted. if the standards were changed after, should I be held accountable for that? Was Leggs stay actually postdated to his initial ruling or did it go into effect the day he approved the stay?

 

[teratos]

i guess my issue is i complied with current regulations (at that time) when it was submitted. if the standards were changed after, should I be held accountable for that? Was Leggs stay actually postdated to his initial ruling or did it go into effect the day he approved the stay?

I see your logic. The courts, OTOH, do not.

 

[yellowsled]

i guess if Legg said in his ruling that something to the effect " the stay is approved and began on the day of my ruling" then I would totally get it. Based there was no set date detailed in his stay order, i would thought it started that day. idk.. i know i am looking to much into it. oh well... Carry on...

 

[teratos]

i guess if Legg said in his ruling that something to the effect " the stay is approved and began on the day of my ruling" then I would totally get it. Based there was no set date detailed in his stay order, i would thought it started that day. idk.. i know i am looking to much into it. oh well... Carry on...

They could issue you one, and then revoke it on the same day....I doubt that will make you feel better. I hate the wait as much as you do.

 

[fatboyloball]

i guess my issue is i complied with current regulations (at that time) when it was submitted. if the standards were changed after, should I be held accountable for that? Was Leggs stay actually postdated to his initial ruling or did it go into effect the day he approved the stay?

When Judge Legg issued the order for the stay the order was retroactive to his decision for Woollard. On March 5th Judge Legg decided in Woollard's favor. Md motioned for a stay pending appeal. Judge Legg issued a temporary stay which went back to the March 5th ruling. The stay was ordered Lifted on July 23 and Judge Legg gave Md 14 days after July 23 to comply with his order to eliminate G&S. The 4CA ordered a stay which overrides Judge Legg's stay.

 

[yellowsled]

im not a lawyer, but just because they change a requirement on a application it doesnt seem that they can legally revoke the permit.


as a example, lets say the DMV changes the testing procedures for people to get their license, would they revoke every driver in the state with a license because they changed the issuance guidance? No, at best the driver would have to comply at the next renewal.


Again.. its just my logic

 

[fatboyloball]

im not a lawyer, but just because they change a requirement on a application it doesnt seem that they can legally revoke the permit.


as a example, lets say the DMV changes the testing procedures for people to get their license, would they revoke every driver in the state with a license because they changed the issuance guidance? No, at best the driver would have to comply at the next renewal.


Again.. its just my logic

The change affected a law that was found to be unconstitutional. The law was challenged and and Md asked for an appeal. Since the law hasn't changed and an order is challenged we are status quo until the case makes its way through courts or legislation is passed to change the law.

 

[teratos]

im not a lawyer, but just because they change a requirement on a application it doesnt seem that they can legally revoke the permit.

as a example, lets say the DMV changes the testing procedures for people to get their license, would they revoke every driver in the state with a license because they changed the issuance guidance? No, at best the driver would have to comply at the next renewal.

Again.. its just my logic

I'm not saying I agree with them (I wouldn't be an MSI member if I did), but it is how the courts work. Let's hope a year from now you are complaining about how you need a new holster because the one you use daily is so uncomfortable.

 

[Biggfoot44]

The MVA *Could* revoke every OL and/or CDL ( there is a difference since the US DOT sets min standards for CDLs ) in the state in response to a statutory change in the requirements. It is very unlikely due to the administrative burdens they would want to avoid , but they *could* .

In our situation the numbers are either 365 or 1300+ depending on whose numbers, but still a manageable number.

( Insert usual debate of Fundamental Right vs privledge, but it still comes down to numbers and administrative feasability)

 

[Merlin]

i guess my issue is i complied with current regulations (at that time) when it was submitted. if the standards were changed after, should I be held accountable for that? Was Leggs stay actually postdated to his initial ruling or did it go into effect the day he approved the stay?

I think Esq said it was post dated,

 

[Vince55]

By the time we get CCW in Maryland, I'll be retired and move to NC.

 

[Broadside]

im not a lawyer, but just because they change a requirement on a application it doesnt seem that they can legally revoke the permit.


as a example, lets say the DMV changes the testing procedures for people to get their license, would they revoke every driver in the state with a license because they changed the issuance guidance? No, at best the driver would have to comply at the next renewal.


Again.. its just my logic

yellowsled,

You assume that one the Maryland State Police issue a Handgun Permit, that permit is valid until it expires even if the justification for issuing the permit changes. That is incorrect. The Maryland State Police have always had the authority to revoke a Handgun Permit if Good & Substantial was no longer relavent.

For example, let's say you were issued a permit because you owned a business and had to transport large amounts of cash. If you sold the business, you would no longer meet G&S and the MSP could then revoke your permit.

As another example, let's say you were assaulted by someone and got a permit issued for protection against that person because they were still at large. Then they were arrest, tried, convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison. The MSP could revoke your permit as soon as that person was incarcerated because G&S would no longer apply.

So in the case of the pre-stay apps., even if they were issued they would be required to revoke them once the stay was in place because they lacked G&S.

 

[m4strmind]

By the time we get CCW in Maryland, I'll be retired and move to NC.

We'll get it.

Maybe next year.

Maybe the Maryland government doesn't care about all the law abiding citizens that could be raped or murdered between now and then because they were forced to be disarmed by an unconstitutional law.

Maybe Maryland doesn't care about all the minorities that could be raped or murdered between now and then because they were forced to be disarmed by an unconstitutional law.

Maybe Maryland doesn't care about all the gay people could be raped or murdered between now and then because they were forced to be disarmed by an unconstitutional law.

Maybe Maryland doesn't want to give people the ability to defend themselves from future "plans"

Maybe the only thing that Maryland cares about is holding the party line.

They will be forced to comply with the constitution.

I do not have a lot of faith in Maryland's government. They have proven time and time again that they are only concerned with serving themselves.

I DO have a lot of faith in our National government and governments of other states to support us in National issues. If this goes all the way to the supreme court, and it will, then this is a national issue and we have the support of most of the country on our side.

What do you think Texas would do if the 2nd amendment was "ruled" unconstitutional? "Shall not be infringed" does not leave much room for negotiation.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I honestly think there "should" be. Rather or not there would be is not something I think SCOTUS would risk.

You are right about the politicians. We need to vote most of them out. Smigil is the only one worth a Damn that I've seen lately.

I don't think there should be...I'm purely war gaming a reactionary scenario.

There are deep fundamental flaws in our government, and it isn't because of our founding documents, our morals, or our history...it's simply because of a bunch of power zealots that don't give a rats rear about anything but preserving their bacon.

And yes...at the state level, Smigiel is a good one...we are fortunate to have someone like him. I hope he gets his judge ship. If he doesn't, I hope he seriously thinks about running for hire office.

 

[krucam]

One week after Plaintiff's Response Brief means Amicus Day for the Plaintiffs...

08/06/2012 72 AMICUS CURIAE/INTERVENOR BRIEF by Buckeye Firearms Foundation Inc. in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: Amicus Curiae. Method of Filing Paper Copies: mail. Date Paper Copies Mailed, Dispatched, or Delivered to Court: 08/06/2012. [998909935] [12-1437] Lewis Hanson

08/06/2012 73 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS (Local Rule 26.1) by Amicus Supporting Appellee Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc.. Was any question on Disclosure Form answered yes? No [998910020] [12-1437] (DL)

08/06/2012 75 DOCKETING FORMS FOLLOW-UP NOTICE ISSUED to Attorney Mr. Lewis Kenneth Hanson, III for Amicus Supporting Appellee Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc. re: filing of appearance form (Loc.R. 46(g)). Appearance form due on 08/09/2012 from Lewis Kenneth Hanson III.. [12-1437] (DL)

08/06/2012 76 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by L Kenneth Hanson III for Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc..[998910048] [12-1437] Lewis Hanson

72, Amicus from Buckeye Firearms is attached. NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund Amicus is not yet on PACER, but should be coming later today...