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

[aray]

So far, I'd say some of these concessions make it more likely than I would have thought possible two days ago. I think Woollard just climbed to the top of the nationwide list for possible winners at the District Level. And that's just based on the defendant response. Let's see how Hansel/Gura respond; that will only strengthen the case.

Could we not go further? If Gansler had just argued Heller = home and stopped there, MD would have been in the pool of states with similar positions. However because he went further and conceded so many things and created so many vulnerabilities, did he not possibly just move Woollard to the top of SAF’s priority queue as the test case to push carry up to the SCOTUS?

 

[X-Factor]

They wouldn't appeal a victory at District level, that would solve alot of our problems right THERE, and give caselaw for other states. There is no way they will let this go until they win it.

 

[Patrick]

The other option for the judge here is to say that MD law allows us to carry arms in defense, allow intermediate scrutiny to overrule the Heller handgun guidance, and leave things as they are. It's a half-win, half-loss. We get the right to public carry, but only if we carry a long gun in the process.

That is the decision that could backfire on Maryland, though. Once the carry of long-guns is protected, we can petition (via appeal) for inclusion of handguns. Maryland will then have to back out of no-permit long-gun. Most likely they would argue that handguns require a permit. Then the courts would continue arguing that point.


Note also that despite all the long-gun attention, the SAF has quite specifically targeted the handgun permit requirement. Maryland conceded that handguns are "special" and not like long guns. Why they spent so much time talking about long guns makes little sense. They themselves distanced them from handguns - the items under contention in this suit. Whatever effort they spend arguing that long guns satisfy our right is undone by the fact the argued that handguns are specifically different from other firearms. They cannot have it both ways.

Again, we see lots of circular logic in their arguments. Handguns are special when it comes to rationale to deny the right, but long-guns (not special) are appropriate replacements after the right is recognized.

There is no way that argument can survive intact. If Maryland keeps going down this road they open the door to a court equating the lax restriction on long arms with handguns. That means little/no restriction on either.

I'm cool with that. It's not likely, but possible (more likely is just agreeing with the SAF on shall-issue permits).

 

[Squaredout]

This made me laugh when I read it. "Indeed, police officers are targets
of robberies and burglaries precisely because they are known to keep guns". So if they rob the police who at least can attempt to defend themselves the average Joe is truly in trouble.

 

[Patrick]

This made me laugh when I read it. ...

So if they rob the police who at least can attempt to defend themselves the average Joe is truly in trouble fracked.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Squaredout]

Fixed that for you.

Thanks Patrick

So did this

"providing permits to individuals who do not have a good and
substantial reason to wear and carry handguns in public increases the risk of permit
holders making use of the permit for criminal activity. Although most people who
receive handgun permits in any state are undoubtedly law-abiding, and intend to remain
so, there are many examples of permit holders committing crimes. The Violence Policy
Center has identified 293 shooting deaths committed by holders of handgun permits since
just May 2007. VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER, TOTAL PEOPLE KILLED BY CONCEALED
HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS (2011).14"

Here is the Footnote at the bottem of the page.
"14 The only deaths in Maryland on this list were the result of a shooting at Johns Hopkins
Hospital in 2010 by the holder of a permit issued in Virginia, a “shall-issue” state".

 

[Inigoes]

So denying a person's constitution right is worth .00341 (that's 0.341%) of someone commiting a crime

Out of how many millions given LCTF?

 

[jonnyl]

So denying a person's constitution right is worth .00341 (that's 0.341%) of someone commiting a crime

Out of how many millions given LCTF?

AND your percentage assumes that the person would not have committed the crime without the permit.

Which is more of their flawed logic. Which is more likely:

Good guy get's permit and decides to go bad
or
Previously uncaught bad guy decides to get a permit to avoid a "handgun charge" while between robberies.

 

[Squaredout]

AND your percentage assumes that the person would not have committed the crime without the permit.

Which is more of their flawed logic. Which is more likely:

Good guy get's permit and decides to go bad
or
Previously uncaught bad guy decides to get a permit to avoid a "handgun charge" while between robberies.

Ill take door number two for 500 Jonnyl lol....

 

[Boxcab]

How many of those shootings were "good shoots" and not criminal acts? The VPC grouped all shootings together and MD is calling them criminal acts!

 

[Patrick]

So denying a person's constitution right is worth .00341 (that's 0.341%) of someone commiting a crime

Out of how many millions given LCTF?

SAF quoted 6.8 Million nationwide.

293 since 2007. Let's call it 400 for giggles. That is 100/year.

That means 99.9986% of LTCF/CCW permittees are not involved in violent crime each year. Realistically, what other population in the USA has that kind of safety record?

Surely not the population Baltimore, Annapolis, Prince Frederick or Silver Spring. Nowhere. I would pay good money to live in a place that had 0.0014% violent crime in a year. Hell, I have paid good money to live in good hoods in LA, MD and elsewhere with more crime than that quoted by VPC. I grew up in really bad hoods - I was in drive-by's before they were fashionable. The money is worth it. Trust me.

The Bill of Rights is not subject to statistical analysis. But even if it were - Maryland loses.

 

[bbgunn177]

Well if long gun carry becomes the rage in MD before hand gun carry I might have to add a HBAR to the collection. Nothing like the EBR look and non regulated to boot.

When will the legislature be called back in for a special session to fix this.

 

[DeeDeub]

"providing permits to individuals who do not have a good and substantial reason to wear and carry handguns in public increases the risk of permit holders making use of the permit for criminal activity.

Honestly, not having a concealed carry permit is the only thing standing between me and an insane crime wave! See, I figure if I tell the police my name, address, mental condition, give 'em my fingerprints, and all that other stuff, I'll be the LAST person they'll suspect of carrying out my dastardly crimes. Plus, I'm quite discerning when it comes to the laws I break...a bit of a criminal snob, if you will. I'm willing to rob a bank but carrying a pistol illegally? Please...that's beneath me.


Seriously, what manner of logic is this?!

 

[Squaredout]

How about the fact that out of 17K+ LTCF/CCW 0.00 of all of the killing happened by a MD resident between 2007-2010. The one that did happen in MD was committed by a VA permit holder. There goes the blood in the street defense

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I think Gansler just handed the judge a gift-wrapped option: rule for public open RKBA, assign it intermediate scrutiny -which Gansler acknowledges includes citizen carry of loaded firearms without a permit, and then use Heller's direct guidance on handguns to extend the long-gun concession to handguns. Maryland is suddenly a no-permit required Open Carry state.



Maryland has limited their defense to restricting handguns with an onus on concealment. They primarily argue for a less-than-intermediate finding, but if the national trend holds intermediate is a likely outcome at the district level. So in spite of 40+ pages about the evils of guns and the need to keep public bearing of arms outside the core of 2A, they have to respond to the possibility that some type of public RKBA right exists. Their response is that public RKBA is not "core" to 2A, partly because this long-gun option exists. That is a concession that even under non-core situations, loaded and armed firearms are available to the lawful citizen.

I don't get why they would argue this: that the right to bear arms in public is not core to the Second Amendment because people already have the ability to bear loaded arms in public.

Am I over-reaching here?

The judge ruling for an intermediate scrutiny of public RKBA would mean that we could carry openly, with no permit, the minute that the order is issued, yes? Did I just read your thoughts correctly?

 

[Patrick]

No. You can do that now with long guns.

My point is that Gansler just agreed that under a finding of intermediate scrutiny, the state responds with long-gun carry with no permit. The end result is that the state just said: we respond to a less-than-strict scrutiny response with some form of citizens carrying functional, loaded firearms in public. Maryland may have considered this a way of rebutting the need to offer handgun permits, but the tables get turned quite easily. They agree that armed citizens are just fine. There problem is the object - not an armed citizen.

Maryland has such a fixation with handguns that they just boxed themselves in. Armed citizens are not a problem for the state. Handguns are the problem.

DC tried the same thing. They said handguns are represent a special form of evil. The Supreme Court told them to pound sand, that handguns are especially protected because of their utility in personal defense.

I think Gansler just handed the judge a gift-wrapped option: rule for public open RKBA, assign it intermediate scrutiny -which Gansler acknowledges includes citizen carry of loaded firearms without a permit, and then use Heller's direct guidance on handguns to extend the long-gun concession to handguns. Maryland is suddenly a no-permit required Open Carry state.

To be clear, I do not think this is going to happen. But it is a logical extension of their illogical argument.

The SAF asked for a permit to carry a handgun. Maryland argued the normal Two-Step: Heller only matters 'in the home'. But they then went further. They said that if a court held that a right to bear arms existed outside the home, the compelling need of the state to protect the children is such that handguns are obviated under intermediate scrutiny. In the meantime, the peasants can carry fully loaded assault weapons into the streets with no permit.

They destroyed 20+ pages of arguments on the dangers of public access to guns in that concession. They tried to wash Heller's holdings on handguns away by saying 'for the children'. It won't work. That exact argument was tried and failed at the Supreme Court. SCOTUS specifically said that Heller's right to have a handgun survived "any level of scrutiny".

WTF was Maryland thinking on this one? SCOTUS said handguns cannot be restricted for RKBA at levels even lower than intermediate, yet Gansler argues that heightened levels allow them to restrict them?

Fail.

It looks to me like they have acknowledged some sort of public carry is going to be allowed. They tossed out long-guns as a Peruta-like head fake without thinking of the consequences (Peruta did not involve loaded guns). Maryland desperately wants to restrict handguns in the hands of the common man, so much so that they are willing to go to these extreme arguments.

It will fail at the appellate level. I think there is a good chance it will fail at the district level, also.

No other defendant nationwide has argued that the answer to a concealed carry permit 'good cause' challenge is the legal non-licensed carry of a functional, armed firearm under less-than-strict scrutiny findings.

Nobody.

Again, I think that is damning. I think a reasonable response from the judge will be to combine that concession and Heller's handgun guidance and rule in favor of the SAF MSJ. That doesn't mean we are going to win - only that we should.

 

[Inigoes]

It will fail at the appellate level. I think there is a good chance it will fail at the district level, also.

That's going to be good theater. MD trying to explain to the 4th, they got it wrong.



Disclaimer: I'm hoping for a win in this case.

 

[SkunkWerX]

Patrick, once again, thank you for digging and giving us the play-by-play.
My first and only read was painful enough. if you are going for a third pass, I'll nominate you for sainthood.

Everyone else all excellent points, good humor and even some critical thinking.


Right now, I picture my own personal 2A heros, standing on an Olympic style winners podium.

GOLD, of course, goes to Alan Gura. No explanation needed.

SILVER goes to Justice Ruth "buzzy" Ginsburg, for making sure everyone knows that we ~carry on or about our person for defense~.
“urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

BRONZE , at this moment, goes to AG Ganlser, who has probably, singlehandedly, given me, as a life long Marylander, the ability, in the very near future, to carry a firearm beyond my home, in self defense. Whether it be with a handgun as concealed or open carry, or my HBAR with 100 round drum mag.

Sometimes you win, decidedly, based on your hard work and diligence, and other times, you can't help but win based on the other side handing you the game. Sometimes a little bit of both.

 

[press1280]

Thanks Patrick

So did this

"providing permits to individuals who do not have a good and
substantial reason to wear and carry handguns in public increases the risk of permit
holders making use of the permit for criminal activity. Although most people who
receive handgun permits in any state are undoubtedly law-abiding, and intend to remain
so, there are many examples of permit holders committing crimes. The Violence Policy
Center has identified 293 shooting deaths committed by holders of handgun permits since
just May 2007. VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER, TOTAL PEOPLE KILLED BY CONCEALED
HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS (2011).14"

Here is the Footnote at the bottem of the page.
"14 The only deaths in Maryland on this list were the result of a shooting at Johns Hopkins
Hospital in 2010 by the holder of a permit issued in Virginia, a “shall-issue” state".

When you look even closer at those numbers, you'll find some self-defense shootings and even a case or two of a CCW holder's kids accidentally shooting someone with dad's gun.

 

[krucam]

Patrick...thanks for the fantastic read. I don't think I (we) say it enough but your analysis' are great reads.

I'm looking at MD's ignoring case law (saying THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN THE HOME, SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS.)

I'm just blindly confident that this case is going to win. You're analytically confident. We'll make an optimist out of you yet, but don't lose the pessimistic side "too much"...

Oh, I'm looking at being able to carry an EBR (all 22LR of it) on the Inner Harbor as well....