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

[ezliving]

I think what you're getting at, X-Factor, and what Inigoes isn't seeing, is the basis for a new case.
That new case would be:
"Loaded OC of a long gun is okay in MD, no permit required. Heller says that you cannot discriminate against handguns, as they are the preferred method for a reason. So, ipso facto, you (MD) must allow loaded OC of handguns."

It would take another case being filed, but given Gansler's response (which could be used in that case) it seems to be a clear winner to me.

I'm wondering why SAF and Gura couldn't file that lawsuit tomorrow. It is a completely different question.

Is there a real need to wait for a decision on Woollard before sueing MD for legal OC of handguns?

 

[Gray Peterson]

I'm wondering why SAF and Gura couldn't file that lawsuit tomorrow. It is a completely different question.

Is there a real need to wait for a decision on Woollard before sueing MD for legal OC of handguns?

They're suing for carry in general. You cannot do OC or CC without a license.

 

[X-Factor]

Yeah that would have to wait until after this suit is decided.

Sure they are related but as was stated earlier the judge cant rule beyond the scope of the suit and this one doesn't address it.

 

[Patrick]

We need to win this one first.

Don't read too much into Maryland's motives here. It is obvious they waited as long as they could, and avoided any talk of 2A until this week. We suspected the reasons for that, now they are confirmed. Despite a great Two-Step attempt, they tried a more nuanced argument and may have stepped on their crank in the process. Keep in mind that is the running theory of a few guys on the internet (including myself there) who are not competent lawyers or constitutional scholars.

This group here been pretty good calling these in the past, and we did predict most of this response. But that doesn't mean I - or others - haven't overreached as part of our bias.

I still say we're underdogs in the District Court, though I am more optimistic about this case at this level than any other nationwide right now. Also optimistic at the appellate level.

I just don't see them winning a restriction on permits to carry loaded, functional handguns in public when they say that the answer to that challenge is armed citizens with loaded, functional firearms in public - without a permit. Their entire argument apparently hinges on handguns being an "unusual" or especially dangerous objects. That argument already lost at the Supreme Court. I think Maryland messed that up. I am hoping the mistake is fatal to their case.

Let's see if the esteemed Hansel/Gura agree. We should know in about a month if they pounce on it. There is a lot in there they need to slice and dice.

Note that Maryland specifically mentions in their own brief that they intend to argue for "reasonable regulation" as a standard at the appellate level. That says they are in this for the long haul.

 

[Hopalong]

Everyone, thanks for the analysis. Lots of good stuff here. So unless I'm missing something, what MD is saying is:

1. Handguns are bad because they're easily concealable and criminals use them.
2. Law-abiding citizens don't need a permit to carry handguns because they can already OC long arms in MD.
3. If a law-abiding citizen really feels they need a carry permit for a handgun, they can get one anyways if they can show 'good and substantial' cause.

Where these arguments fail:

1. SCOTUS has already said that you cannot differentiate between long arms and handguns.
2. SCOTUS has already said that self defense is a 'good and substantial' cause for individuals to bear functional firearms.


I'm thinking about possible outcomes here. Would one possible outcome be that the judge does not strike 'good and substantial' from the MD carry requirements but instead requires (based on the rulings from Heller and McDonald) that 'G&S' is met simply by the applicant saying 'self defense' on the permit application (as opposd to providing documentation)? This seems like the most straightforward solution from a judge's standpoint (incorporates SCOTUS rulings, doesn't change laws on the books), although I'm sure we would all much rather see G&S struck completely.

 

[X-Factor]

Everyone, thanks for the analysis. Lots of good stuff here. So unless I'm missing something, what MD is saying is:

1. Handguns are bad because they're easily concealable and criminals use them.
2. Law-abiding citizens don't need a permit to carry handguns because they can already OC long arms in MD.
3. If a law-abiding citizen really feels they need a carry permit for a handgun, they can get one anyways if they can show 'good and substantial' cause.

Where these arguments fail:

1. SCOTUS has already said that you cannot differentiate between long arms and handguns.
2. SCOTUS has already said that self defense is a 'good and substantial' cause for individuals to bear functional firearms.


I'm thinking about possible outcomes here. Would one possible outcome be that the judge does not strike 'good and substantial' from the MD carry requirements but instead requires (based on the rulings from Heller and McDonald) that 'G&S' is met simply by the applicant saying 'self defense' on the permit application (as opposd to providing documentation)? This seems like the most straightforward solution from a judge's standpoint (incorporates SCOTUS rulings, doesn't change laws on the books), although I'm sure we would all much rather see G&S struck completely.

That seems like a fairly good consolidation of the thread.

 

[knownalien]

this is the "rabid chinchilla" defense. the law doesn't specifically prohibit it, so it must be legal. who knew OC of loaded long guns was legal?? Hell, isn't there thread after thread after thread in this forum about transporting firearms and how to do it legally . . . much less going into superfresh with it?? and after we figure it out, someone else pops in with some other part of the law that affects that?! I guess I can OC a rabid chinchilla on my back because it is not expressly prohibited.

 

[Inigoes]

this is the "rabid chinchilla" defense. the law doesn't specifically prohibit it, so it must be legal. who knew OC of loaded long guns was legal?? Hell, isn't there thread after thread after thread in this forum about transporting firearms and how to do it legally . . .

Yes, the long gun subject has been discussed on here, but no one wanted to be the test case.

The sticky wicket in the long gun discussion is transporting in a vehicle.
§ 4-209. Regulation of weapons and ammunition.

(i) the handgun, rifle, or shotgun is unloaded;

 

[Patrick]

Everyone, thanks for the analysis. Lots of good stuff here. So unless I'm missing something, what MD is saying is:

1. Handguns are bad because they're easily concealable and criminals use them.
2. Law-abiding citizens don't need a permit to carry handguns because they can already OC long arms in MD.
3. If a law-abiding citizen really feels they need a carry permit for a handgun, they can get one anyways if they can show 'good and substantial' cause.

Where these arguments fail:

1. SCOTUS has already said that you cannot differentiate between long arms and handguns.
2. SCOTUS has already said that self defense is a 'good and substantial' cause for individuals to bear functional firearms.

Excellent summary. To pick a (small) nit, the Supreme Court did find a difference between long guns and handguns and did not see them differently. SCOTUS said that handguns are particularly well suited to personal defense, as evidenced by being the overwhelming choice of people who exercise the right. As a result, they were particularly protected as effective for personal defense.

When it comes to personal defense, SCOTUS ruled handguns were deserving of special protection - above and beyond long guns - due to the facility, ease of use and effectiveness of those arms.

That's where Maryland is getting it wrong. They proposed long guns under intermediate scrutiny for citizen personal defense. They opened the door to citizens carrying arms at less-than-strict levels of scrutiny. The problem is they cannot surmount direction (not dicta) of SCOTUS on handguns for personal defense - where the court said that the ban on RKBA of handguns could not survive "any standard of scrutiny."

I'm thinking about possible outcomes here. Would one possible outcome be that the judge does not strike 'good and substantial' from the MD carry requirements but instead requires (based on the rulings from Heller and McDonald) that 'G&S' is met simply by the applicant saying 'self defense' on the permit application (as opposd to providing documentation)? This seems like the most straightforward solution from a judge's standpoint (incorporates SCOTUS rulings, doesn't change laws on the books), although I'm sure we would all much rather see G&S struck completely.

Anything is possible. In this case it seems that both "six" and "half a dozen" equate to the same thing. But in the event we win, it's better to just grant the MSJ per SAF request and just strike the clause. I think that is the safer option, because it clearly eliminates the possibility that more creative requirements for good cause will need to be argued in the future. It is clear and direct: the state may not condition the right to bear arms on cause. The alternative offers the idea that the state just needs to create a "better" good cause requirement - and we all know they will try.

 

[X-Factor]

this is the "rabid chinchilla" defense. the law doesn't specifically prohibit it, so it must be legal. who knew OC of loaded long guns was legal?? Hell, isn't there thread after thread after thread in this forum about transporting firearms and how to do it legally . . . much less going into superfresh with it?? and after we figure it out, someone else pops in with some other part of the law that affects that?! I guess I can OC a rabid chinchilla on my back because it is not expressly prohibited.

That's the POINT of law, to only make illegal certain things, not address all things. Legal activity is a given, no need to say "You CAN do this" in law. Law is a "negative" in that what you CAN'T do is illegal and written, and what you CAN do is NOT said.

However, some things WILL hem you up....like carrying a slung 870 into Giant. TECHNICALLY the law doesn't mention it...but it's a guarantee that you will get negative ( ) attention because of it.

 

[jonnyl]

Yes, the long gun subject has been discussed on here, but no one wanted to be the test case.

The sticky wicket in the long gun discussion is transporting in a vehicle.
§ 4-209. Regulation of weapons and ammunition.

If I'm reading correctly, that lowercase (i) is under 3 which seems to be only in reference to surrender of a firearm due to a court order.

Are there other "unloaded in vehicle" statutes that aren't specific to hunting?

(3) A county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may not prohibit the transportation of an item listed in subsection (a) of this section by a person who is carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the item, if:


(i) the handgun, rifle, or shotgun is unloaded;

 

[ToneGrail]

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?

I have a better chance of being shot and killed by a crooked cop here in Baltimore.

Recently there were 2 deputies that were arrested for assault with a firearm and of course we can't forget Tshamba, who killed the Marine.

 

[X-Factor]

"I have a better chance of being shot and killed by a STRAY bullet here in Baltimore" would be a better statement...the cop bashing is uncalled for.

 

[Inigoes]

Are there other "unloaded in vehicle" statutes that aren't specific to hunting?

4-203 as relating only to handguns

 

[pcfixer]

"I have a better chance of being shot and killed by a STRAY bullet here in Baltimore" would be a better statement..
.the cop bashing is uncalled for.

Agreed by me. Our police (cops) and county sheriffs' are the good people.

 

[ToneGrail]

"I have a better chance of being shot and killed by a STRAY bullet here in Baltimore" would be a better statement...the cop bashing is uncalled for.

No disrespect for cops intended. As you may or may not know, I am a county Aux Officer. Out of anyone I would be the last person to have a bias against LE.

I am just making the point that there have been a higher percentage of cops committing firearm crimes (albeit extremely rare) here in MD than permit holders, my point being that permit holders are even more law-abiding than LE. I wasn't trying to make a generalization that Baltimore cops are crooked.

 

[Ethan83]

"I have a better chance of being shot and killed by a STRAY bullet here in Baltimore" would be a better statement...the cop bashing is uncalled for.

Except that that's not true. How many innocents were killed by stray bullets recently, as opposed to murdering cops? Unfortunately, the latter has taken the lead in the past few years.

But as the poster said, they were trying to compare cops to CCW holders, showing that CCW holders are no more dangerous (and in fact quite the opposite). Facts is facts.

 

[kronusthebonus]

I'd love to see what they'd say when someone starts walking around a SBR 9MM AR15 around the inner harb slung to his chest

 

[X-Factor]

Right, and maybe the STATISTICS evidence your point, but at minimum its inflammatory.

 

[BenL]

Let's please stay on topic. This thread has made it 115 pages without the usual childish ********.

So, what's the time-frame for the next big step in this case? What is the deadline for Gura et al to respond?