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

[Patrick]

...

My guess is the NRA will attempt to join this case, assuming it goes through the courts, and offer additional arguments on due process and equal protection grounds. That gives the court a safe fall back.

A fall-back from what? The SAF case is a straightforward Civil Rights case. It involves due process to the extent that MD law gives permits, but only to those who prove a heightened need above the average for "self protection". The crux of the case is that MD uses a standard that restricts the right to those it deems worthy using unconstitutional and somewhat subjective criteria. That by definition (above average need), you are restricting the right from the main body of citizenship. That's due process.

I think you are right. The NRA will probably try another grab at glory once these cases are combined and make their way to the Supreme Court. It's part of their pattern. They tried to derail Heller. Wonder what they are up to now? They've been awful quiet, and that worries me.

 

[TheZman]

A fall-back from what? The SAF case is a straightforward Civil Rights case. It involves due process to the extent that MD law gives permits, but only to those who prove a heightened need above the average for "self protection". The crux of the case is that MD uses a standard that restricts the right to those it deems worthy using unconstitutional and somewhat subjective criteria. That by definition (above average need), you are restricting the right from the main body of citizenship. That's due process.

I think you are right. The NRA will probably try another grab at glory once these cases are combined and make their way to the Supreme Court. It's part of their pattern. They tried to derail Heller. Wonder what they are up to now? They've been awful quiet, and that worries me.

I agree. I misspoke there. Reading Gura's writing on the subject, I'm assuming he is aiming for something more than just this particular case. That is the expansion of self-defense to extend beyond the home. That may seem trivial, but it is not.

In Heller and McDonald, the NRA was fearful that the Gura attempt to raise the 10th amendment from the dead was a loser. I think they were vindicated. In theory, I suspect you and I would agree a SCOTUS ruling in our favor on 10th amendment grounds would have been glorious, but it was unlikely.

 

[Dead Eye]

The crux of the case is that MD uses a standard that restricts the right to those it deems worthy using unconstitutional and somewhat subjective criteria.

Try to obtain some of the required material, based on their subjective criteria, and see if it is even available. Guess where you have to go and get it? From the same people who are asking for it, as I am finding out.

 

[jonnyl]

I agree. I misspoke there. Reading Gura's writing on the subject, I'm assuming he is aiming for something more than just this particular case. That is the expansion of self-defense to extend beyond the home. That may seem trivial, but it is not.

In Heller and McDonald, the NRA was fearful that the Gura attempt to raise the 10th amendment from the dead was a loser. I think they were vindicated. In theory, I suspect you and I would agree a SCOTUS ruling in our favor on 10th amendment grounds would have been glorious, but it was unlikely.

I think that point is key "Self defense beyond the home". In Maryland they don't have to argue "carry beyond the home". Maryland already recognizes that and issues permits. They, however, say that self defense just isn't a good enough reason. He's building this wall brick by brick..

 

[Patrick]

I agree. I misspoke there. Reading Gura's writing on the subject, I'm assuming he is aiming for something more than just this particular case. That is the expansion of self-defense to extend beyond the home. That may seem trivial, but it is not.

In Heller and McDonald, the NRA was fearful that the Gura attempt to raise the 10th amendment from the dead was a loser. I think they were vindicated. In theory, I suspect you and I would agree a SCOTUS ruling in our favor on 10th amendment grounds would have been glorious, but it was unlikely.

I wasn't calling you out, I was honestly curious if there was angle beyond the one presented so far that might come up. If it's anything we like around here, it is playing guessing games.

One thing I will gently correct was the amendment in question during McDonald - it was the 14th. Gura was hoping to use one piece of it (P&I) but used Due Process as a backup. The Supreme Court let the NRA in to argue the Due Process portion in orals, which was a good thing considering who they hired for the job. If I missed the argument in favor of the 10th, I am sorry. But the way I read it, Chicago was making the argument that the local laws should prevail...Gura and Clement were arguing that such local control was unconstitutional "experimentation" with a fundamental right.

I agree - the 10th is pretty much slipping away. It's barely on life support. An all-powerful federal is getting more powerful by the election. I hope there might be some swinging back in the near future. Some of the new cases to use the 10th are not social issues (abortion and the like), so they might get traction. Likewise some challenges to the Interstate Commerce Clause. I'd like to see Congress get some serious smack-down for abusing that one.

 

[TheZman]

I wasn't calling you out, I was honestly curious if there was angle beyond the one presented so far that might come up. If it's anything we like around here, it is playing guessing games.

One thing I will gently correct was the amendment in question during McDonald - it was the 14th. Gura was hoping to use one piece of it (P&I) but used Due Process as a backup. The Supreme Court let the NRA in to argue the Due Process portion in orals, which was a good thing considering who they hired for the job. If I missed the argument in favor of the 10th, I am sorry. But the way I read it, Chicago was making the argument that the local laws should prevail...Gura and Clement were arguing that such local control was unconstitutional "experimentation" with a fundamental right.

I agree - the 10th is pretty much slipping away. It's barely on life support. An all-powerful federal is getting more powerful by the election. I hope there might be some swinging back in the near future. Some of the new cases to use the 10th are not social issues (abortion and the like), so they might get traction. Likewise some challenges to the Interstate Commerce Clause. I'd like to see Congress get some serious smack-down for abusing that one.

No problems. I should not post while on the phone with clients. Stupid clients, getting in the way of my posting...

You're right on the P&I. I have the tenth on my mind of late.

It will be interesting to see how the court handles some of the stuff coming down the pike regarding tenth amendment challenges. Ditto on the ICC.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I think you were being sarcastic. Right?

Reagan did more lasting damage to gun rights than Clinton and Obama combined. I hope his appointees do not share his views on gun rights.

No not entirely. I am aware of the lasting damage that Reagan did to gun rights, but, would you rather trust an appointee of Clinton, Obama, or even GWB or GWHB?

No, Reagan wasn't the best president for EVERY issue you, but neither has any president since him been. Judicial appointees have, in my humble opinion, gone severely down hill since then. I guess we got fortunate when we forced GWB's hand on Myers and got Alito.

 

[Oreo]

What damage did Reagan do to gun rights besides getting tricked into banning full-auto & related items?

 

[Abacab]

What damage did Reagan do to gun rights besides getting tricked into banning full-auto & related items?

He supported the Brady Bill. He signed FOPA - which was the entirety of the aforementioned full-auto travesty. He signed the ban on open carry in 1967 as Governor of California.

The guy gets lauded as some sort of great protector of gun rights. I'll never understand why.

 

[Patrick]

No not entirely. I am aware of the lasting damage that Reagan did to gun rights, but, would you rather trust an appointee of Clinton, Obama, or even GWB or GWHB?

No, Reagan wasn't the best president for EVERY issue you, but neither has any president since him been. Judicial appointees have, in my humble opinion, gone severely down hill since then. I guess we got fortunate when we forced GWB's hand on Myers and got Alito.

Fair. His appointees might be a bit more open on the issue.

In either case, you can bet that any win on our part will be immediately stayed until Circuit review. Though I'd like to see otherwise.

The guy gets lauded as some sort of great protector of gun rights. I'll never understand why.

Everyone wants a hero, and "The Gipper" is one for the Republicans. Unfortunately most on the right are pro-2A, so assumptions are made and left uncorrected. It's hard to have a hero if he was against you.

fightinbluhen51 said it well. There are no political heroes. Just politicians who can be useful at times and in limited circumstances. But they must never be trusted completely.

 

[TheZman]

Everyone wants a hero, and "The Gipper" is one for the Republicans. Unfortunately most on the right are pro-2A, so assumptions are made and left uncorrected. It's hard to have a hero if he was against you.

fightinbluhen51 said it well. There are no political heroes. Just politicians who can be useful at times and in limited circumstances. But they must never be trusted completely.

Reagan is a good example of how far the gun rights movement has come in my lifetime. He was the most conservative president we have had since Coolidge, but even he had to bend to the politics of the day. In the case of guns, the tide was all against us. Not so today when even the most liberal of pols treads lightly on the gun issue.

That's the important thing to remember. Collectively, we can move the needle. Banking on one politician or a party to move the needle is at best a risk. Say what you like about the NRA, they never lose sight of this. They will support a pol from any party if they are good on guns.

That said, a Reagan appointee is much more likely to be sympathetic to our claims than a Clinton or Bush appointee.

 

[ezliving]

Wouldn't you think they would spell the plaintif's name right in a federal case?

Lawsuit: Woollard
Court Docket: Woolard http://ia360701.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html

 

[Process_Server]

Just donated. Hope it goes through. Are there any open petitions to sign as well?

 

[aray]

The Supreme Court let the NRA in to argue the Due Process portion in orals ...

I think I would have phrased that a bit differently, or at least provided a bit more detail. In Chicago the NRA filed a separate lawsuit "NRA v. City of Chicago" in parallel with Gura's "McDonald v. Chicago". The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the two independent cases with Gura as lead attorney. However the NRA was a formal "Respondent in Support of Petitioner" in filed written arguments and was also granted the right to address the SCOTUS along with Gura.

Yeah, I know, I have a habit of making a short story long...

 

[Tootall]

Just got my SAF member packet.Really liking the stickers they sent along with it! Will post pics of them once the camera battery charges

 

[Splitter]

Reagan and guns:

Yes, he is the hero to many of us on the conservative side, but he was not a great friend to gun owners. There are a few reasons I think.

He was from California. While he got elected as governor, it is a safe bet the California's leftist bent was well represented in other elected officials with whom he had to work. Compromise. Check the rulings and laws pertaining to the Black Panthers carrying rifles on the streets.

He got shot by a lunatic. That incident made everyone sit up and take notice of handguns....again. Laws passed after the incident were a knee-jerk reaction.

James Brady was his friend. Brady was severely disabled and nearly killed in that same shooting. His wife (mainly) and he started the Brady Campaign and got many politicians on their side early on.

Congress. Reagan spent much of his time in office with an unfriendly congress. The only reason he became as effective as he was was his charisma. The will of the American people overcame the opposition of Congress, most of the time.

So we should have little faith in his surviving appointees. Many of them were compromises with Congress. Congress did all in its' power to block his more aggressive appointees so many that actually made it into their position were not "hard core".

I really do try to look at records in their entirety. When I look at Reagan's his record is amazingly good. But that doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes, compromises, or that at some points he was just flat wrong. Great man, great President, no friend to gun owners.

Splitter

 

[BadShot25]

Just got my SAF member packet.Really liking the stickers they sent along with it! Will post pics of them once the camera battery charges

Just got mine too. The letter said there's a membership card included but I didn't see any. Did you get one?

 

[Tootall]

Just got mine too. The letter said there's a membership card included but I didn't see any. Did you get one?

yes i did. its white business card size with an orange header bar on top with the eagle

 

[Patrick]

I think I would have phrased that a bit differently, or at least provided a bit more detail. In Chicago the NRA filed a separate lawsuit "NRA v. City of Chicago" in parallel with Gura's "McDonald v. Chicago". The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the two independent cases with Gura as lead attorney. However the NRA was a formal "Respondent in Support of Petitioner" in filed written arguments and was also granted the right to address the SCOTUS along with Gura.

Yeah, I know, I have a habit of making a short story long...

You and I both...

My words were more to the effect of "The NRA had no role in the oral arguments until they hired Paul Clement and filed a motion to speak during orals, which was objected to by the SAF and Gura. Gura lost."

I think that CLement was a great addition to the arguments and I thought the NRA argument was good and helpful. I'm glad it came out the way ti did.

I just wish the groups could work together in a friendly way (instead of literally requiring the Supreme Court to tell them to play nice together).

Part of my dis-satisfaction of the NRA stems from indifference to other groups, but also a severe lack of mission. Yeah, we all know the high-level goal ("support the 2A"), but I see nothing else. The SAF polls its members and sets goals accordingly. They are upfront in saying that they are working first and foremost on getting constitutional carry recognized nationwide. Everything they are doing is to get that goal, because this is what their members requested.

The NRA is a bigger group and cannot be quite so limited in their view, but by no means does that imply they cannot work toward the specific things we want. I think the NRA avoids issues like forcing carry on states and localities because they are afraid. They have power because of their relationship with politicians (and our money), but they are afraid to upset politicians too much. Pushing court cases that limit the power of the legislative would upset too many elected types (who want that power for themselves)...so the NRA won't do it.

The above paragraph is my theory based on observation. So it means squat. But the Internet is a great place to share...nothing of substance. Yes?

Either way, we're in need to both judicial and legislative efforts right now. I hold out hope that McDonald opened some doors between the two main players in 2A (for the moment) and that they coordinate accordingly.

Can you imagine what we could get done if you add the judicial experience of the SAF with the legislative prowess of the NRA and the funding capability of a bunch of people who are used to overpaying for their guns and ammo?

I'm betting that possibility keeps Bloomberg up at night.

 

[pcfixer]

You and I both...

My words were more to the effect of "The NRA had no role in the oral arguments until they hired Paul Clement and filed a motion to speak during orals, which was objected to by the SAF and Gura. Gura lost."

I think that CLement was a great addition to the arguments and I thought the NRA argument was good and helpful. I'm glad it came out the way ti did.

I just wish the groups could work together in a friendly way (instead of literally requiring the Supreme Court to tell them to play nice together).

Part of my dis-satisfaction of the NRA stems from indifference to other groups, but also a severe lack of mission. Yeah, we all know the high-level goal ("support the 2A"), but I see nothing else. The SAF polls its members and sets goals accordingly. They are upfront in saying that they are working first and foremost on getting constitutional carry recognized nationwide. Everything they are doing is to get that goal, because this is what their members requested.

The NRA is a bigger group and cannot be quite so limited in their view, but by no means does that imply they cannot work toward the specific things we want. I think the NRA avoids issues like forcing carry on states and localities because they are afraid. They have power because of their relationship with politicians (and our money), but they are afraid to upset politicians too much. Pushing court cases that limit the power of the legislative would upset too many elected types (who want that power for themselves)...so the NRA won't do it.

The above paragraph is my theory based on observation. So it means squat. But the Internet is a great place to share...nothing of substance. Yes?

Either way, we're in need to both judicial and legislative efforts right now. I hold out hope that McDonald opened some doors between the two main players in 2A (for the moment) and that they coordinate accordingly.

Can you imagine what we could get done if you add the judicial experience of the SAF with the legislative prowess of the NRA and the funding capability of a bunch of people who are used to overpaying for their guns and ammo?

I'm betting that possibility keeps Bloomberg up at night.

I think you are quite accurate in your assement!!
Maybe a crystall ball would help.