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

[esqappellate]

Sooooooo... back on topic.

From what I can gleen from various postings on the interwebs , the State gets a chance for rebutal (this week?) and then the Judge should make a ruling on the "stay" as well as adding "clarity" to his ruling (next week?).

Any other update/summary?

Sorry bout that. We Are gun nuts after all, right? We can't help ourselves.

That sums it up pretty well. As to when the court will rule the most you can say is "probably soon". Depends on when the judge can get to it. This isn't simple. Gura is asking the court for an actual injunction now under the 4 part test.

 

[frdfandc]

1911?

I have a USP compact 40 that fits my big hands well..but its not a light or small gun and im tall/thin. Im around 6'2" and 180.

I have fairly large hands as well. Can almost palm a basketball. But my carry piece (when I OC in Delaware) is a Springfield EMP in .40 S&W. Fits my hand very well.

 

[csanc123]

If indeed the state can't meet the "4 part test", is the injunction pretty much guarenteed or is it up to the discretion of the judge?

Gura is asking the court for an actual injunction now under the 4 part test.

 

[esqappellate]

If indeed the state can't meet the "4 part test", is the injunction pretty much guarenteed or is it up to the discretion of the judge?

There are two inquiries. Gura is now making clear on clarification that he would like the judge to issue an actual injunction (as opposed to just a declaratory judgment), enjoining the state from applying 5(ii) and requiring the state to give Mr. Woollard his permit. Gura has to meet the 4 part test too. Now the State has the same problem To get a stay pending appeal from even the declaratory judgment, they have to meet basically the same 4 part test test. It is worded a little differently for stays than for injunctions but is essentially the same 4 part test. The two tests inquire into different aspect of the problems of the issue. For example, Gura has to show irreparable injury (that's presumed here). The state has to show it it likely to succeed on the merits on the appeal. The papers filed by the STate and Gura set out the tests pretty well.

Now the burden of proof is always on the party requesting the relief. To get the injunction, the burden is on Gura, to get a stay, the burden is on the State. It is perfectly possible to hold that neither party has met their burdens, thus Gura gets only a declaratory judgment and the state does not get a stay. I would call that a win, btw. In assessing and applying the 4 part test in each instance, the judge is using his "equitable discretion." If judge Legg denies a stay pending appeal, that is a big advantage when the state asks the 4th Circuit to issue a stay. The courts of appeals tend to defer to the district court on such matters. Not iron-clad, though. Nothing is iron-clad in these cases.

 

[Papi4baby]

That Is very helpful. I'm 6'3" and hav extra larg hands. Tough to find the right gun for carry given that.

Just get the glock 26 and be happy.

1911?

I have a USP compact 40 that fits my big hands well..but its not a light or small gun and im tall/thin. Im around 6'2" and 180.

You mean about 190 now.











You are forgetting your mustache.

 

[Jim Sr]

Attorneys for the Brady Center and the NRA will face off in a first-in-the-nation case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, Colorado Monday, March 19. The case, Peterson v. Garcia, will decide whether the Constitution allows Colorado to protect public safety by continuing its policy of regulating who can carry loaded and concealable guns in public.

​

 

[esqappellate]

Attorneys for the Brady Center and the NRA will face off in a first-in-the-nation case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, Colorado Monday, March 19. The case, Peterson v. Garcia, will decide whether the Constitution allows Colorado to protect public safety by continuing its policy of regulating who can carry loaded and concealable guns in public.

​

And today, if I recall correctly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, will hear argument in Nordyke, a case that has been around since 1999.

 

[BUFF7MM]

And today, if I recall correctly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, will hear argument in Nordyke, a case that has been around since 1999.

The wheels of justice do move slowly, holy cow 1999.

 

[BenL]

Attorneys for the Brady Center and the NRA will face off in a first-in-the-nation case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, Colorado Monday, March 19. The case, Peterson v. Garcia, will decide whether the Constitution allows Colorado to protect public safety by continuing its policy of regulating who can carry loaded and concealable guns in public.

​

I can only imagine how that's going to go.

The study ranks the circuit courts from most liberal to most conservative as follows: 9th; 3rd; 2nd; 10th; 6th; DC; 11th; 1st; 4th; 8th; 5th; 7th

 

[krucam]

Peterson Thread: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=45221

Nordyke Thread: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=39874

 

[esqappellate]

I can only imagine how that's going to go.

And the 9th laps all the rest in that category.

 

[Storm40]

Peterson Thread: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=45221

Nordyke Thread: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=39874

I went to the nordyke thread on calguns.net looking for an update... that's when i realized it's not 2:30pm there yet

on topic:
I dunno what was worse, waiting for Judge Legg's decision in the first place or waiting to hear the results of the proceedings on Friday.

 

[one-star]

And the 9th laps all the rest in that category.

The year I worked on a SCOTUS case the 9th circuit was 0-10 for on the court upholding their ruling, we made it 0-11.

 

[esqappellate]

The year I worked on a SCOTUS case the 9th circuit was 0-10 for on the court upholding their ruling, we made it 0-11.

Always satisfying.... One year they were something like 0 for 25

 

[CrueChief]

Always satisfying.... One year they were something like 0 for 25

How do people take them serious with a record like that???

 

[Kharn]

And the 9th laps all the rest in that category.

Considering last time we did well at en banc, and this time the judges are almost identical (one anti passed away, replaced on this panel by a more pro-gun person), so we should be ok.

 

[Les Gawlik]

How do people take them serious with a record like that???

Because the Circuit Courts of Appeal, of which that Court is one, are the second highest federal courts in the land. A party does not have a right to have his case reviewed beyond the Circuit Court level, except in very rare cases. For the Supreme Court to review, it must issue a writ of certiorari to the lower court to review the case. Certiorari is an extremely rare animal. If the Nutty Ninth makes some crazy holding, there's a good chance it will become the law of at least that circuit, and it may be years before there's a conflict dire enough to cause the Supreme Court to review it. And, there's an inertia to any precedent, good or bad. While a Ninth Circuit holding may not be binding upon another circuit, or a district court within another circuit, those holdings will certainly be argued to be persuasive authority.

 

[esqappellate]

Because the Circuit Courts of Appeal, of which that Court is one, are the second highest federal courts in the land. A party does not have a right to have his case reviewed beyond the Circuit Court level, except in very rare cases. For the Supreme Court to review, it must issue a writ of certiorari to the lower court to review the case. Certiorari is an extremely rare animal. If the Nutty Ninth makes some crazy holding, there's a good chance it will become the law of at least that circuit, and it may be years before there's a conflict dire enough to cause the Supreme Court to review it. And, there's an inertia to any precedent, good or bad. While a Ninth Circuit holding may not be binding upon another circuit, or a district court within another circuit, those holdings will certainly be argued to be persuasive authority.

Yup. That's exactly right

 

[esqappellate]

Considering last time we did well at en banc, and this time the judges are almost identical (one anti passed away, replaced on this panel by a more pro-gun person), so we should be ok.

I hope you are right.....

 

[Mr H]

The year I worked on a SCOTUS case the 9th circuit was 0-10 for on the court upholding their ruling, we made it 0-11.

But isn't it comforting to know that the Federal Courts are nothing more than impartial arbiters of the Law, without a presupposed constituency or agenda?!?!?!



OOPS... wrong reality... my bad.