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

[lx1x]

1 is Woollard got his permit. and 2 someone her on MDS got a permit
for "Self Defense".

Hmm. Former leo?

 

[PJDiesel]

1 is Woollard got his permit. and 2 someone her on MDS got a permit
for "Self Defense".

Figured he was referring to "Stay DENIED"

 

[PJDiesel]

Hmm. Former leo?

No, I think he was simply suggesting what constitutes that "magic" post

 

[lx1x]

No, I think he was simply suggesting what constitutes that "magic" post

ah.. sorry.. what i get from not back tracking the post..

 

[X-Factor]

1 is Woollard got his permit. and 2 someone her on MDS got a permit
for "Self Defense".

And then the floodgates will open.....

 

[aberforth]

And then the floodgates will open.....

Those are the floodgates currently holding back all the blood in the streets, right?

 

[X-Factor]

Those are the floodgates currently holding back all the blood in the streets, right?

Yes.

 

[JMangle]

Sorta back to square one in Cal and the Ninth Circuit.

So is this the new stalling tactic for the anti-gunners?

Try to drag out the court case as much as possible, then drop the law to moot the case. This case wasted 13 years. Man, I don't think I even have any whiskey that old anymore.

So, make me feel good and tell me I'm wrong.... please?

 

[esqappellate]

So is this the new stalling tactic for the anti-gunners?

Try to drag out the court case as much as possible, then drop the law to moot the case. This case wasted 13 years. Man, I don't think I even have any whiskey that old anymore.

So, make me feel good and tell me I'm wrong.... please?

Nope, you aren't wrong. Just a little premature. Let's wait until we actually have an order from the 9th Circuit en banc panel. I have not listened to the tape yet. In the meantime, stock up on 20 year old Scotch. Seriously, the defendant can pretty much moot a case at any time in these types of cases simply by the legislative body repealing the statute or regulation under attack. See Article III, case or controversy provisions of the Constitution.

 

[Kashmir1008]

Nope, you aren't wrong. Just a little premature. Let's wait until we actually have an order from the 9th Circuit en banc panel. I have not listened to the tape yet. In the meantime, stock up on 20 year old Scotch. Seriously, the defendant can pretty much moot a case at any time in these types of cases simply by the legislative body repealing the statute or regulation under attack. See Article III, case or controversy provisions of the Constitution.

Interesting. the anti-gunners, seeing the writing on the wall and the way SCOTUS has been breaking on this issue will try to avoid a case that loses at the SCT level and ends up having a broader impact to all states.

I'm actually hoping our AG and his boss decide to push the issue.

 

[MDFF2008]

Please take a moment from Woollard to oppose SB512, up for a final vote in the Senate on March 21st.

MSI Action Statement:

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/share/Position_Statements_2012/SB512_MSI_Position_Statement.pdf

 

[Rossi357]

Nope, you aren't wrong. Just a little premature. Let's wait until we actually have an order from the 9th Circuit en banc panel. I have not listened to the tape yet. In the meantime, stock up on 20 year old Scotch. Seriously, the defendant can pretty much moot a case at any time in these types of cases simply by the legislative body repealing the statute or regulation under attack. See Article III, case or controversy provisions of the Constitution.

Would anything stop them from, after repealing the statute, reinstating it at a later date? It not, this could go on forever.

 

[hvymax]

Please take a moment from Woollard to oppose SB512, up for a final vote in the Senate on March 21st.

MSI Action Statement:

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/share/Position_Statements_2012/SB512_MSI_Position_Statement.pdf

Will there be a chance for opposition before the vote? This sounds like the same bill we opposed in front of Frosh's commitee a few weeks ago.

 

[MDFF2008]

Would anything stop them from, after repealing the statute, to reinstate it at a later date? It not, this could go on forever.

That's one of the reasons we want a judicial solution. Gura asked for an injunction not only against the current law, but against any future reiterations of the current law.

 

[esqappellate]

Interesting. the anti-gunners, seeing the writing on the wall and the way SCOTUS has been breaking on this issue will try to avoid a case that loses at the SCT level and ends up having a broader impact to all states.

I'm actually hoping our AG and his boss decide to push the issue.

The State, of course, knows all this. The legislative session ends April 9 so they have little time....

 

[esqappellate]

Would anything stop them from, after repealing the statute, reinstating it at a later date? It not, this could go on forever.

Actually, nothing actually stops them from doing that, legally. At some point, the courts will get quite impatient with it, though. It's dumb and stinks of bad faith.

 

[esqappellate]

That's one of the reasons we want a judicial solution. Gura asked for an injunction not only against the current law, but against any future reiterations of the current law.

The real solution is to actually seek compensatory damages. Repeal doesn't moot that. Such damages are not sought in Woollard, at least that I can see in the Amended complaint. There are good reasons for that. Damages are just hard to specify in these types of cases.

 

[X-Factor]

Actually, nothing actually stops them from doing that, legally. At some point, the courts will get quite impatient with it, though. It's dumb and stinks of bad faith.

I thought Gura specifically addressed that in his request for injunction. If the judge agrees....doesn't that foil that as a possible "plan" by Gansler and Co?

 

[OnTarget]

Please take a moment from Woollard to oppose SB512, up for a final vote in the Senate on March 21st.

MSI Action Statement:

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/share/Position_Statements_2012/SB512_MSI_Position_Statement.pdf

All emailed today.

Note: Senator Nancy Jacobs says she plans to vote against SB512.

 

[esqappellate]

I thought Gura specifically addressed that in his request for injunction. If the judge agrees....doesn't that foil that as a possible "plan" by Gansler and Co?

Nope. Not really. A case can become moot at any time. Mootness requires dismissal. it is jurisdictional. As noted above, it is actually easier to moot a case that seeks only injunctive relief. A claim for compensatory damages would not be mooted by repeal.