Would This Angle Work?

[ninjaroll]

We Marylander's came close to being heard by the SC with Woolard. Woolard was largely argued as a 2A constitutional right case by arguing G&S violated the 2A. Judge Legg said the right's existence was all the G&S that was needed. This argument didn't impress Scotus enough to decide to take the case.

I feel that another law suit against Maryland should be filed. The best argument is a violation of the 14th amendment, the right to equal protection. The state would have to argue that permits are granted to protect property, not life. They would have to argue that a man who possesses more property than another is more worthy of protecting that property. I couldn't see the state saying one person's life is worth more than another's. They would then have to defend why they gave the permits to some while denying others.

We would argue that a fight over a man's property is likely to result in the loss of his life as well. We would argue that one man has the same right of protection as another under the 14th amendment. The 2A is chosen as a means to exercise the 14th. We would argue that the state already confirms the. 2A exists outside the home because they issue CCW permits to those they deem worthy to carry a firearm in public to defend their property. We then argue that the fact that even just one Maryland Citizen who is denied that same right actually has had two constitutional rights violated.

In order to file a suit one would have to have suffered a loss or be damaged in some way. Since Woolard, we know of over 365 people who suffered a loss. Why are we not pursuing this avenue ?

 

[abean4187]

The 4th has already made their decision on the matter. They aren’t going to allow CCW no matter how you word it. Best to not waste your time/money on this. If you are really interested in this, donate some money to the Drake or Peruta cases since they are our best chance right now.

 

[Mrhyde]

I like the angle.

 

[MDshooters]

"The state would have to argue that permits are granted to protect property, not life. They would have to argue that a man who possesses more property than another is more worthy of protecting that property."

Why? They don't have to argue that. They can just let the MSP keep looking for their magical "We know it when we see it" reasons for CC permits. :O

 

[ninjaroll]

"The state would have to argue that permits are granted to protect property, not life. They would have to argue that a man who possesses more property than another is more worthy of protecting that property."

Why? They don't have to argue that. They can just let the MSP keep looking for their magical "We know it when we see it" reasons for CC permits. :O

Doesn't this prove my point? One man's reason is better than another's so therefore one gets the permit and the other doesn't. That's a 14th amendment violation and this is exactly what the state is doing.

 

[ninjaroll]

The 4th has already made their decision on the matter. They aren’t going to allow CCW no matter how you word it. Best to not waste your time/money on this. If you are really interested in this, donate some money to the Drake or Peruta cases since they are our best chance right now.

Yes, the Woollard case is dead and won't go any further. That case was based on a 2A violation. The next angle is 14th amendment violation. We have over 365 people who have been harmed since Woollard. SAF needs to come back at Maryland and argue a 14th violation.

 

[Robert2888]

I like it, we need to work any and ALL angles. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Mrhyde]

I've wondered the same thing. I've always heard that carrying large amounts of cash was a good reason to get a ccw.

Well what's my life worth? Why would someone with a large amount of cash be allowed to carry when I'm shut out? Because I only carry my wallet?

 

[ninjaroll]

I am thankful that the SAF took on Maryland with Woollard, but I think the judicial doesn't want to address 2A concerns. A 14th amendment case would go farther because everybody has this right. It can be easily argued that Maryland understands the 2A extends beyond the home, hence permitting those they deem worthy to conceal carry a firearm in public to protect one's property. Remember, Maryland may begrudgingly issue a CCW to someone who has received credible reported threats. Stats would show that more Maryland CCW permits are issued to protect property or money than someone's life. This is a major 14th amendment violation.

 

[brownspotz]

I've wondered the same thing. I've always heard that carrying large amounts of cash was a good reason to get a ccw.

Well what's my life worth? Why would someone with a large amount of cash be allowed to carry when I'm shut out? Because I only carry my wallet?

in MD your life is worth ZERO when it comes to a CCW permit. if you carry large amounts of cash the state doesn't want you being robbed of it as if you did, how could they ever collect taxes upon it?

I used that angle and not one word of my personal safety and was granted my CCW with restrictions

 

[Mark75H]

Here's where the 14A argument fails ... as soon as one person gets a CCW to carry someone else's money or property. At that point the "class defined by ownership" fails.

 

[ninjaroll]

Here's where the 14A argument fails ... as soon as one person gets a CCW to carry someone else's money or property. At that point the "class defined by ownership" fails.

Maryland has issued CCW permits to people who are asked by their employers to routinely make deposits of large amounts of cash. That said, the 14th amendment is a civil right of a human US Citizen. This right is supposed to be enjoyed by all with all men being equal, not who has or carries more money or property. So, the argument is valid.

 

[dblas]

Yes, the Woollard case is dead and won't go any further. That case was based on a 2A violation. The next angle is 14th amendment violation. We have over 365 people who have been harmed since Woollard. SAF needs to come back at Maryland and argue a 14th violation.

Go back and read the original complaint, it was argued on both the 2nd and the 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendment argument was set aside by the court.

 

[dblas]

Maryland has issued CCW permits to people who are asked by their employers to routinely make deposits of large amounts of cash. That said, the 14th amendment is a civil right of a human US Citizen. This right is supposed to be enjoyed by all with all men being equal, not who has or carries more money or property. So, the argument is valid.

Maryland does not have Concealed Carry permits, Maryland has Carry permits period, that apply equally to open and concealed carry.

 

[Alutacon]

I am thankful that the SAF took on Maryland with Woollard, but I think the judicial doesn't want to address 2A concerns. A 14th amendment case would go farther because everybody has this right. It can be easily argued that Maryland understands the 2A extends beyond the home, hence permitting those they deem worthy to conceal carry a firearm in public to protect one's property. Remember, Maryland may begrudgingly issue a CCW to someone who has received credible reported threats. Stats would show that more Maryland CCW permits are issued to protect property or money than someone's life. This is a major 14th amendment violation.

the problem is that the 14th amendment argument may backfire on you in this state. What if Maryland loses the case and decides to remedy the problem by revoking all CCW licenses, thereby, treating everyone equally under the law? would you put that past our legislature? i wouldn't

 

[ericahls]

The state would have to argue that permits are granted to protect property, not life. They would have to argue that a man who possesses more property than another is more worthy of protecting that property.

Unfortunately, the state wouldn't argue that permits are granted to protect property instead of life. They will argue that the reason why they grant permits is because certain citizens are more of a "target" than others therefore they need extra protection.

Of course this is all ********. They have no facts or statistics to back up their claim they just simply make an assertion. The bottom line is 42 other states are shall issue, yet they ignore the positive empirical data from those states as if they didn't exist. Frankly I feel the fourth district court also ignored the empirical evidence from the other states.

 

[ninjaroll]

Maryland does not have Concealed Carry permits, Maryland has Carry permits period, that apply equally to open and concealed carry.

I am aware Maryland has no distinction between open or concealed, but the concensus on this forum is concealed is the preferred form of carry.

 

[ericahls]

Maryland does not have Concealed Carry permits, Maryland has Carry permits period, that apply equally to open and concealed carry.

True, but the letter that comes with your permit clearly states that if you frighten people because they see your handgun, that is grounds for revocation of said permit. In other words, a concealed carry permit unless you're wearing the nifty security guard uniform and then open carry is okay.

I bet if I wore one of those cheesy concealed carry badges that you can buy online on my belt and open carried my handgun that people would just think I was a detective. That is until an actual detective saw me and then they would probably give me crap for wearing my gun openly.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Don't just stand there , find some plaintifs narrowly tailored Equal Protection cases , and bankroll them. The 14thA issues are real, and with the right case , you've got a shot.

Groups outside the state would be less likely to aid you , since it would leave entact the ability of the State to have discression in issueing. A comparitive big step foreward for Marylanders , but less of a tool to use in the other anti 2A states.

 

[fabsroman]

I've wondered the same thing. I've always heard that carrying large amounts of cash was a good reason to get a ccw.

Well what's my life worth? Why would someone with a large amount of cash be allowed to carry when I'm shut out? Because I only carry my wallet?

The reason somebody with a large amount of cash is allowed to carry is because they are a lot more likely to be shot or assaulted over said large amount of cash versus you being shot over your empty wallet. Let's face it, random acts of violence, like knock out, aren't all that common. Usually, there is a reason behind the violence (e.g., shooting somebody for a pair of Michael Jordans, shooting somebody for his Starter jacket, shooting somebody for his sack of cash, shooting somebody for his Ferrari). It is extremely unlikely that a poor SOB is going to get robbed for his worn out sandals, beat to death for his LL Bean jacket, or shot to death for his 1972 Ford Pinto.

As has already been mentioned, we need a split in the Circuits to get this to SCOTUS. Think we had a break through recently in California, of all places, but the name of the case escapes me right now.

Support the other cases similar to Woolard that are ongoing in other states and hope they have a different outcome than Woolard such that SCOTUS grants cert. on one of them. Then, start supporting that case even more.

Or, just buy yourself a couple of politicians here and there.