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

[AvidRider]

Hopefully after the 7/21/11 hearing, I can start printing off bumper stickers to hand out that say:

"SAF - 1, MARYLAND - 0"

 

[MDFF2008]

Pure Hoplophobic rhetoric designed to bolster the idea that a gun is going to leap up off the table and hurt someone.

Do not question the magic guns

 

[Inigoes]

Do not question the magic guns

Shush,

They're for judgment day, when the machines arise.

 

[OCSlacker]

Shush,

They're for judgment day, when the machines arise.

First with the zombies, now with the machines...when will the hip retro trends end!

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

Anybody concerned that this will wind up sitting in limbo somewhere in Legg's office, the way Palmer v. DC has been sitting in Kennedy's since last fall? What legal recourse do we have if they try that strategy?

 

[Dogabutila]

Williams.

xD

 

[Kharn]

Williams will be the boot in the seat of the pants for many carry cases across the country. The Supreme Court holds themselves to a rigid schedule for all but the most exceptional cases so we will have some answer from them no later than 30 June 2012.

 

[INMY01TA]

Williams will be the boot in the seat of the pants for many carry cases across the country. The Supreme Court holds themselves to a rigid schedule for all but the most exceptional cases so we will have some answer from them no later than 30 June 2012.

If they take the case correct? If my memory serves me right, one of the justices (Breyer?) that votes our way is always on the fence isn't he?

 

[Dogabutila]

Breyer isnt one of the good guys. I think you are thinking about Kennedy. And yea on a lot of 'conservative' issues hes sometimes with and sometimes for but on 2A issues he seems pretty solidly with the good guys.

 

[Inigoes]

So noone wants to pay the fee to recap the BRADY Amicus?????

That's funny.

 

[yellowsled]

I think we all have a really good idea what the Brady Amicus brief contains. The same stuff in my babys diaper.

 

[Mr H]

So noone wants to pay the fee to recap the BRADY Amicus?????

That's funny.

Guns are bad, mmm-kay?
--The "Brady Bunch"

 

[Inigoes]

I think we all have a really good idea what the Brady Amicus brief contains. The same stuff in my babys diaper.

Guns are bad, mmm-kay?

Call me a tin foiler, but I think there is a possibility that Nordyke might rear it's head and bite us somehow.

Nordyke was a long read, and quite a bit of anti-2A verbiage that can be used.

 

[yellowsled]

I am very excited to finally express my 2A rights, but I am not counting my chickens before they hatch, or is it wait until the fat lady sings, or .... anyways, I think you know where Im going with this. Its a toss up, and its in the courts hands now.

 

[frozencesium]

# 37 posted!
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.37.0.pdf

Amicus Brief in Support of 25 Cross MOTION of Defendants for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to 12 , 21 MOTION of Plaintiffs for Summary Judgment filed by Legal Community Against Violence. (Filed as of 4/21/11) (hmls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

I'll admit, I only scanned it...but from what I read, it's an air-ball.

While they bring up cases in which the courts refused to go so far as to protect the 2A as much as the 1A, they also (conveniently) neglect to mention these cases were pre-McDonald, so incorporation didn't exist for the 2A at the time. I have no doubt Judge Legg will note this omission and the fact that this timing was not dealt with at all.

As predicted there was a lot of "The SCOTUS didn't mean what it said in Heller" and "The 2A is still different than the other amendments because we say so" and "guns are bad m'kay..."

Again, my uniformed read as a computer geek says "air-ball" with this brief.

 

[Dogabutila]

Again, my uniformed read as a computer geek says "air-ball" with this brief.

Computer geeks are pretty good at logic, but come on. We are the brady bunch and we obviously know more about guns and crime and the law then you do because we talk about it professionally. We're good like Kobe and the Lakers ...... wait... uh..

 

[JMangle]

Ruling in federal court

How much is this going to hurt us? Or help us (get us to SCOUS?)

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/16/3631518/federal-judge-rules-against-calif.html

Apparently the judge said that the 2nd "does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public."

.... Not happy about this one at all.

 

[Dogabutila]

^

It's technically true if there is another legal method of carry available.

 

[Kharn]

That is another reason why MD created the perfect test case with Williams, CA messes around with exactly how you move your handgun, while MD just says its a handgun and you can't take it with you.

 

[Patrick]

How much is this going to hurt us? Or help us (get us to SCOUS?)

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/16/3631518/federal-judge-rules-against-calif.html

Apparently the judge said that the 2nd "does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public."

.... Not happy about this one at all.

Not much. Back when McDonald won we all predicted a lot of cases and a lot of losses would result. We only need one good case and one good ruling from SCOTUS to win this round.

The next question is "Why is the SAF and NRA still filing all these cases with so many all already in the pipeline? All those cases are going to lose, and the ones filed last year are going to get to SCOTUS faster."

The answer is: "Because when we win one big case, we win them all."

Our side is literally leaving a trail of breadcrumbs everywhere. These little legal bookmarks will be used to rapidly reverse bad policies nationwide, in one really fast set of post-SCOTUS maneuvers. Every one of those losses can later be converted into wins. It's a constitutional "mulligan".

We are going to lose a lot of cases. Expect us to lose Woollard in the first two courts it reaches. But don't be discouraged. I like to look at how we lose - meaning the arguments used to knock the complaint down. So far, losses across the nation have come at the hands of reasoning that places the bearing of arms outside the core of the second amendment. That is a good thing, because if our side is correct then all of that reasoning is faulted, and later reversed. That means all those "losses" turn into eventual wins. And there are going to be many losses (see where this is going?).

The effect is that gun control nationwide will take a hit that makes Heller look like a gentle nudge.

The previous cases have been about establishing fundamentals. They had some limited local effects, but mostly they did not affect the rest of America. A pro-carry case would have nationwide effects, even in shall-issue states like Florida.

The next round of questions has already begun: eligibility, commerce, practices and permits are next on the list and already some cases are rolling. The goal is simple: a systematic and progressive destruction of unconstitutional gun control schemes nationwide. And where the score counts, we are still winning by a mile.