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

[Dead Eye]

^

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

That's AG Gansler's weak argument with stating that we can all OC long guns. You can melt every handgun out there, and next week, every perp will be carrying a shot gun. As Patrick calls it, they're "splititng the baby". It's a gun, and you carry it. Innie, Outie, it's not a bellybutton, it's a defense weapon, and therefore, the element of concealment, or surprise, should lie with the LEGAL and LAW ABIDING holder thereof, not the perp.

I rest my case, your honor

 

[SkunkWerX]

fixed it!

You can melt every handgun out there, and next week, every perp will be carrying a SAWWED OFF shot gun.

I rest my case, your honor

Proving, once again, that criminals don't (and never will) follow the law, not even GCA '34 / NFA rules. [gasp]

 

[zombiehunter]

fixed it!



Proving, once again, that criminals don't (and never will) follow the law, not even GCA '34 / NFA rules. [gasp]

Criminals can't even be tried under those rules because of 5th amendment violations. Prohibited people can't file the NFA paperwork because they'd be confessing to illegal possession of a gun, thus NFA violations can't be used against them. THere's a thread somewhere with the actual case this precident was set during.

 

[Dogabutila]

That's AG Gansler's weak argument with stating that we can all OC long guns. You can melt every handgun out there, and next week, every perp will be carrying a shot gun. As Patrick calls it, they're "splititng the baby". It's a gun, and you carry it. Innie, Outie, it's not a bellybutton, it's a defense weapon, and therefore, the element of concealment, or surprise, should lie with the LEGAL and LAW ABIDING holder thereof, not the perp.

I rest my case, your honor

I'd argue that the fact there is a valid way to OC long guns does not still meet the criteria of "keep and bear". What if a person doesn't have a long gun? Are they prohibited from bearing it? No.

CC can be banned AS LONG AS there is another method of legal carry (for handguns). In most cases, this would be OC. Or permitless OC. Or unloaded OC. Etc.

What I'm saying is, there is no constitutional right to CC. There is a constitutional right to bear. You can ban CC as long as you still allow a method of bearing (and not "method" that most people can't do anyways). It's possible to do both.

 

[Inigoes]

You just made no sense, look over the in the attachments of the long gun carry thread, there is a PDF document from Gansler's office dated 2009. Stating it's illegal for OC long guns.

Currently there is a new letter request in to clarify Gansler's remarks on OC long guns.

Today is the day, anyone check to see if the response is loaded in PACER?

 

[yellowsled]

Nada...

http://ia600101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html


Prolly will not see anything till late this afternoon or evening.

 

[Dead Eye]

I'd argue that the fact there is a valid way to OC long guns does not still meet the criteria of "keep and bear". What if a person doesn't have a long gun? Are they prohibited from bearing it? No.

CC can be banned AS LONG AS there is another method of legal carry (for handguns). In most cases, this would be OC. Or permitless OC. Or unloaded OC. Etc.

What I'm saying is, there is no constitutional right to CC. There is a constitutional right to bear. You can ban CC as long as you still allow a method of bearing (and not "method" that most people can't do anyways). It's possible to do both.

Do I have to keep my keys in my hand, or can I put them in my pocket? I can run you down with my car. Why can't I conceal my weapon? There is no clearly logical answer, other than FEAR. It's the same FEAR ironically enough, that the AG, et al., uses as "percieved threat" when making "good and substantial reason" arguments.

 

[SkunkWerX]

We can thank Justice Ginsberg for settling this debate for us.

Justice Ginsburg wrote [in Heller]:
“urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”


".....upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket...."

Sounds like CC to me. It also sounds like if BEAR is constitutionally protected, so is CC.
They go hand in hand, or, gun in pocket.

 

[krucam]

9 people watching a thread that hasn't been updated for nearly three hours....

 

[krucam]

Here you go....

38 - Defendant reply in support of Defendant Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

I haven't read it...yet....

 

[swinokur]

 

[BenL]

So, Gura is "overreaching", yet Gansler's "in the home" isn't a Grand Canyon-sized leap????

 

[boricuamaximus]

The single article cited in the defendants’ opening brief with which the plaintiffs take issue is a piece that catalogues 293 shooting deaths committed by holders of handgun permits since May 2007. See Pls’ Response Br. at 5. Although the plaintiffs correctly point out that some – fewer than a third – of the shootings on the list were suicides:
(1) that does not alter the article’s main point, which is that permit holders do not always remain law abiding; and (2) the plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge the validity of the other evidence cited by the defendants.

They're shooting for "For public safety" BS and the crap about the 4th saying that it deprives government from valuable tools to prevent mayhem.

So I guess that if there's a traffic jam, people will start shooting eachother. How many ways can they say "blood on the streets" over and over before it gets old?

 

[krucam]

So, Gura is "overreaching", yet his "in the home" isn't a Grand Canyon-sized leap????

They're definitely milking "in the home" on its last joy ride I feel. Masciandario and Chester references abound. They even admit it early on:

In this case, as in Masciandaro, because the Permit Statute clearly satisfies intermediate scrutiny even if it regulates conduct protected by the Second Amendment, there is no need for this Court to decide the scope of the Second Amendment right outside the home.

Williams is suddenly becoming more and more important. Ironic that it is the same group of Atty's who'll be handling that one should it be granted Cert.

This case is going to come down to whether the Judge wants to read Heller/McDonald, or whether he is going to listen to Masciandaro, in which case we have another infant mortality issue with "in the home".

Masciandaro was a piss-poorly decided case. I truly wanted this one to go to One First over Williams. MD is hanging their argument on this piss-poorly decided case. All of it.

The WHOLE ENCHILADA is based on Masciandaro.

Judge Legg can look at the crap in Masciandario or the positive example of Analysis provided in Chester. Two 4th Circuit opinions. Or he can look at Heller/McDonald.

 

[BenL]

Masciandaro was a piss-poorly decided case. I truly wanted this one to go to One First over Williams. MD is hanging their argument on this piss-poorly decided case. All of it.

The WHOLE ENCHILADA is based on Masciandaro.

Maybe that's all gansler needs: to give Legg an excuse to side with him. With Legg's background, I wouldn't think so, but who knows? Hell, maybe that's what gansler has been stalling for.

 

[krucam]

For those that need a reminder of the Masciandaro decision, discussion was here: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=54494&highlight=masciandaro

Big Picture time, assuming Judge Legg "buys off" on this piss-poor decision, we go to the 4th Circuit. Yes, it will be "justice delayed" as far as being able to carry in MD...hell, I still don't even have a pocket gun, anywhoose...lets assume we're heading to the 4th in Richmond somewhere around Fall. (9-12 months, were done) Summer '12 we emerge from Circuit.

There are at least another 4-5 cases that are on the same mid-2012 timeline for a SCOTUS appearance. Only Williams (and fuggin' Masciandaro which was fuggin' BEGGING for someone to grab it up, crap, never mind) will make it for the October 2011 (aka OCT11) term at SCOTUS.

We're movin' on up, to thee top...

 

[Inigoes]

Actually, I feel a little better. Gansler and company are grasping at anything they can, so they are not to be the one's who loose Maryland.

 

[haoleboy]

I read the filing and now I have a headache. Thanks to Krucam, Patrick, and others who re-write it in the "court filings for dummies" form.

 

[SkunkWerX]

Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish.

Our Permit System is "normal" and protects the public from mayhem.
Cuz we say so.

If Judge Legg sides with this pile of manure it will be a travesty.
Then we'll have to ask why Legg suddenly stepped in?
To be the "spoiler"?

Why do I feel like THE FIX is in at this level?

It's like the defense only half-heartedly tried, because they already know the outcome?
Without Masciandaro would they have submitted a blank piece of paper?

And, if this really is their best attempt, tsk tsk.
Their hanging their hats on a poorly decided case which barely has anything to do with the matter at hand.

Reaching is an understatement.
Still, I have a funny feeling about this. Everything will be shoved upstairs eventually.
To Circuit, then to SCOTUS.

I'm probably in a pessimistic/cynical mood at the moment, I'll check back in, if a sudden wave of optimism washes over.

 

[press1280]

This will be a loss at the district level. The judge now has an easy out in Masciandaro and will no doubt use it. Hopefully it comes quick so we can move onward and upward.
Masciandaro has a month and change(decision March 24,2011 w/90 day window to file) left to get a shot. Not sure if he's been contacted by SAF or NRA, but the clock's ticking on that one.