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

[eruby]

Yea, right, another teleconference, then a luncheon, then an awards ceremony, then he will make "The Decision" on ESPN... but all proceeds will go to the boys and girls club of America (LeBron James reference)

Just frustrated about the wait....

This was a belly laugh in an otherwise crappy day.

 

[FRISteve]

I didn't know hunting was covered. What's in season 24/7/365? Anything?

Two legged predators

 

[Broadside]

No, to all the above. If he wanted to ask questions, it would be at a hearing or via an order. Neither has happened. He asked questions, and got the briefing he asked for. He *could* theoretically ask more questions, but I very much doubt that he will do so. I also doubt that he will have another hearing. Again, *could* happen, but it probably won't. It is time to decide.

OK That makes sense.

Next question, would he give the defense (or the plaintiff) a heads up before he issues his ruling?

If he rules against a permanent stay, it will place a burden on the MSP. Does he have any obligation to allow them time to prepare?

 

[Boondock Saint]

OK That makes sense.

Next question, would he give the defense (or the plaintiff) a heads up before he issues his ruling?

If he rules against a permanent stay, it will place a burden on the MSP. Does he have any obligation to allow them time to prepare?

They have had since March 5 to prepare for the ghastly horrors of allowing (spit) regular citizens the means to defend themselves outside of the home.

 

[MJD438]

OK That makes sense.

Next question, would he give the defense (or the plaintiff) a heads up before he issues his ruling?

If he rules against a permanent stay, it will place a burden on the MSP. Does he have any obligation to allow them time to prepare?

While IANAL, I highly doubt it. The motion for a stay placed a burden of proof on the state to prove four things. The time it took to go through the stay motion process should have been ample time for the parties affected to make changes if they were going to, in anticipation of the stay being denied/lifted, IMO.

 

[aray]

I wonder if, by waiting to finalize his stay ruling until after MD filed with CA4, it provides Judge Legg insight to the state's arguments at the next level up, thus allowing him to present a stronger case for the stay. Not sure if that timing is intentional or not, but I wonder if it at least is a happy side effect.

 

[eyesinpines]

No comment on your "whenever, forever" comment. I thought this was hashed out several pages ago regarding his timeline. I guess not.

Your "reasonable expectation" of what to expect from the Circuit is:
2012-2013 Term
September 18-21, 2012
October 4, 2012
October 23-26, 2012
December 4-7, 2012
January 28-February 1, 2013
March 19-22, 2013
May 14-17, 2013

One of those windows will contain the Argument date. Expect another "whenever, forever" timeframe after that for your CA4 ruling.

Many thanks. Yup, I have been thoroughly schooled as to "it is what it is" by you folks who know the "ins and outs" of the system. I get it but doesn't mean I have to like it, or agree with it, sorry.

If our legal system were responsible for planning D-day it would have happened June 6th 1985....not withstanding an appeal by Herr Hitler!

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

I wonder if, by waiting to finalize his stay ruling until after MD filed with CA4, it provides Judge Legg insight to the state's arguments at the next level up, thus allowing him to present a stronger case for the stay. Not sure if that timing is intentional or not, but I wonder if it at least is a happy side effect.

Very eloquent wayof summing up exactly what I am hoping. Maybe it's not exactly jurisprudence that is spoken about among peers at a cocktail party, but judges are people too.

 

[MontyUSA]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...-with-gun-possession-20120618,0,3104309.story

How ironic...

 

[ToneGrail]

Karma's a bitch ain't it?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dimes]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...-with-gun-possession-20120618,0,3104309.story

How ironic...

I'm wondering why he doesn't have a permit. Wouldn't his prior job give him G&S?

How could he possibly be carrying a loaded gun legally?

Why did he even admit that he was carrying? Does the prosecutor not know the law him self? 5th amendment? 4th amendment?

 

[Hotrod Diesel]

Test case?

 

[Mr H]

I'm wondering why he doesn't have a permit. Wouldn't his prior job give him G&S?

How could he possibly be carrying a loaded gun legally?

Why did he even admit that he was carrying? Does the prosecutor not know the law him self? 5th amendment? 4th amendment?

Not to be snippy, but... this whole thread is about pretty much that... The state has proven they are more than willing to change the rules as it suits them.

Now this guy (of all people) should have known that, in MD, he was pushing hard against the system and was ripe for a fall. His atty seems to think it's winnable, which I find interesting (or maybe he sees an opening with all the current court action??)

 

[esqappellate]

OK That makes sense.

Next question, would he give the defense (or the plaintiff) a heads up before he issues his ruling?

If he rules against a permanent stay, it will place a burden on the MSP. Does he have any obligation to allow them time to prepare?

No, not done. He might have the clerk call counsel for both parties and say that the decision will be issued today at a time certain. But apart from that, nobody gets a heads up. Even that is hardly necessary. ECF (e-filing) automatically sends an e-mail notification to counsel as soon as something is entered on the e-docket. And if the MSP hasn't figured it out by now, with the temporary stay in place, a heads up won't help them much.

 

[dlmcbm]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...-with-gun-possession-20120618,0,3104309.story

How ironic...

Don't worry he will have his permit by this Friday that will date back to a few months ago. That way he will be covered.

 

[Broadside]

Test case?

Not if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The fact that he was removed from the vehicle lead me to believe this is in fact the case.

 

[krucam]

Why would we want a potential "Criminal" test case as we're currently at the Circuit level with a clean "Civil" case, having already won at the District level?

No, this wouldn't be a useful case at all. SOOO 6 years ago (pre-Heller)...

The courtrooms are full of criminal handgun cases, many claiming 2A protection, most ending badly for the defendant.

We also saw with the current SCOTUS term, the apparent lack of desire by the Justices to take a Criminal case.

 

[Inigoes]

Why would we want a potential "Criminal" test case as we're currently at the Circuit level with a clean "Civil" case, having already won at the District level?

No, this wouldn't be a useful case at all. SOOO 6 years ago (pre-Heller)...

The courtrooms are full of criminal handgun cases, many claiming 2A protection, most ending badly for the defendant.

We also saw with the current SCOTUS term, the apparent lack of desire by the Justices to take a Criminal case.

Look at how well it went for Chester...

 

[Patrick]

Why would we want a potential "Criminal" test case as we're currently at the Circuit level with a clean "Civil" case, having already won at the District level?

No, this wouldn't be a useful case at all. SOOO 6 years ago (pre-Heller)...

The courtrooms are full of criminal handgun cases, many claiming 2A protection, most ending badly for the defendant.

We also saw with the current SCOTUS term, the apparent lack of desire by the Justices to take a Criminal case.

This would be a state case. The first since Woollard. And someone's gotta have enough legal juice to push it.

They can wash it with the "transport" laws, but honestly we all see that as a farce. Someone needs to send the defendant a copy of Woollard...you'd be surprised the number of legal people completely unaware of the ruling.

That would be the ultimate irony: a former "gun crimes" prosecutor for Baltimore City contesting his own charge in state court based on his newly recognized right to bear arms under federal law. I cannot think of a better contestant. He wasn't charged with DUI, so let's assume he crossed the center line because he was tired. So otherwise, a "clean, upstanding kinda guy".

 

[esqappellate]

This would be a state case. The first since Woollard. And someone's gotta have enough legal juice to push it.

They can wash it with the "transport" laws, but honestly we all see that as a farce. Someone needs to send the defendant a copy of Woollard...you'd be surprised the number of legal people completely unaware of the ruling.

That would be the ultimate irony: a former "gun crimes" prosecutor for Baltimore City contesting his own charge in state court based on his newly recognized right to bear arms under federal law. I cannot think of a better contestant. He wasn't charged with DUI, so let's assume he crossed the center line because he was tired. So otherwise, a "clean, upstanding kinda guy".

Woollard won't save him. It just struck down G&S under the permit statute -- it didn't make it legal to carry a handgun without a permit. He is charged under 4-203 and that statute was unaddressed in Woollard. Unless he can show he was transporting within one of the exceptions in 4-203, he may be toast.