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

[hairba111]

Not to mention that most of those CCW homicides were SELF DEFENSE!

 

[Bigdtc]

After today's health care ruling, courts now make me very nervous!.. Still waiting.

 

[highwayheat]

Just thought I let everyone know that this garbage is still in the current Criminal Law Article as of 2002. Just more liberal smoke and mirrors. They forgot to add the section where this is not caused by those of us that are law abiding and have a clue.

§ 4-202. Legislative findings.



The General Assembly finds that:

(1) the number of violent crimes committed in the State has increased alarmingly in recent years;

(2) a high percentage of violent crimes committed in the State involves the use of handguns;

(3) the result is a substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries largely traceable to the carrying of handguns in public places by criminals;

(4) current law has not been effective in curbing the more frequent use of handguns in committing crime; and

(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.



[An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36B(a); 2002, ch. 26, § 2.]

 

[Merlin]

My gut just took me to lunch. ;^)



Solid analysis as always. Thanks. So it seems that once they start issuing permits, their real impetus for wanting a stay disappears.

As much as I hate to speculate about it in a semi-public forum, I really wouldn't put it past the state to somehow "stage" an upswing in gun violence were they forced to issue permits while this case was on appeal. Whether a manipulation of statistics or something more...violent...bleh, I don't wanna think about it....

I think it is much more likely the news media will help the state with this issues as much as they can, and how they will do it is by reporting each and every negative story they can find that has ANYTHING to do with a handgun. Each year there is allot of stuff that happens that will not get reported during any given nightly news program.

They pic and choose what they will talk about during the news program. There could be 10 killings with hand guns and you may hear about 3 of them because they still need time to tell you about some stupid crap that Charlie Sean may have said. But during this issue, and as we wait for Judge Legg, as well as we go through the appeal at the 4th, the news media will make sure you hear about each and every shooting they can find.

 

[Patrick]

Just thought I let everyone know that this garbage is still in the current Criminal Law Article as of 2002. Just more liberal smoke and mirrors. They forgot to add the section where this is not caused by those of us that are law abiding and have a clue.

§ 4-202. Legislative findings.



The General Assembly finds that:

(1) the number of violent crimes committed in the State has increased alarmingly in recent years;

(2) a high percentage of violent crimes committed in the State involves the use of handguns;

(3) the result is a substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries largely traceable to the carrying of handguns in public places by criminals;

(4) current law has not been effective in curbing the more frequent use of handguns in committing crime; and

(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.



[An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36B(a); 2002, ch. 26, § 2.]

"Findings" are not law and therefore they cannot be used to prosecute you. In some cases, courts can use them to hep determine the "intent" of a law when later arise about interpretations. This intent is clear.

You cannot overturn intent, just the laws that come from it.

You will be seeing far fewer 'intents' associated wit gun restrictions in the future. I think Chicago, San Fran, LA, NYC and others have given up on them entirely. Too easy to be used against you in a court.

 

[esqappellate]

Follow your gut.

EDIT: If the 4th did not enter a stay and MD wants to keep pushing, they could eventually break out of the 4th. But that takes time and energy, as the first go-round for a stay at the 4th is not necessarily the last. My gut tells me that MD will appeal if the District lifts its stay, but that Gura probably would not. It's just not his style (so far). Also, if the 4th also does not put a stay in place then I think MD would have a hard time being successful in a further push, if for no other reason than the appeal and that last stay appeal would probably come due at the same time. Or in a real funny case, the actual appeal is ruled upon before MD's request for yet another stay.

Reading between the lines above- yes, there may be more than one shot for a stay at the 4th. I think it starts with one judge, then could go to a panel. Or maybe it'll start with a panel...esqappellate would obviously know that process in and out. I am just a reciter of junk I think I know.

Motions in the courts of appeal are governed by Rule 27 FRAP. Technically, motions may be granted by a single judge or a panel, but motions involving a hotly contested stay pending appeal from a district court's denial of a stay would almost certainly go directly to a 3 judge motions panel, which is likely different in composition (in whole or in part) from the eventual merits panel. A single judge is unlikely to take that on. If the CA 4 denies stay pending appeal, I personally would be quite surprised if the State sought a stay pending appeal from the SCT. That would take a petition for certiorari prior to judgment and that is extremely rare and even more rarely granted. That's an impossible hill for the State to climb. As a practical matter, the CA 4 is the state's only shot and if Judge Legg denies a stay pending appeal in a good, comprehensive opinion, that shot will be difficult for the State. That's why I am content to wait.

I agree with Patrick that Gura would not likely seek reversal of any stay pending appeal granted by Judge Legg. That hill is too rough to climb and the energy better directed to the merits, which is what really matters. If I were Gura, I would do nothing that would jeopardize my shot at the merits. By the time the CA4 decides this case, we will have a win in Moore/Shepard from the 7th Circuit, probably in an opinion by Judge Posner. Moore will hold that the right extends outside the home. That's really the only question before the court in that case. Our case must address that question plus the question of whether, if the right exists outside the home, the state's restriction on the right survives scrutiny, under either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. A decision from Moore on the scope of the right would be a real leg up for the merits. Why chance bad language on a stay motion from a motions panel before you get that Moore decision in hand...

 

[esqappellate]

No tinfoil required. The state - like anyone - has cherry-picked data that makes their argument look as good as it can. An obvious example is the VPC "Concealed Carry Killers" list.

OMG! 250 CCW Killers in the last five years! OMG!!!


Conveniently left out is that those crimes are spread over 5 years (say, 50 a year) and then again over a largely-accepted population of more than 6 million carriers. I'll let you do the math, but you will be hard-pressed to find a population in the USA that has lower violent crime stats.

It's the state's right to claim claim they want. It's also our right to call them on it.

FWIW, the state has been playing with numbers a long time. They like to claim lots of "illegal guns" are being yanked off the streets, but the actual number of violent offenders who are being stopped is a much, much smaller number. Many of those guns are actually from non-violent people, and also include people who get their guns back or are allowed to transfer them at some point.

And do the math. 250 out of 6,000,000 is .000004 percent. Comparable to being struck by lightning. Odds = 1 : 280,000 of being struck by lightning

 

[OnTarget]

As expected, "Nuttin Honey!"

 

[Straightshooter]

In a strange sort of way I am glad we've had this seemingly long wait from the Woollard decision till now. I think we've all learned a lot about our court system that we never would have otherwise. Thanks to those savy members who had the patience to show us the way.

 

[jkray]

In a strange sort of way I am glad we've had this seemingly long wait from the Woollard decision till now. I think we've all learned a lot about our court system that we never would have otherwise. Thanks to those savy members who had the patience to show us the way.

Absolutley, I have learned so much about how the system works thanks to the like of our legal eagles here.

 

[Braddbdl]

No tinfoil required. The state - like anyone - has cherry-picked data that makes their argument look as good as it can. An obvious example is the VPC "Concealed Carry Killers" list.

OMG! 250 CCW Killers in the last five years! OMG!!!


Conveniently left out is that those crimes are spread over 5 years (say, 50 a year) and then again over a largely-accepted population of more than 6 million carriers. I'll let you do the math, but you will be hard-pressed to find a population in the USA that has lower violent crime stats.

It's the state's right to claim claim they want. It's also our right to call them on it.

FWIW, the state has been playing with numbers a long time. They like to claim lots of "illegal guns" are being yanked off the streets, but the actual number of violent offenders who are being stopped is a much, much smaller number. Many of those guns are actually from non-violent people, and also include people who get their guns back or are allowed to transfer them at some point.

I believe that in some of the statistics they count all homicides committed in constitutional carry states as "CCW killers" as well.

 

[Mr H]

I believe that in some of the statistics they count all homicides committed in constitutional carry states as "CCW killers" as well.

That's right up there with counting 25 year-old victims as "juveniles" when calculating city homicide stats.

 

[Patrick]

I believe that in some of the statistics they count all homicides committed in constitutional carry states as "CCW killers" as well.

They did, specifically with the J. Loughner/Congresswoman Giffords instance. He did not have a permit, though none was required. By that logic, we could expand the 6 Million permit carriers another 2 Million people (AZ population, extrapolating for lawful adults), essentially increasing our pool of carriers. Not sure the liberals in Phoenix would like being cited as pro-gun statistics in our case.

Double the VPC numbers and halve ours. Still a win by a fracking mile.

As if this was a test of statistics. The court already said it was not. If it's too dangerous, pass an amendment. Otherwise, suck it up and move on.

 

[LCPIWB]

(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.

Hmmm, how does one make illegally carrying a firearm any more illegal.
You can increase the penalties, but it is illegal, or it is not.

 

[pcfixer]

Just thought I let everyone know that this garbage is still in the current Criminal Law Article as of 2002. Just more liberal smoke and mirrors. They forgot to add the section where this is not caused by those of us that are law abiding and have a clue.

§ 4-202. Legislative findings.



The General Assembly finds that:

(1) the number of violent crimes committed in the State has increased alarmingly in recent years;

(2) a high percentage of violent crimes committed in the State involves the use of handguns;

(3) the result is a substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries largely traceable to the carrying of handguns in public places by criminals;

(4) current law has not been effective in curbing the more frequent use of handguns in committing crime; and

(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.

[An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36B(a); 2002, ch. 26, § 2.]

(4) current law is not effective because judges put criminals back on the street. (Daaahhh).

(5). I'm really sick and tired of the same old rhetoric about public safety.
That is a tired line. We as a people will not be 'safe' until We The People have complete 2 A right to carry openly or concealed within the law without being hastled by state or local police for being 'law abiding citizens'.
end of rant.

 

[eruby]

Hmmm, how does one make illegally carrying a firearm any more illegal.
You can increase the penalties, but it is illegal, or it is not.

Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Is Gura's brief due today? With yesterday, I lost track of this thread...

1/2 in terms of wins yesterday, but that one loss, is farkin' huge. I need some Gura goodness to print out and read this weekend when I take a few days off.

 

[krucam]

CA4 Briefing Schedule:
Appendix/Opening Brief: 6/15/2012
Optional, Amici for Appellants: 6/22/2012
Pltf Response Brief: 7/16/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 7/23/2012
MD Reply Brief: 7/30/2012

 

[Mr H]

I know the answer to this is probably "could be... or not", but...

What is the likelihood that Judge Legg is waiting for any number of these things to be filed before making HIS final decision?!

 

[esqappellate]

I know the answer to this is probably "could be... or not", but...

What is the likelihood that Judge Legg is waiting for any number of these things to be filed before making HIS final decision?!

To speculate (and it is just that), I don't think Judge Legg is waiting for anything in the CA4 to be filed. I just think he has a million other demands on his time. Recall that it took him a while to rule on SJ too. But, hey, I predicted a decision on the stay by June 15, so don't listen to me. I have a proven track record of being wrong from time to time.