MSI v. Hogan - The Challenge Against the Handgun Qualification License Proceeds

[JohnnyE]

What fking scheme will mga go,when the hql is ruled unconstitutional(I am thinking ahead here)?

I'll suggest sending the MGA copies of firearms laws out of Cheyenne, Wyoming and Austin, Texas for them to adopt.

 

[delaware_export]

I tuned in very late, maybe 5-10m. But the woman judge seemed to think that interesting balancing of public safety was ok cause it had been around for a while. And as someone else noted: when she cited the concurring agreement of Kavanugh, the MSI lawyer nicely jumped on it and said.. yeah… but that wasn’t the main opinion. and the main opinion is what they all signed. 6 of them anyway.

There is no historical analogue to an HQL or even required training. It will fall.

 

[Rickman]

That woman judge is worse than our red-headed girlie-boy.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Bruen decision was 35 pages. Everyone wants you to believe Foot note 9 prevails.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

The 4th Circuit doesn't pay attention to when/what a particular state legislature may do, especially in light of fact that if the state loses, the AG will appeal. Very rarely if ever has a state legislature changed a law right after a ruling to subvert the ruling of the court.
NYS changing their law before oral arguments at SCOTUS is not the same thing and can't be used as an analogous event.

The MGA could change the law tomorrow citing an emergency and get Moore to sign and subsequently moot the case. Then what?

 

[SPQM]

The 4th Circuit doesn't pay attention to when/what a particular state legislature may do, especially in light of fact that if the state loses, the AG will appeal. Very rarely if ever has a state legislature changed a law right after a ruling to subvert the ruling of the court.
NYS changing their law before oral arguments at SCOTUS is not the same thing and can't be used as an analogous event.

If politics weren't/aren't a thing with judges, we wouldn't have needed Bruen to actually get judges to start ruling in our favor.

 

[pcfixer]

From the Daily Record thedailyrecord.com​

4th Circuit appears ready to strike Md. handgun licensing law​

By: Steve Lash Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer March 10, 2023


A three-judge federal appeals court panel appears poised to strike down as unconstitutional Maryland’s training and licensing requirement for would-be handgun purchasers because the state’s mandate has no historical roots from when the right to keep and bear arms was ratified in 1791 or extended to the states in 1868.
During arguments Friday, Judges G. Steven Agree and Julius N. Richardson of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were sharply critical of Maryland’s defense of the requirement as in keeping with 18th-century militia training requirements and necessary to prevent dangerous people from getting access to weapons.
By contrast, both judges were sympathetic to the argument by a gun rights attorney who challenged the licensing requirement as “a novel attempt at addressing an old problem.”
“There is no historical analog, tradition or anything related to the idea that an individual needs permission from the government to be allowed to undergo the background check that determines that they are in fact eligible to possess a firearm,” said Marc A. Nardone, on behalf of the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue. “The (licensing requirement’s) individual components, the fingerprinting, the class, those are unconstitutional in and of themselves because there is no historical tradition of those.”
Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, in contrast to her colleagues, suggested that Maryland’s handgun qualification license, or HQL, requirement might be constitutional if it does not impose exorbitant fees or a long waiting period for the applicant.
The 4th Circuit is grappling with whether the HQL complies with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision that gun restrictions are valid only if in keeping with the constitutional text, history and tradition of state firearm regulations when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 or when the 14th Amendment extended the right to keep and bear arms to the states in 1868.
RELATED: Md. high court weighs ban on gun possession by nonviolent ex-convicts
The high court stated in the ninth footnote to its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision that licensing regimes that require a firearms safety course may be constitutional if their fees are not exorbitant and the processing time for the license is not long.
Assistant Maryland Attorney General Ryan R. Dietrich defended the HQL and its training requirement as generally rooted in history.
“The historical tradition is the substantive limitations that are furthered by the HQL law and those are ensuring that the dangerous, subversive, non-virtuous — however, you want to describe it — folks do not get deadly firearms and ensuring the tradition of firearm competency that was alive and well at the founding,” Dietrich said.
That argument drew criticism from Agee.
“What founding era analog do you have, from any of the states, that a citizen was required to have a permit from the government before they could have a handgun in their home?” Agee said, adding that keeping guns from dangerous people is “a generic concept” not rooted in a specific law from the 18th or 19th centuries.
Dietrich responded that the training requirement is “part of the generic constitutional landscape” of permitted governmental regulations before the right to bear arms is exercised.
Courts have used that landscape to uphold the constitutionality of voter registration and related identification laws before the right to vote is exercised, Dietrich added.
Judge Julius N. Richardson appeared unconvinced, noting that Dietrich had not cited a specific historical analog for Maryland’s handgun licensing requirement.
RELATED: Turmoil in courts on gun laws in wake of Supreme Court ruling
“Courts are entitled to decide a case based on the historical records compiled by the parties,” Richardson said. “You’ve done, I’m certain, the best you could do, but we’re entitled to rely based on the record compiled by the parties.”
Keenan said the constitutional question should perhaps be remanded to the district court to give the judge “the first shot” at analyzing the case in light of Bruen, which was decided after the judge had upheld the HQL.
The 4th Circuit has not stated when it will render its decision in the case, Maryland Shall Issue Inc. et al v. Wes Moore et al., No. 21-2017.
The 2013 Maryland Firearm Safety Act’s licensing requirement mandates that an applicant be at least 21 years old, be a Maryland resident, complete four hours of firearms safety training, and not be prohibited by federal or state law from buying or possessing a handgun. Licensed gun dealers, as well as current and retired law-enforcement and military officers, are exempt from the handgun licensing requirement.
A violation of the law is a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
U.S. District Judge Ellen L. Hollander upheld the license requirement’s constitutionality in August 2021, saying it was reasonably related to the state’s important interest in protecting public safety. Maryland Shall Issue then sought review by the 4th Circuit.
Gun rights advocates also have a pending 4th Circuit challenge to Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic assault-style weapons based on Bruen.
In Bruen, the justices struck down a state regulation that required gun owners to show a good and substantial reason for carrying their weapon outside. The high court said New York could not show a history or tradition of requiring gun permits.

ns this is the basic misconception od AG Deitrich:

Dietrich responded that the training requirement is “part of the generic constitutional landscape” of permitted governmental regulations before the right to bear arms is exercised.
Anyone else see this. Where is the generic constitutional landscape ---training requirement spell out or articulated in 2 A
Text, History or Tradition?

 

[teratos]

ns this is the basic misconception od AG Deitrich:

Dietrich responded that the training requirement is “part of the generic constitutional landscape” of permitted governmental regulations before the right to bear arms is exercised.
Anyone else see this. Where is the generic constitutional landscape ---training requirement spell out or articulated in 2 A
Text, History or Tradition?

Yeah. That ain’t gonna fly. I think Justice Thomas will grin before he smacks it down.

 

[cantstop]

Judge Barbara Milano Keenan was the female judge on the panel today - she seemed to think that the case should be remanded back down.

Based on what I heard today, I think it will be 2/1 in our favor - she seemed to be working to try to help counsel for Maryland make his argument.

If the HQL is overturned, that's an awesome step forward, but sad that it took a full decade and precedent of a major SCOTUS decision to undo it.

When it gets overturned, I'm going to ceremoniously burn my HQL card.

What happens if it does go 2 to 1 in our favor? Can I then buy a new pistol without a HQL the next day or is there another hoop that needs to be addressed?

 

[FrankZ]

What happens if it does go 2 to 1 in our favor? Can I then buy a new pistol without a HQL the next day or is there another hoop that needs to be addressed?

It would not be close to being done.

 

[RFBfromDE]

That woman judge is worse than our red-headed girlie-boy.

She may have thought they were discussing a W&C permit instead of a permit to buy.

 

[dblas]

The MGA could change the law tomorrow citing an emergency and get Moore to sign and subsequently moot the case. Then what?

They could, but they won't, not without the court forcing them too.

 

[dblas]

If politics weren't/aren't a thing with judges, we wouldn't have needed Bruen to actually get judges to start ruling in our favor.

Not quite so....I'm sure there have been SCOTUS rulings you have not agreed with, and since those rulings are not in our favor (on whatever issue) is that politics, or just good jurisprudence that we (royal we) don't agree with?

And you are moving the goal posts by saying what they do is political, not judicial as opposed to them paying attention to what any state legislature is doing while that legislature is in session.

 

[dblas]

What happens if it does go 2 to 1 in our favor? Can I then buy a new pistol without a HQL the next day or is there another hoop that needs to be addressed?

Not even close.
If they rule in our favor, 2-1, 3-0, the state will appeal and request En Banc review.
The 4th Circuit may or may not grant that review.
If the review is granted, we wait for that process to work it's way through the 4th Circuit.
If not, the State will request a Writ of Certiorari from SCOTUS.
If they get that, we wait for the process at SCOTUS.
If not, then it is done, and you can buy your handgun without an HQL.

 

[Doctor_M]

Thanks.

Irony: Dietrich is an anagram for "Tried Chi". I think this poor fellow Dietrich went to court today hoping that the state's argumentation could stand by using positive, vital energy and force (Chi / 氣) to defend the regulation's legitimacy, and then carry the day. I believe he was attempting a rhetorical and legal version of this:

Unfortunately, the law and it's defender attorney was ill-equipped for the response, which from all appearances included a deft "monkey steals the peach" maneuver from MSI's attorney, as well as more than a few peach steals from the bench. Ouch.

I don't think these Maryland laws are as robust as one Buck Shelford. I believe today we all learned that if one wishes to avoid the courtroom Monkey Paw, Tiger Claw Fist and Iron Hand and subsequent theft of the regulatory peach, it might just be a lot easier to defer to the clear text meaning of the 2nd Amendment when crafting and defending laws. Only create laws that can withstand Monkey Steals the Peach. When in legislative chambers and in the courts, don't wade into history and tradition. Keep it simple to the plain text meaning; and keep the peach.

And THIS is how one legitimately becomes transgender.

 

[esqappellate]

What happens if it does go 2 to 1 in our favor? Can I then buy a new pistol without a HQL the next day or is there another hoop that needs to be addressed?

The court of appeals acts only through its mandate, when normally comes 2 weeks after the opinion. During that time, the State could ask for rehearing, which stays the mandate. If the mandate issues, it would then go back to district court which would then enter an injunction/declaratory judgment enjoining the STate from enforcing the HQL provisions. Only then, can you tear up your HQL card. SCT review is another route. If the STate loses, and wants to go to the SCT, then the State will undoubtedly ask the 4th Circuit to stay its mandate until and while the cert. petition is pending. Such requests are routinely granted in cases where a State statute has been struck down. If the 4th Circuit says no, then the State will ask the SCT to grant such a stay. There is a good chance that the SCT will take the case because invalidating a state statute is a big deal in SCT jurisprudence under Rule 10 of the Court's rules, in which case the stay of the mandate would remain in place until a decision is issued. IN other words, we have a ways to go.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

When the State loses the HQL don’t think they will appeal. I think they just let it go. Time is on our side. A decision tomorrow would be great but the MGA sitting on their hands hoping for en blanc or scotus would be stupid. Heck since people can get an HQ L with a HGP, almost makes it not worth the trouble or cost to fight. Don’t get me wrong, i said almost. We need the HQL gone, but the JV team should be able to handle from here.

 

[gwchem]

When the State loses the HQL don’t think they will appeal. I think they just let it go. Time is on our side. A decision tomorrow would be great but the MGA sitting on their hands hoping for en blanc or scotus would be stupid. Heck since people can get an HQ L with a HGP, almost makes it not worth the trouble or cost to fight. Don’t get me wrong, i said almost. We need the HQL gone, but the JV team should be able to handle from here.

If the HQL is unconstitutional, then so is the HGP. That's why this case is so important.

 

[esqappellate]

If the HQL is unconstitutional, then so is the HGP. That's why this case is so important.

No, not the same thing. Bruen expressly allows States to use "shall issue" permits for carry outside the home. The HQL applies to the right to acquire a handgun for use solely in the home. Different historical tradition. Listen to the argument.

 

[esqappellate]

When the State loses the HQL don’t think they will appeal. I think they just let it go. Time is on our side. A decision tomorrow would be great but the MGA sitting on their hands hoping for en blanc or scotus would be stupid. Heck since people can get an HQ L with a HGP, almost makes it not worth the trouble or cost to fight. Don’t get me wrong, i said almost. We need the HQL gone, but the JV team should be able to handle from here.

For those who want a handgun for home defense but can't afford a carry permit or want a handgun only for home defense, getting rid of the HQL is huge.