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

[jdramsey]

Keeping fingers, and toes crossed......

 

[BenL]

Monday is it. They must respond by Monday.

 

[Kharn]

What would happen if the state missed the deadline?

 

[yellowfin]

That's the theory, unless they come up with another way to stall. AGAIN. These things have rarely if ever run on time.

 

[BenL]

OK, so here's a odd question: what happens if they don't respond?

By "missing" the deadline, would the plaintiffs get a summary judgment? Could it be a way for the state to save face without actually fighting and losing?

 

[Patrick]

OK, so here's a odd question: what happens if they don't respond?

By "missing" the deadline, would the plaintiffs get a summary judgment? Could it be a way for the state to save face without actually fighting and losing?

The Court will yell at them, could potentially sanction them (if it was deemed consistent and egregious) and maybe give them the stink-eye for a while.

But no, they would not automatically rule in our favor on something of this magnitude.

It is bad form to be late. Really bad form. As in..."don't do it unless you had a heart attack on the way to the courthouse bad".

 

[X-Factor]

With the radio interview a few pages back, it doesn't sound like Maryland is going to give up. The actually think they are correct in how the law is carried out. So. Either they will be late or not, but this isn't the end of it. They WILL fight this one.

Edit: as usual, Patrick, your posts are invaluable.

 

[Dead Eye]

I have been trying to think of a way that the current restrictions (showing good and substantial reason) could possibly be ruled as being constitutional, and, thankfully, I can't come up with one. Since the Court ruled that our 2A rights are fundamental, it HAS to be applied equally for all, like any other fundamental right. To put what you said another way, "may issue" turns our fundamental right into a privilege. I don't see how it could possibly stand up to scrutiny by the courts post-McDonald.

The current "good and substantial" reason argument, IMHO does not hold up to equity standards even under the State's standards. If you look at the current distribution percentages, nearly 70% being issued to the legal/law enforcement community, 29% to the business community and less than 2% for personal protection. The premise for such is that there is a constant and eminent threat directed and specifically targeting the law/legal community, since they are involved in removing the liberties of the lawless. The reality, however, is that threat is implied, and is not eminent. The same argument is used for the business community, in that the threat would be to you for carrying money, drugs, precious cargo, or such, but again, the threat is really implied and not eminent. Only in the case of personal protection is the direct and eminent standard REALLY applied. The State will not issue a permit unless the threat is eminent, direct, and in most cases has already ocurred.
The point being, if you are a citizen, and you are having issues with drug dealers in your neighborhood, and heavily suspect something could happen to you, you will only be granted a permit AFTER someone beats you nearly to death.
A Judge, however, doesn't have to get assaulted. He doesn't even have to get battered. Just the mere fact that he puts bad people in jail, and they MIGHT want to do something to him, allows him the right to carry. The current law, therefore, is NOT being applied equitibly.

 

[Patrick]

The current "good and substantial" reason argument, IMHO does not hold up to equity standards even under the State's standards. If you look at the current distribution percentages, nearly 70% being issued to the legal/law enforcement community, 29% to the business community and less than 2% for personal protection. The premise for such is that there is a constant and eminent threat directed and specifically targeting the law/legal community, since they are involved in removing the liberties of the lawless. The reality, however, is that threat is implied, and is not eminent. The same argument is used for the business community, in that the threat would be to you for carrying money, drugs, precious cargo, or such, but again, the threat is really implied and not eminent. Only in the case of personal protection is the direct and eminent standard REALLY applied. The State will not issue a permit unless the threat is eminent, direct, and in most cases has already ocurred.
The point being, if you are a citizen, and you are having issues with drug dealers in your neighborhood, and heavily suspect something could happen to you, you will only be granted a permit AFTER someone beats you nearly to death.
A Judge, however, doesn't have to get assaulted. He doesn't even have to get battered. Just the mere fact that he puts bad people in jail, and they MIGHT want to do something to him, allows him the right to carry. The current law, therefore, is NOT being applied equitibly.

Best description I have ever read of the arbitrary and capricious nature of "May Issue" permitted carry in MD and beyond.

 

[kronusthebonus]

Best description I have ever read of the arbitrary and capricious nature of "May Issue" permitted carry in MD and beyond.

Agreed. I am assuming that will be one of the points of this lawsuit. If it isn't, it should be.

 

[X-Factor]

Agreed. I am assuming that will be one of the points of this lawsuit. If it isn't, it should be.

Excellent post, however this lawsuit is NOT going after the equal protection angle. Patrick went over this a few pages back.

 

[teratos]

Excellent post, however this lawsuit is NOT going after the equal protection angle. Patrick went over this a few pages back.

That really is too bad. Equal protection is a strong argument. Why are public servants (judges etc.) more equal than the people who they serve?

 

[X-Factor]

That really is too bad. Equal protection is a strong argument. Why are public servants (judges etc.) more equal than the people who they serve?

Oh I agree, but you will have to go look back for Patrick's post that clears this up because it's NOT as strong as what they are probably going to do.

 

[teratos]

Oh I agree, but you will have to go look back for Patrick's post that clears this up because it's NOT as strong as what they are probably going to do.

Found it. Agree that it is a strong argument.

 

[Jim Sr]

The current "good and substantial" reason argument, IMHO does not hold up to equity standards even under the State's standards. If you look at the current distribution percentages, nearly 70% being issued to the legal/law enforcement community, 29% to the business community and less than 2% for personal protection. The premise for such is that there is a constant and eminent threat directed and specifically targeting the law/legal community, since they are involved in removing the liberties of the lawless. The reality, however, is that threat is implied, and is not eminent. The same argument is used for the business community, in that the threat would be to you for carrying money, drugs, precious cargo, or such, but again, the threat is really implied and not eminent. Only in the case of personal protection is the direct and eminent standard REALLY applied. The State will not issue a permit unless the threat is eminent, direct, and in most cases has already ocurred.
The point being, if you are a citizen, and you are having issues with drug dealers in your neighborhood, and heavily suspect something could happen to you, you will only be granted a permit AFTER someone beats you nearly to death.
A Judge, however, doesn't have to get assaulted. He doesn't even have to get battered. Just the mere fact that he puts bad people in jail, and they MIGHT want to do something to him, allows him the right to carry. The current law, therefore, is NOT being applied equitibly.

Best description I have ever read.

 

[Dead Eye]

Best description I have ever read.

Thanks Gents, going through the permitting process has taught me a lot about how "one-sided" this process is. In fact, I officially recived my rejection notice in the mail today, from my formal review. Next stop, court house.

 

[Abacab]

Thanks Gents, going through the permitting process has taught me a lot about how "one-sided" this process is. In fact, I officially recived my rejection notice in the mail today, from my formal review. Next stop, court house.

Did they spell out a particular reason why or is it a generic form letter?

 

[Dead Eye]

Did they spell out a particular reason why or is it a generic form letter?

They spelled out that I did not meet the State's standards, by not being able to provide documented evidence of incidences.

They judicously omitted, sidestepped, and downright ignored my claim that they did not address the fact that I was: denied due process, treated me with inequality, and ignored my Second Amendment Right.

 

[krucam]

They judicously omitted, sidestepped, and downright ignored my claim that they did not address the fact that I was: denied due process, treated me with inequality, and ignored my Second Amendment Right.

Welcome to the peón class with the rest of us. Back to your oars...

 

[Dead Eye]

Welcome to the peón class with the rest of us. Back to your oars...

Nope, I aint going out like that.