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

[Patrick]

Courts move slowly and this is usually a good thing. These cases are progressing fast, in historical terms. The difference today is that we can all sit over this thing called the internet and arm-chair every filing, the whole way.

Krucam has enough cases under watch that we'll get something interesting to see soon enough. Each of those cases is a microcosm of our own.

 

[krucam]

Filed today...

STATE OF MARYLAND
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TELECOPIER NO. WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL NO. 410-576-7906
410-576-6955 E-Mail Address: mfader@oag.state.md.us
November 12, 2010
Via CM/ECF

The Honorable J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Re: Raymond Woollard, et al., v. Terrence Sheridan, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-02068-JFM

Dear Judge Motz:

On behalf of the defendants in the above-referenced case, this is to request a status conference. In this case, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a provision of Maryland’s statute regarding permits to wear, carry or transport handguns. The Complaint in this case was filed on July 29, 2010. On September 20, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which has now been fully briefed. The motion to dismiss asks the Court to dismiss the Complaint on grounds of abstention, as well as raising questions as to the standing of one of the plaintiffs and making a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to one of the two counts contained in the Complaint. No discovery has occurred. On the afternoon of November 11, 2010, plaintiffs’ counsel informed defendants’ counsel that plaintiffs intend to file a motion for summary judgment by today.

Defendants believe that engaging in summary judgment practice at this stage of the litigation is premature, and have communicated that to plaintiffs. Defendants understand that plaintiffs nonetheless intend to file a motion for summary judgment as soon as today.

In light of that, defendants request that the Court hold a status conference in the near future to address the issue of the timing of filing summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs have stated that they do not believe there is any need for a scheduling conference at this time.

My read is Hansel/SAF/Gura told the state to get off the pot yesterday, they're going to submit a MSJ since Defendants haven't addressed a single point of the initial complaint. Defendants now say "oh crap, we need to talk"...

Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps someone else can give their read.

Item 11 PDF attached until it is available on the Docket.

I'm now wondering if we'll be getting an Item 12 MSJ from the Plaintiffs...

 

[Inigoes]

My read is Hansel/SAF/Gura told the state to get off the pot yesterday, they're going to submit a MSJ since Defendants haven't addressed a single point of the initial complaint. Defendants now say "oh crap, we need to talk"...

That and Maryland admitted it was not doing anything.

 

[kronusthebonus]

Maybe Gansler should stop worrying about robo-calls and focus on how he is going to be getting his ass handed to him in Court...

 

[krucam]

That and Maryland admitted it was not doing anything.

I bolded that 'No Discovery Occurred' intentionally...

 

[Abacab]

It reads like a capitulation but I know they would never do that.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I bolded that 'No Discovery Occurred' intentionally...

Noticed! and blogged! Thanks kru

http://wherespatton.blogspot.com/2010/11/saf-suit-on-maryland-motion-for-summary.html

 

[Patrick]

That's one way to handle a scheduling issue. Expect the MSJ to state MD has offered only flimsy argument on the core issue. Remember, MD did address 2A in their last brief. In that case...we're good to go.

 

[krucam]

That's one way to handle a scheduling issue. Expect the MSJ to state MD has offered only flimsy argument on the core issue. Remember, MD did address 2A in their last brief. In that case...we're good to go.

You give MD more credit than I....I just re-read Item 10, their MTD and saw nothing about their addressing 2A claims....it was all procedural Younger Abstention, SAF Standing, no argument for Equal Protection.

I know I'm sticking my neck out, but they (Defendants) have never addressed the core arguments of the initial complaint.

Regardless, the shots are being fired to start the avalanche....

 

[Patrick]

You give MD more credit than I....I just re-read Item 10, their MTD and saw nothing about their addressing 2A claims....it was all procedural Younger Abstention, SAF Standing, no argument for Equal Protection.

I know I'm sticking my neck out, but they (Defendants) have never addressed the core arguments of the initial complaint.

Regardless, the shots are being fired to start the avalanche....

Check the footnotes. That's as far as they would go, and even that was a weak argument that "nobody else has done it". With thinking like that, we'd still be fighting against slavery.

 

[Ethan83]

This thread is too long to go back searching through it, even though I think this has already been addressed... But, what happens if MD actually loses at this level? I know they would appeal, but will they actually take it all the way to the SCOTUS? Would a court at this level issue any sort of injunction against the shall-issue policy while the case makes its way up the court system?

 

[Patrick]

This thread is too long to go back searching through it, even though I think this has already been addressed... But, what happens if MD actually loses at this level? I know they would appeal, but will they actually take it all the way to the SCOTUS? Would a court at this level issue any sort of injunction against the shall-issue policy while the case makes its way up the court system?

The appeal path is to the 4th circuit in Richmond, followed by the Supreme Court. If MD loses we might see a stay on the ruling pending appeal - that's what the original Heller District Court judge did. Something about letting the horse out of the barn, or some such theory. You know...blood in the streets.

We here obviously think such a stay would be bad policy on a fundamental right. The Heller case did not have that at the time. And given the fact that the state is going to claim a 'compelling interest' in their defense, the argument that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is prone to danger will already have been argued and lost. So a MD request for a stay 'to protect the public' will have shaky ground to stand on. Again, this was not the case in Heller.

I think a stay is less likely. Then again, I am also leery of a win at this level. The 4th circuit is where things will get more interesting. And the circuit is not likely to grant a stay on their own decision. So a win there would carry more weight.

 

[krucam]

MD has dragged their feet. They telegraph this with

"Defendants believe that engaging in summary judgment practice at this stage of the litigation is premature, and have communicated that to plaintiffs"

Hansel/SAF/Gura see this. They on the other hand, have telegraphed a great desire to get these newer cases out of the District Level as quickly as possible...look at Ezell.

SAF clearly wants these cases into the Circuit Courts sooner, rather than later. We'll be at One First St in DC before you know it...

 

[Patrick]

Yeah, seems obvious there is a coordinated attempt to delay these cases as long as possible. Maybe they are hoping for new Supreme Court?

Either way, it's good to push the cases as fast as possible. I don't think we're going to win this case at the district level. Let's just get the show moving along to where we get a fair hearing.

 

[press1280]

Yeah, seems obvious there is a coordinated attempt to delay these cases as long as possible. Maybe they are hoping for new Supreme Court?

Either way, it's good to push the cases as fast as possible. I don't think we're going to win this case at the district level. Let's just get the show moving along to where we get a fair hearing.

They're hoping for a new SCOTUS or maybe hoping a different case gets there first and moots the whole MD case. I've read many of MD's briefs, and there's only a few lines actually addressing the actual complaint. If you're sure of your constitutional standing, you fight hard on that instead of simply trying to get off on a technicality.
Is this conference just going to lead to more conferences,exc., or is the judge just going to put the smack down and tell Gansler that by their non-defense they're going to be ordered to issue the permits?

 

[krucam]

They're hoping for a new SCOTUS or maybe hoping a different case gets there first and moots the whole MD case. I've read many of MD's briefs, and there's only a few lines actually addressing the actual complaint. If you're sure of your constitutional standing, you fight hard on that instead of simply trying to get off on a technicality.
Is this conference just going to lead to more conferences,exc., or is the judge just going to put the smack down and tell Gansler that by their non-defense they're going to be ordered to issue the permits?

Any hypothetical "smack down" of the State by the Court will probably be the result of the yet to-be-filed Motion for Summary Judgment by SAF. I think this MSJ will be a great read once we have it. Nothing new in Pacer when I checked earlier this morning...

I have a feeling SAF will unload on the State's not answering to the constitutional issues, brought up in the initial Complaint and ask the Judge to decide based on the filings thus far. It won't be pretty...for them.

 

[Patrick]

Best case the judge gives MD a hard deadline to respond to the SAF complaint. Then the game is on.

More likely the judge will give MD time to perform discovery and draw things out a bit more. But perhaps under some schedule guidance.

 

[press1280]

Will we have oral arguments?

 

[Nobody]

Will we have oral arguments?

There will be no oral, jusy us getting screwed by MD for many years to come.

NOBODY

 

[Patrick]

There will be no oral, jusy us getting screwed by MD for many years to come.

NOBODY

Badda bing!

He's here all week folks. Don't forget to tip your waitress.