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

[krucam]

Thanks for the easy to understand explanation of where we are. I really appreciate you and others for taking the time to keep us updated.

Sounded to me like Patrick needs a dance partner....

2 Plaintiff documents are out there awaiting a response from MD. OK, MD responded to the initial Pltf complaint with a MTD...so perhaps with only a mildly amended complaint (bumping up the Equal Protection argument), we're done with the complaint, solely for the Judge's determination at this point.


That still leaves Pltf MSJ submitted November 15th outstanding.

On November 17th, Judge Motz put out:

Dear Counsel:
This will confirm, as I ruled during the telephone conference held last week, that defendants need not respond to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion until I have ruled upon defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Very truly yours,
/s/
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge

http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.15.0.pdf

Defendant MTD was dismissed, it is time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff MSJ.

Final answer, Regis.

NONE of the above considers Chester...it was prior.

 

[SkunkWerX]

The silence from Gansler/Maryland is deafening.

tick tick tick tick....

Can the defendants in this case do something as mundane as ask Judge Motz for additional time? If so, what is a reasonable amount? 14 more days? 21? 30?

 

[ThumperIII]

In the judge's 'one thing at a time' timeline, would he not currently be deciding between the MSJ and Md's pre-submitted response? Then a three way choice of either a ruling (up or down) based on his agreement with the MSJ request which will take some time for the judge to write, a ruling favorable to the MJS but with some time set for MD to respond to the amended complaint before any final decision or last, a ruling against the MSJ and time for MD to respond to the amended complaint plus granting some form of MD's discovery period request (the long stall).

 

[krucam]

Thankfully, as the Natives were getting mighty Restless...so it was 3 weeks instead of 2 weeks...

Filed today, MD responds to the Pltf Complaint (Amended) with something other than a Motion to Dismiss, which was dismissed. Before anyone asks, I'm fairly certain MD will then be on the hook to respond to Pltf MSJ before we'll hear much from Judge Motz.

02/08/2011 20 ANSWER to 19 Amended Complaint by Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein, Terrence Sheridan, Charles M. Thomas, Jr..(Fader, Matthew) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

After the grueling 3-week wait, the pdf is anti-climatic on the surface. We'll need to go back to the referenced Pltf Doc to make sense of this one, as they only respond to claims without showing the claim. Take a peek, you'll see..I'll do this after a shower and dinner if nobody beats me to it.

Right now it is cryptic at best without digging.

It will be on the public Docket shortly at: http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html

Link for the response only, Item 20, available within an hour or so: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.20.0.pdf

Attached for the impatient.....

 

[jonnyl]

Didn't have time to cross reference, but they didn't argue the points at all.

Paragraph xx of the first amended Complaint states legal conclusions as to which
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations

over and over and over....

I think I could be the AG... (except for knowing the words laches and estoppel)

 

[Inigoes]

Right now it is cryptic at best without digging.

All that's in there is "Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief"

???

Looks like the AG is letting the law speak for itself.

 

[jonnyl]

They didn't respond to the arguments at all. Then brought out the same "reasons" the suit isn't valid as before.

I hope this ticks off the judge

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The first amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
2. This action is barred by plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
including, but not limited to, internal administrative procedures and/or statutory administrative
procedures, and to appeal within the State of Maryland judicial system, and therefore this Court
lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.
3. Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation lacks standing to maintain this action.
4. Defendants are entitled to judgment against Plaintiffs to the extent Plaintiffs have
an adequate remedy at law.
5. Defendants are entitled to judgment against Plaintiffs to the extent Plaintiffs’
claims for relief are barred by laches, estoppel, or waiver.

 

[Afield]

These all appear to be boilerplate legal defenses. Any time you see laches, estoppel, or waiver just thrown in like that....that's boilerplate throwing s*** at the wall to see if something sticks. That's lowbrow stuff.

And that little "failure to exhaust admin remedies" was one used "back in the day" to keep blacks from voting...they never got to the end of the chain and exhausted things, so never were able to file suit. That's why federal courts are necessary for Civil Rights.

 

[Patrick]

Actually, there is an attempt at a defense here, but it the same tired one they made last year:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The first amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

2. This action is barred by plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, including, but not limited to, internal administrative procedures and/or statutory administrative procedures, and to appeal within the State of Maryland judicial system, and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.

3. Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation lacks standing to maintain this action.

4. Defendants are entitled to judgment against Plaintiffs to the extent Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law.

5. Defendants are entitled to judgment against Plaintiffs to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred by laches, estoppel, or waiver.

They had these claims dismissed by the judge already.

So this is not a reasonable affirmative defense. It is instant fail. They are holding out.

All I can suggest is that their true argument is going to be in their response to the SAF Motion for Summary Judgment. They have the "2A Two-Step" defense literally written for them by other defendants in other cases - with several district courts providing a valuable assist. We could write it for them and Motz would probably rule favorably on it.

Next up: probably a status conference where maybe they will get a deadline for the SAF MSJ.

But I would not be surprised to see the SAF file another MSJ, this time with a strengthened 14th Amendment claim.

 

[krucam]

All that's in there is "Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief"

???

Looks like the AG is letting the law speak for itself.

We'll need to go back to the referenced Pltf Doc to make sense of this one, as they only respond to claims without showing the claim. Take a peek, you'll see..I'll do this after a shower and dinner if nobody beats me to it.

There were a couple of other of the states in the 2A realm that have done the same thing....makes for a little work.

Upside, they're moving along...

 

[Patrick]

There were a couple of other of the states in the 2A realm that have done the same thing....makes for a little work.

Upside, they're moving along...

North Carolina did it and reserved the bulk of their argument for their Motion to Dismiss (in response to the SAF Motion for Summary Judgment). Looks like the same pattern here.

 

[csanc123]

What the h3ll???

Is this the fingers in the ears defense?

"I can't hear you..don't understand you..sorry..you make no sense therefore I object to the complaint"

 

[krucam]

North Carolina did it and reserved the bulk of their argument for their Motion to Dismiss (in response to the SAF Motion for Summary Judgment). Looks like the same pattern here.

I'd love to see a MTD in response to Pltf MSJ. I'm assuming they would ignore Chester in that MTD, using standing arguments and their ilk. So...we still have MD NOT addressing the Complaint on any substantive 2A grounds.

I await their MTD and fart in their general direction...kudos to Monty Python

MD's suit is more to the core of the 2A than NC anyways...no-brainer.

 

[SkunkWerX]

I'd love to see a MTD in response to Pltf MSJ. I'm assuming they would ignore Chester in that MTD, using standing arguments and their ilk. So...we still have MD NOT addressing the Complaint on any substantive 2A grounds.

Sorta seems like the old tired anti-2A defenses are out of vogue, doesn't it? Maybe "he'll poke his eye out" might work?

I await their MTD and fart in their general direction...kudos to Monty Python

Didn't want to embed a video and ruin this serious thread, but felt it necessary for anyone who didn't understand the reference to seek guidance...it's a hoot.
I fart in your general direction

The suspense is killing us. Another ammended MSJ from 2AF, and yet another response like this, or another MTD from the defendants? Oh the humanity!
I can't take much more of this! . It's like watching the dance of the dead.

Does it appear Gura's argument(s) is just becoming more solidified, while the defendants are hoping for a successful hail mary in the 4th Q with 10 seconds left??
They better have a magic rabbit in their hat.

 

[Patrick]

From a strategic perspective Maryland could hold their best argument until a later brief and limit the overall amount of time (and pages) the SAF could use to counter it, just because there are only so many responses allowed.

But I'm not sure Maryland can produce anything new. If they had a good argument they should have deployed it already, because things have actually become harder for them while they delayed the last few months.

 

[Oreo]

Gura doesn't seem like a guy who needs multiple opportunities to make his points. If MD came up with something original (fat chance) I have 100% confidence that Gura could respond in kind. I'll bet Gansler knows that too so he's not holding anything back. He's giving all he's got, all that there is to give really.

 

[Ethan83]

....So this pretty much solidifies the notion that this case going our way is no longer a question of "if" but simply "when"?

To clarify: I don't necessarily mean at this level, with Motz ruling in our favor - but in some higher court within the next couple years?

 

[krucam]

The SAF Standing issue of the Defendants was never fully rejected when the MTD was rejected. Not as completely as Younger Abstention anyways. Footnote 1 in the Judge's response to MTD:

1 Defendants also assert SAF lacks standing to bring suit. I need not reach this issue, however, because it is undisputed that Woollard has standing to bring a facial challenge to the Maryland statute. In cases where, as here, plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, so long as ―at least one individual plaintiff . . . has demonstrated standing,‖ a court ―need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit.‖ Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264 & n.9, 97 S. Ct. 555 (1977); see also Watt v. Energy Action Educ. Found., 454 U.S. 151, 160, 102 S. Ct. 205 (1981); Md. Minority Contractor’s Ass’n v. Md. Stadium Auth., 70 F. Supp. 2d 580, 587 (D. Md. 1998) (finding it ―unnecessary‖ to determine whether the organizational plaintiff had ―standing in a representational capacity‖ because the ―individual plaintiffs would be entitled to the same injunctive and declaratory relief sought by [the organization] if they prevail‖). I will therefore deny the Motion to Dismiss on this ground. Because SAF‘s standing is currently irrelevant, I will also deny Defendants‘ request to conduct discovery on this issue. If SAF ―obtains relief different from that sought by [Woollard, the plaintiff] whose standing has not been questioned,‖ including attorney‘s fees, I will at that time address the issue of SAF‘s standing to bring suit. Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 402 n.22, 102 S. Ct. 3141 (1982).

He didn't want to address SAF Standing in December, MD brings it up again anyways.

So...as we see things now, we have either:

- Def response to SAF MSJ using canned (2A-2Step) arguments. Uses Heller dicta, ignores Chester. Likely & Judge Motz would then have to rule on the SAF MSJ...figure 1-2 months.

or

- Def MTD as response to Pltf MSJ. SAF would then have 3 weeks to respond to the revised MTD. Judge Motz would then have to rule for one or the other (MTD-Def, MSJ-Pltf)....figure 2-3 months.

Like any Federal Judge, this one is very busy. Dozens of new cases filed every month, you can see here: http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-maryland/court-mddce/judge-Motz/

End game is coming soon at the District level...May-June time frame

 

[Patrick]

Good point on the SAF standing issue. Honestly don't see that being an impediment. It will slow down payment to the SAF at win time, for sure. Ironically, by making it part of an affirmative defense MD may force the judge's hand to make a ruling on standing. It will be in favor of SAF, therfore denying even the little bit of delay MD can create post-loss to claim they don't owe legal fees.

Gura doesn't seem like a guy who needs multiple opportunities to make his points. If MD came up with something original (fat chance) I have 100% confidence that Gura could respond in kind. I'll bet Gansler knows that too so he's not holding anything back. He's giving all he's got, all that there is to give really.

Gosh, on some level I really hope he has more to argue than this paltry defense - even if he copies it from another case. As a resident of Maryland, I hope we have someone smart working state issues. These responses are authored by from someone in his office...but at the end of the day Gansler signs them. Unless our AG has something serious up his sleeve, the more I see the less impressed I get.

Maryland can go with the 2a Two-Step. It has a decent track record at the District level. It'll buy him some time. It'll make Maryland at least appear involved in the argument. The Appeals Court is going to be interesting, though. You better bring your "A Game" there.

....So this pretty much solidifies the notion that this case going our way is no longer a question of "if" but simply "when"?

To clarify: I don't necessarily mean at this level, with Motz ruling in our favor - but in some higher court within the next couple years?

Absent some new arguments from the other side (nationally or local), everything is looking good. We're on track for a big win in 1-2 years. Maybe sooner.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Absent some new arguments from the other side (nationally or local), everything is looking good. We're on track for a big win in 1-2 years. Maybe sooner.

What brought on the revised time line? Last I heard we figured as many as three years. Not that I'm complaining, of course.