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

[Patrick]

Is there any chance that Maryland could lose without "inside/outside the home" being answered? I'm thinking of a scenario where the ruling states that Maryland already recognizes a right outside the home because they issue permits for self defense (although rarely) and finds unconstitutional the manner that they use to pick and choose people who qualify.

Basically, rather than saying "requiring a reason" is not allowed, they say that they must accept "self defense" from any non-disqualified person as a good and substantial reason.

Slightly different reasoning than they'd need in a no-issue state.

Anything could happen. If the state lost by way of your scenario, the outside-the-home argument would be implicit anyway: the right to bear arms outside the home would still need to be recognized.

I would suggest that the bold portion of your comment (my emphasis) is where your scenario would be decided much the same as the other options: Maryland currently recognizes no right to arms in any context (ignoring McDonald for the moment). So if the court declares the right does exist...well, it's the same fight in a new context.

I don't think there is a way to escape the decision point: does the US Constitution's right to bear arms extend outside the home?

But I think you are right: there is a couple of ways they can get there.


N.B.: Palmer is a case where the court could hand over RKBA-in-public without even talking about 2A, at all. This is due to the vagaries of DC law and as such would provide zero bearing for any other court in the nation. This approach seems to be currently at play in the DC Heller II case, and Palmer could piggy-back it all the way.

 

[Ethan83]

Since many states have no training requirement and have no issues, how does the state prove it's necessary?

That's what I've been wondering... Given that we now have 3 states, with potentially more on the way, that have Constitutional carry - 2 of which have been this way for a while - how on earth can any State legislature prove that they 'need' any sort of restrictions at all in order for safety and order to be maintained? There is clear, direct, and undeniable proof that Constitutional carry works just fine.

 

[Patrick]

More on Equal Protection and Woollard:

I think EarthLover is correct in that any discovery or "finding" request from Maryland is probably going to be based in the Equal Protection claim. But it would demonstrate that Maryland does not understand the case, because Woollard concedes that under the state's rules he does not get a permit. All the drama comparing him and someone else (who did get one with better cause) is dispensed with. Instead, this suit challenges the need for cause, at all.

The equal protection claim is built around the idea that anyone denied a permit based on a subjective analysis - which is explicitly unconstitutional when such decisions are made on the exercise of a fundamental civil right - is denied equal access under the law. We don't have to compare "cause", because even asking for that cause is proof that access to the right is denied.


All of this hinges on our understanding of the core right being correct: it must extend RKBA outside the home. Otherwise, all of this is toast.

 

[yellowsled]

why does FL and UT require it?

 

[swinokur]

why does FL and UT require it?

They can if they want. The rub is that the argument put forth by some that training is required cannot be shown to pass a strict level of scrutiny because the fact that 3 states have no training and have no problems shows that the state cannot show a compelling interest in mandating training prior to the issuance of a permit.

That's my read anyway.

I'm sure Patrick or Mark will be along to straighten me out..

 

[yellowsled]

if it passes with no training I would be fine with that too, but i just dont think it would be such a bad thing to require some education on ccw laws before a permit is granted. either way, Go SAF!

 

[krucam]

Training, fees etc can be levied against protected activities so long as they are not a substantial burden...this becomes a gray area, what is allowable, what is over the top? One California municipality just found that their fees for CCW were "too high" and promptly lowered them without having to be taken to court.

I wouldn't be surprised to have MD "lash back" with training (assuming they get smacked down) just to maintain some feeling of control, just to get the last word in. This is probably allowable as well so long as it isn't burdensome. The results of Heller II and Benson (Chicago Laws) could go a long way to clearing up registration hassles and their constitutionality. They (DC/Chicago) have gone too far. MD will fall somewhere between DC/Chicago and AZ/AK/VT, hows that for a SWAG?

I wouldn't expect the fee to be any higher than the current cost, as that would appear to be punitive and the current fee is comparably in line with other states. There is existing precedent which states: It is unconstitutional when a cost goes materially beyond the cost of administering the otherwise permissible regulatory scheme.

I wouldn't expect requirements to Carry to be at that level required to possess any time soon. But in the case of MD, that may be 20 years and at least a couple more Federal suits post-Woollard away...

Eugene Volokh's "Implementing the Second Amendment" is a fantastic read for those curious. It is post-Heller, but pre-McDonald: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2am.pdf

Info in this article was even used in the recent Muller filing from the Plaintiffs.

 

[Patrick]

They can if they want. The rub is that the argument put forth by some that training is required cannot be shown to pass a strict level of scrutiny because the fact that 3 states have no training and have no problems shows that the state cannot show a compelling interest in mandating training prior to the issuance of a permit.

That's my read anyway.

What you said.

Training standards are going to be murky. Mark points out the standard - that the state could argue a compelling interest and so long as it is not burdensome it might survive. But then you point out the fallacy of the state's potential argument: other Americans do not require it and life is dandy for society all the same.

I think this is one of those areas where we are going to see the court bend over three ways to work in these 'reasonable regulations', even if a strict view of the constitution suggests they are not advisable. Some rumor that Justice Roberts in particular is not hot for Constitutional Carry ideals. He is a law and order man and might support the right, but expects that government will have some tools to react if necessary. That line of thinking is what makes me wonder if there truly won't be some type of carve-out for RKBA in public. It would need to be creative, that's for sure.

Permits are probably going to pass muster. Fees, too - up to the point Mark just brought up. Anything more than "just enough" is going to be an issue. Maryland does not make money from their permits, and a study commissioned by the state suggested that shall-issue would not be profitable either; it would actually increase the cost because the estimated number of permit seekers would be enough to justify new staff, but not quite enough to cover the cost of that staff. I believe it.

But we're not talking $500 permits, either.

 

[Mr H]

Since many states have no training requirement and have no issues, how does the state prove it's necessary?

Good question, and I see the following...

1 - Maryland, in its omnicience, knows that since there has never EVER been anyone in the state aware or capable of self-determinative thought, it must train the new potential serial killers in all the scary and dangerous aspects of carrying a mindless and deadly thunderstick among the innocents of the state.

2 - Fees

3 - Taxes

4 - Taxes

 

[SkunkWerX]

Keep this in mind, within Maryland, they have been issuing their permits, with NO physical training requirement , what-so-ever. You carry a lot of cash, and prove need to their liking, you get a permit to carry. It's been this way for a long time.

I'd like to see them establish new rules and regulations, so that they can explain in court why it was fine before, that no one with a Carry permit was required to even answer a True False written test, but now (assuming a post-shall issue win) there is need for training?

I personally wouldn't mind it, myself, I just mention this pondering any legal issues created by a before and after comparison. If MD loses this case, they have created a bit of a conundrum for themselves. There isn't any clear way they can conclude that those already issued permits to carry under the old system were somehow more well endowed in the knowledge of gun laws and gun handling therefor training wasn't necessary?

I do agree with previous posts, MD will want to make us feel like they are maintaining control. So expect gun free zones to pop up all over the place and/or other legislative goat-ropes to muddy the Concealed Carry waters.

 

[Inigoes]

What you pose, there should be no exceptions. If you carry whether or not in the line of duty, everyone is treated the same.

 

[ObsceneJesster]

I just started fallowing this thread a couple weeks ago and am having a hard time trying to keep up with all the legal talk. I just want a couple of opinions from some of the experts here that have been fallowing this case since day one. What are the chances of Maryland becoming a Shall Carry State and if they do when do you think it will happen. Also do you think Baltimore will try to create it's own laws pertaining to state carry permits?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

 

[swinokur]

Keep this in mind, within Maryland, they have been issuing their permits, with NO physical training requirement , what-so-ever. You carry a lot of cash, and prove need to their liking, you get a permit to carry. It's been this way for a long time.

I'd like to see them establish new rules and regulations, so that they can explain in court why it was fine before, that no one with a Carry permit was required to even answer a True False written test, but now (assuming a post-shall issue win) there is need for training?

I personally wouldn't mind it, myself, I just mention this pondering any legal issues created by a before and after comparison. If MD loses this case, they have created a bit of a conundrum for themselves. There isn't any clear way they can conclude that those already issued permits to carry under the old system were somehow more well endowed in the knowledge of gun laws and gun handling therefor training wasn't necessary?

I do agree with previous posts, MD will want to make us feel like they are maintaining control. So expect gun free zones to pop up all over the place and/or other legislative goat-ropes to muddy the Concealed Carry waters.

wow. excellent point. I think they may have unintentionally painted themselves into a corner, at least as far as a training requirement. excellent work.

 

[Nobody]

MD WILL fight this until AT LEAST 2017, I say this due to the fact if "Shall" issue was ordered today by SCOTUS they would pull all of the above, Training, excessive fees, 2 years for a permit to get approved until we take them back to court again and again and again. We may have shall issue here in 2-3 years but it will be MANY more before it acttually happens.


NOBODY

 

[jonnyl]

IIRC there's also no restriction on being in restaurants that serve alcohol. Unless its outside your individual permit restrictions.

 

[Boondock Saint]

MD WILL fight this until AT LEAST 2017, I say this due to the fact if "Shall" issue was ordered today by SCOTUS they would pull all of the above, Training, excessive fees, 2 years for a permit to get approved until we take them back to court again and again and again. We may have shall issue here in 2-3 years but it will be MANY more before it acttually happens.


NOBODY

You love to keep repeating that, don't you?

I've got $100 that says the average person in Maryland will be able to carry a loaded handgun on their person while, say, shopping for groceries, at some point before 2017. I welcome all comers.

 

[Dogabutila]

^ only way i'd take that is if you give me 10 to 1. And I still wouldn't want to bet too much.

 

[Papi4baby]

IIRC there's also no restriction on being in restaurants that serve alcohol. Unless its outside your individual permit restrictions.

Shhhhhh.

Dont give them any ideas.

 

[ezliving]

How will current "restricted CCW permits" fare after Woollard wins and "good and substantial reason" fails?

 

[Hopalong]

How will current "restricted CCW permits" fare after Woollard wins and "good and substantial reason" fails?

They'd likely end up as "unrestricted"; "restrictions" are just another form of subjective limitation and in view of a win in Wollard, that wouldn't fly anymore. As with all things in Maryland though, I doubt it will be that easy or straightforward so it may require another court case.