Malpasso vs Pallozzi 18-2377

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Meho1277

    Member
    Oct 18, 2018
    31
    I see something happened on 4/29/2019,just not sure what. Did the court affirm no need for oral areguments, because they already have enough imformation to decide, or it says we affirm the district courts dismissal of the complaint.
    What does this mean?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I think they'll just appeal with SCOTUS. We may have a LOT of cases on hold for NYSRPA. What's one more?
     

    Meho1277

    Member
    Oct 18, 2018
    31
    UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2377 BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI, in his official capacity as Maryland Secretary of State Police, Defendant - Appellee. ------------------------------------------ GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; MARYLAND CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION; EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY, Amici Supporting Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01064-ELH) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Mark H. Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM: Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that § 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Maryland Code of Public Safety is an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Malpasso and the Association seek a declaratory judgment declaring that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is unconstitutional and an injunction precluding future enforcement of the statute and requiring the State to issue handgun carry licenses to Malpasso and the Association’s members. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint after Malpasso and the Association conceded that our ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), controlled.* On appeal, Malpasso and the Association acknowledge that this panel cannot overturn Woollard. “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We dispense with oral argument *In Woollard, we held that assuming, without deciding, that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)’s “good-and-substantial-reason” requirement implicated Second Amendment protections, the provision did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights granted by the Second Amendment, as applied to the statute’s challenger. 712 F.3d at 882.
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
    This is what it says, does this mean it was dismissed in the 4ca as well and is going to the scotus?
    And if you could do this in layman's terms and not terms in latin, that would be great
    It also says that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent this circuit.
     
    Last edited:

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2377 BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI, in his official capacity as Maryland Secretary of State Police, Defendant - Appellee. ------------------------------------------ GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; MARYLAND CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION; EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY, Amici Supporting Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01064-ELH) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Mark H. Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM: Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that § 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Maryland Code of Public Safety is an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Malpasso and the Association seek a declaratory judgment declaring that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is unconstitutional and an injunction precluding future enforcement of the statute and requiring the State to issue handgun carry licenses to Malpasso and the Association’s members. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint after Malpasso and the Association conceded that our ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), controlled.* On appeal, Malpasso and the Association acknowledge that this panel cannot overturn Woollard. “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We dispense with oral argument *In Woollard, we held that assuming, without deciding, that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)’s “good-and-substantial-reason” requirement implicated Second Amendment protections, the provision did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights granted by the Second Amendment, as applied to the statute’s challenger. 712 F.3d at 882.
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
    This is what it says, does this mean it was dismissed in the 4ca as well and is going to the scotus?
    And if you could do this in layman's terms and not terms in latin, that would be great
    It also says that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent this circuit.
    Thx. On ward to SCOTUS now.....
     

    echo6mike

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 1, 2013
    1,794
    Close to DC
    Thought they had to go thru 4ca first before they file a cert with SCOTUS?

    They just did. The only question was whether they want to petition the entire 4th circuit to hear en banc.
    That's a waste of time IMO.

    For us non-lawyers out here, is there a summary of what this case says, who the involved parties are, what's happened with it so far and what the time frame is for whatever next steps follow?

    I think I have a decent idea, except for the "what happens next and when" part, but it's legalese. I don't speak legalese, I just try to decipher it...

    It looks like the objective of this case is just to remove the G&S clause from the rules covering WCP issuance, very specifically. Have I got that much right?

    History of which court did what and when, that I dunno. Hoping someone will post updates here periodically.

    Thanks!
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    For us non-lawyers out here, is there a summary of what this case says, who the involved parties are, what's happened with it so far and what the time frame is for whatever next steps follow?

    I think I have a decent idea, except for the "what happens next and when" part, but it's legalese. I don't speak legalese, I just try to decipher it...

    It looks like the objective of this case is just to remove the G&S clause from the rules covering WCP issuance, very specifically. Have I got that much right?

    History of which court did what and when, that I dunno. Hoping someone will post updates here periodically.

    Thanks!

    Correct, this is about G & S. It's essentially a clone of Woollard.
    The lower court proceedings are largely irrelevant, as it was understood we couldn't win. The point here was to get a case to Scotus since there is now a circuit split thanks to Wrenn.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    So we are playing the waiting game to see what SCOTUS will do ..

    Pretty much. This case will file for cert in about 2 months and will be put on ice with the others.

    One question I had is, assuming NYSRPA is a win and a new standard of review is made, will these cases go back to the appeals court or go back to the district court?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,752
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom