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

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!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    mrjam2jab

    Active Member
    Jul 23, 2010
    682
    Levittown, PA
    The special restrictions will probably have to disappear, other than possibly dictating concealed carry for civilians, open carry for uniformed security. Once self-defense qualifies as "justifiable need", it would make no sense for someone to go get a restricted permit for work for example.

    Its not there now...don't add it. :innocent0
     

    Trapper

    I'm a member too.
    Feb 19, 2009
    1,369
    Western AA county
    A little off topic but my wife told me tonight that they have a sign at the local Toy R Us stating "No firearms on the premises". She hadnt really noticed it before and we have only recently been going to Toys R Us due to our first sons birth. Since I am "always on the computer talking about guns" she told me about this.

    It hadnt hit me how stupid this practice is until now. Bad Guy "Gee, I wonder what store I should rob? Maybe the one with no guns allowed."

    One of the most important things I could protect would be my son and wife, makes me wonder. What will happen if this suit is won, will some businesses start to lose customers?

    TD


    I completely support the right of the store owner / management to refuse service to those carrying weapons. I also completely support my right to patronize establishements that don't restrict us. As far as I can see, its in their best interest, but "you can't make him drink" is still true today.
     

    zombiehunter

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 8, 2008
    6,505
    I completely support the right of the store owner / management to refuse service to those carrying weapons. I also completely support my right to patronize establishements that don't restrict us. As far as I can see, its in their best interest, but "you can't make him drink" is still true today.

    Yup. Cinemark at Muvico in RapeCentral (aka, Arundel Mills) has a little sign that says no guns. I'd ignore it personally, worst they can do is ask you to remove the gun or leave. Worst you can do is say no, then they can get you for trespassing and your day gets bad quick.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,361
    SoMD / West PA
    Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

    This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

    Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.
     

    HardHatMan

    FBHO
    Jul 14, 2009
    5,473
    Virginia
    A little off topic but my wife told me tonight that they have a sign at the local Toy R Us stating "No firearms on the premises". She hadnt really noticed it before and we have only recently been going to Toys R Us due to our first sons birth. Since I am "always on the computer talking about guns" she told me about this.

    It hadnt hit me how stupid this practice is until now. Bad Guy "Gee, I wonder what store I should rob? Maybe the one with no guns allowed."

    One of the most important things I could protect would be my son and wife, makes me wonder. What will happen if this suit is won, will some businesses start to lose customers?

    TD

    Kind of reminds me of this:

    door.jpg
     

    mikec

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 1, 2007
    11,453
    Off I-83
    SAF package came today. Nice! I love the "Home Security" sticker! I put the belt buckle in our curio cabinet, right next to my father's Smith and Wesson buckle. I thought it only fitting.

    Mine came today. I didn't expect it. In the past I must have just donated and never joined.
     

    miles71

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jul 19, 2009
    2,522
    Belcamp, Md.
    Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

    This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

    Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.

    Really? How could due process be honored if everyone has a different version of the law in thier pocket? If/when this suit is won I plan on sending a letter with my renewal requesting restrictions being lifted on the permit.

    I understand the business restrictions, I am more concerned with the individual restrictions specific to each permit holder.
    TD
     

    yellowfin

    Pro 2A Gastronome
    Jul 30, 2010
    1,516
    Lancaster, PA
    Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

    This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

    Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.
    That lawsuit is underway already, Palmer v. DC.
     

    Tom43491

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2009
    146
    Timonium
    Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

    This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

    Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.

    The lawsuit is not to establish self defense as a good and substantial reason. The lawsuit is to remove the requirement to show a good and substantial reason altogether, which is in and of itself unconstitutional because it gives the beaurocracy the power to deny citizens their fundamental right to keep and bear, as set forth in the 2nd Amendment and clarified as a fundamental civil right in the McDonald case.

    Here is the text from the original post showing the text of the filing:
    The lawsuit alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is ‘necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.

    “Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can’t possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims.”
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,361
    SoMD / West PA
    The lawsuit alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is ‘necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.

    “Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can’t possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims.”

    Thought I would highlight it for you. The lawsuit isn't going to change the law.
     

    Papi4baby

    WWJBD
    May 10, 2009
    1,368
    California
    Yup. Cinemark at Muvico in RapeCentral (aka, Arundel Mills) has a little sign that says no guns. I'd ignore it personally, worst they can do is ask you to remove the gun or leave. Worst you can do is say no, then they can get you for trespassing and your day gets bad quick.

    There's a small movie theater in Lexington Park that has a small sticker on one door in the bottom corner. I didn't even see it, wife said it.

    I would side with other members at other places, conceal means conceal. Now a court room i would no bring it in.
     

    Nobody

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,810
    Thought I would highlight it for you. The lawsuit isn't going to change the law.

    I am of the opinion that unless we have a MAJOR change in the MD legislature that tommorow will be like yesterday and next year like last in MD for A LONGGGGGG time to come.


    Hoping and praying for the best, prepared for the worst.

    NOBODY
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    I am of the opinion that unless we have a MAJOR change in the MD legislature that tommorow will be like yesterday and next year like last in MD for A LONGGGGGG time to come.


    Hoping and praying for the best, prepared for the worst.

    NOBODY

    Can we start by kicking: Mikulski, Cardin, and O'Malley to the curb? On the local level, in my area it is Kratovil, the moderate wanna be blue dog on the outside, liberal wanna be on the inside, against Andy Harris, who narrowly lost to Kratovil last election. It was the Democrat, "Vote for Obama" tide that carried Kratovil across the finish line. Maybe now that it is a mid-term, Harris will take Kratovil out?
     

    SkunkWerX

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 17, 2010
    1,577
    MoCo/HoCo border
    Heller and MCDonald took care of the KEEP part of the 2nd Amendment.
    The Woolard case (and others) are going after the BEAR part of the equation.

    Don't ignore that the end game is National RIGHT to Carry, no permit needed, like VT, AK and now AZ.

    Maryland will play games with legal words, to a point, but if this all plays out according to what we all know to be true in the 2nd Amendment, we won't need a "Steenkin Permit" to be granted to us by the self-proclaimed-monarchy of our state.

    "Vamanos!"
     

    Afield

    Active Member
    Jul 3, 2010
    183
    Rockville, MD
    I'm really fighting the urge to buy a carry gun.

    (Yes, I know this won't be settled until years down the road.)

    Don't be so so sure. The fact that Gura said this could go to the supreme court means he is willing to take it there....MD will be out millions in fees for the plaintiffs. Money is tight and the state is not in great shape. I wouldn't be surprised to see political pressure to resolve this early. Just one way it could play out.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,912
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom