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.

    Trapper

    I'm a member too.
    Feb 19, 2009
    1,369
    Western AA county
    Heaven forbid, we use the correct term - "God-given Right".

    The actual words are "Endowed by his creator", you call your creator "God", I called mine "Dad", until he passed. RIP Pop.

    Anywho, I may need to take a weekend and go exercise my rights in an adjoining state. Any of our VA lurkers or members participate in the OC events there?

    To all who keep on top of this, and the legislation; thanks. Having this information readily available has allowed me to point many folks to the forums and this section to get information on what is affecting their rights and how they can help. I've managed to get a couple new folks to the range and gotten several old-school owners to see the change on the horizon and pay attention to who supports what.
    The first round of Ale is on me at the 1st MDShooters full-holster rally! (Ginger Ale that is :) )
     

    ezliving

    Besieger
    Oct 9, 2008
    4,590
    Undisclosed Secure Location
    Wasn't it Delegate Riley who always submitted the "Repeal of Finding" bill? Since he lost in the Primary :tdown::tdown:, who will step up to do this?

    Smigiel, Dwyer?

    I just read on Delegate Smigiel's facebook that he applied for his MD CCW, got turned down and appealed to the handgun board. He is waiting for a turndown there, too. He wrote...
    Last night I went before the Handgun Permit Review Board to challenge Maryland's infringements on our God given rights under the 2nd Amendment. I challenged the arbitrary and capricious "good and substantial reason" definition and the State Police limited interpretation of the two recent Supreme Court decisions.

    I will get a written decision, (a denial) within 30 days, then we challenge it in the courts.
    Seriously, I thought an attorney (officer of the courts) and MD Delegate would not have a problem getting a CCW permit.

    Will Smigiel join the Woollard case or go it alone with a similar argument?
     

    boricuamaximus

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 27, 2008
    6,237
    Smigel is not a Progressive and from the few views that I have seen on him during sessions he's not one of the good ol boys when it comes to the legislature of the state.
     

    Oreo

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Mar 23, 2008
    1,394
    Sounds to me like he didn't even go to MDSP talking the talk. I get the impression he went in there talking about constitutional rights. That's a guaranteed ticket to denial since the only right that organization understands is your right to remain silent. Now if the good delegate would have gone in there and talked about being specifically targeted for violence due to his position in the legislature, and his upcoming proposal for a 25% increase in MDSP funding... I'm betting Smigel would have been met with more friendly faces and "something" could have been worked out so that he left with permit in hand.

    That's just my totally uninformed, opinion based on no hard evidence what so ever.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Adding parties to a lawsuit of the nature of Woollard after the fact is a bad idea. It opens the door to defendant (MD) extending time for additional discovery and making an argument that the plaintiff's case was not meritorious on it's initial complaint (hence the addition of a new litigant).

    There are some kinds of suits where adding a new party to the plaintiff action is the norm - class actions, for instance - but this is not one of them. As it stands, we are all "party" to the case because it is a civil-rights complaint. What works for one works for all. So your name may not be on the docket sheets, but you are covered all the same.

    I imagine Smiegel will file on his own in state court. The federal angle is already covered. Not sure how I feel about this, other than "it's his right". It depends on how serious of a case he puts up - he is a politician which makes him prone (in my mind) to grandiose gestures that may lack in true substance. I admit this is not a fair analysis of a man I have never met - but I am painting him with a broad brush based on his chosen occupation. He's a politician and therefore stuck with the stereotypes that come with the job.

    The state action will require a slightly different set of arguments than the federal action, and nuance will count. He'll need a good legal team because state law is the AG's home turf and I suspect nobody can play that system better than our current AG.

    But even if he gets shot down in state court, it won't necessarily harm the federal case. It could actually bolster it's arguments in some respects.

    These cases needs to stay away from a trial, extended discovery and "findings". That is a huge risk. I don't know the man, so don't know if he's the type to actually try to win or if he's just trying to prove a point. If the latter, maybe he'll be tempted to "have his day in court" and try to "prove" MSP is biased. If so, he'll handily lose.

    So I hope he keeps it in state court and focuses on questions of law that require nothing but judges and minor discovery. The MD Court of Appeals has affirmed previous denials based on what is now erroneous case law - specifically that 2A did not apply to MD. Now that this is incorporated (and fundamentally, at that), we could get a very different result unless they come up with new reasons to deny whole cloth.
     

    hvymax

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 19, 2010
    14,011
    Dentsville District 28
    Sounds to me like he didn't even go to MDSP talking the talk. I get the impression he went in there talking about constitutional rights. That's a guaranteed ticket to denial since the only right that organization understands is your right to remain silent. Now if the good delegate would have gone in there and talked about being specifically targeted for violence due to his position in the legislature, and his upcoming proposal for a 25% increase in MDSP funding... I'm betting Smigel would have been met with more friendly faces and "something" could have been worked out so that he left with permit in hand.

    That's just my totally uninformed, opinion based on no hard evidence what so ever.

    He went at it as one of the ruled class not one of the ruling class. That makes him a class act in my book and further demonstrates how the current system needs to be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    The actual words are "Endowed by his creator", you call your creator "God", I called mine "Dad", until he passed. RIP Pop.

    Realizing that your Father, who I am sure was a great guy, wasn't alive when the document was written, I do not think the Founding Fathers had him in mind. The point is that the right is given to us via a higher power, and not by ANY man. It cannot (or should not have been), therefore, be taken away.

    I imagine Smiegel will file on his own in state court. The federal angle is already covered. Not sure how I feel about this, other than "it's his right". It depends on how serious of a case he puts up - he is a politician which makes him prone (in my mind) to grandiose gestures that may lack in true substance. I admit this is not a fair analysis of a man I have never met - but I am painting him with a broad brush based on his chosen occupation. He's a politician and therefore stuck with the stereotypes that come with the job.

    Delegate Smigiel is an elected official. He is also a: practicing attorney, veteran, Marine, and gun rights advocate. He primarily is focused on the "good and substantial reason" clause of the current state CCW laws, and was so duly engaged in this issue, before Woollard.

    He went at it as one of the ruled class not one of the ruling class. That makes him a class act in my book and further demonstrates how the current system needs to be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Yes, Delegate Smigiel is a class act, and true 2A advocate.
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    "Mr. Wint, I have a CCW but it has limitations placed on it. I believe our Second Amendment Right is a light switch it is either on or off. If you have no convictions and no history of mental illness then you have the right to carry. The State of Maryland sees this as a dimmer switch we can adjust the amount of rights you have. Would anyone stand for this if we were talking about free speech or religion?"

    This just posted by Delegate Mike on FaceBook. According to Delegate Smigiel, he already has a CCW. What he is fighting is the limitation or restriction placed on it. Like most CCW's that are issued, they are restricted as to how and when a person can carry. Delegate Smigiel is challenging that the right should be 24/7, hence his "light switch" comment.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Previous denials were always predicated on the lack of 2A in Maryland. Curious what the state courts do now and how they interpret "fundamental". His analogy to 1A is apropos, as this is a right that the USSC has used in it's comparisons and one that scholars hold analogous - the idea that some rights are deserving of protection even if theexercise of that right offends some.

    I mean no disrespect to the delegate. Admittedly I do not know him. Just hope that any challenge be a serious one and I suspect that will require more than one man. Even Gura has a large team working with him.
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    I was going to say - I'd be SHOCKED if the MSP did not issue the Delegate a permit. He fits all of the qualifications insofar as the MSP check list goes. The restriction lifting argument makes all of the subsequent actions logical.
     

    EVOIXGSR

    Straight Baller Status
    Mar 13, 2008
    2,676
    Baltimore Co.
    I read the first couple posts, but there is just too much for me to read in this thread. Can anyone tell me a brief time line of this case? Basically, what is going to happen next?
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    I read the first couple posts, but there is just too much for me to read in this thread. Can anyone tell me a brief time line of this case? Basically, what is going to happen next?

    The Woollard Docket is here: http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html

    The state predicatably put in a Motion to Dismiss on 9/20 (roughly pg 40 in this thread). The plaintiffs response is supposedly due today, but nothing on Pacer as of 20 minutes ago...
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member

    I hear you....

    Still nada. It kills me to say it, but I'm wondering if I misread and/or misinterpretted something. Damn supper gets in the way of this important stuff...

    What was said in the Doc 8 Summary:
    MOTION to Dismiss by Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein, Terrence Sheridan, Charles M. Thomas, Jr. Responses due by 10/7/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Exhibit A (November 12, 2009 Handgun Permit Review Board Decision), # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fader, Matthew) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

    I or someone else may want to re-read it and/or the 3 attachments...I'll be back...
     

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    I hear you....

    Still nada. It kills me to say it, but I'm wondering if I misread and/or misinterpretted something. Damn supper gets in the way of this important stuff...

    What was said in the Doc 8 Summary:


    I or someone else may want to re-read it and/or the 3 attachments...I'll be back...

    I've seen it where it gets filed late in the day and it doesn't get posted to PACER until next business day. Relax....
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,365
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom