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

Rattlesnake46319 · Jul 29, 2010

Boondock Saint said:
By the way, folks, if the other attorney listed in that article sounds familiar, it should:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=39273

Thought so. Hmmm..

zombiehunter said:
How does MSI figure in this? Did SAF consult them? Is MSI helping foot the bill? Aside from supporting the little guy, why is it better to send $150 to each instead of $300 to SAF? Just trying to figure it out.

Because MSI has been keeping O'Malley, Gansler, Frosh, Rosenberg and their ilk off your collective ass for the past few years. MSI members have been taking time off work and away from their families to fight further encroachment of your rights.

jmira · Jul 29, 2010

this is good news.. I may have to move back to Bowie, 6 miles from my office =)

Minuteman · Jul 29, 2010

Same here, I felt the same way about Cary Hansel the moment we first met him. I have total confidence in his ability to make the strongest case possible.

Now that the whole cat is entirely out of the bag (to quote someone else), good. Cary wasn't asking for our financial support, he only needed help identifying people who had been denied a CHP for lacking a 'good and substantial reason' so he could consider them to make his case stronger. Thank you to everyone that asked around and contacted Cary's office.

Now the best course of action for all of us (that believe in the basic right of self-defense), is to stand behind MSI and help where they see our collective efforts having the best affect.

If you haven't done so yet, join MSI today, and try your best to do what is asked in their emails, like attending the MSI rally's, or sending emails to the right legislators when it matters most, each one is like a vote for liberty.

Thanks again to everyone that has already done so much to support MSI and I look forward working with you all to do our part to make Maryland's laws better for responsible law-abiding citizens.

Gray Peterson · Jul 29, 2010

Hyper-W said:
Not sure exactly. SAF is doing the same thing in New York. They are going after the individuals as opposed to the state government.

My question is related to the "permanent injunction". If SAF wins, does MD still have to change its law? Or does the injunction force the state to become 'Shall Issue' regardless?

I explained this in a different forum so I will repost:

Let me clue you in on something at least in regards the lawsuits against DC and Chicago versus a lawsuit filed against the MSP for the way they enforce "good and substantial reason".

In the case against the District of Columbia and the later case against Chicago, those were both against municipal codes and statutes. The problem with asking for strike downs of municipal codes and statutes is that the cities can just write new laws, like what happened in Chicago and DC.

In the Sykes and Peruta cases, those were lawsuits to make "good cause" to be "self defense" and "good moral character" to be "not prohibited by law", and that may really means shall in a legal context. They are essentially policy directives by the federal courts to the issuing authority to stop enforcing a mealy mouth statute that gives them discretion to deny and basically forces them to issue freely in order to comply with the U.S. constitution.

The Maryland State Police, when given a directive by a federal judge that "good and substantial reason" means "self defense", The MSP will not be able to put in Byzantine requirements like DC and Chicago did. Remember, it's a constitutional ruling against the way a POLICY is enforced, not the actual statute or statutory prohibition. The federal courts have had long experience in enforcing their decisions and decrees. If the Superintendent of the State Police refuses to comply with the court ruling, he will be held in contempt and then he will be picked up by the US Marshal's Court Security Services Division and taken to the local federal holding facility until he complies with the law, by signing the order inside of the jail cell. If they try to pass byzantine requirements, the federal judge will hold the superintendent in contempt, and a refusal to comply will mean a US Marshals escort to a federal holding facility.

Contrast this with the Palmer case (which is seeking to strike down the District of Columbia's total carry ban), and my case (which seeks to strike down the state residency requirement before acquiring a CHL in the city and county of Denver, CO). Though DC could rewrite the statute if Palmer wins, If I win my case against Denver, Denver cannot rewrite the statute themselves since it is a function of state law and the Legislature cannot just simply rewrite the law to revoke my license or cause problems, as there is no political will in Colorado to screw with CCW holders in general, and would likely be injuncted against by the same federal judge in the same case (especially if they try to screw with the validity of the license I paid for, and got a court order to get). Again, these are statutory strike downs. A suit against MSP does not require a statutory strike down.

The only reason you're not familiar with these concepts is that for the first time, the 2nd amendment has NOW been properly recognized as a fundamental right. Federal injunctions, motions to compel, writs of mandamus, special masters and contempt citations have never been done in 2A cases before because up until McDonald, the very concept of that is foreign and alien to those of us who fought so hard for the right to keep and bear arms. Years of fighting this battles can make one cynical.

BTW, yes join MSI too. They are going to have to be our political wing in terms of stopping the Maryland General Assembly from attempting to frustrate the federal judge's ruling. Even if we know the law that they pass is completely unconstitutional and we believe that the federal judge who is doing this case would injunct the validity of the case, it's still yet another motion filing that SAF and Gura needs to do afterwards. MSI needs to also be a voice to the General Assembly legislatively repeal "good and substantial reason". Going to court is always the last resort. Remember that.

gamer_jim · Jul 29, 2010

STSCM · Jul 29, 2010

hvymax said:
+1 It was'nt for nothing.

Amen brother, the best news I've had in a long time!

aquaman · Jul 29, 2010

I just joined SAF. This is the best news yet, I only wonder what are chances are?

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 29, 2010

Gray Peterson said:
42USC1983 requires at minimum a suit against persons. That's why you have a lot of federal lawsuits name the executive enforcing the statute. For example: Person v. O'Malley or Person v. Gansler.

I know this because I'm currently suing Manager of Safety for Denver Colorado for a carry license myself.

Thanks.

Boondock Saint · Jul 29, 2010

I'm SAF's newest life member.

zoostation · Jul 29, 2010

I'm sending them a donation. The only way you will ever get your gun rights respected in this state is when the courts force them to.

zombiehunter · Jul 29, 2010

Thanks for the information. Definitely seems that I need to join both and stop buying new toys

Should have my next round of student loan money by the end of August lol.

jaredm1 · Jul 29, 2010

I gave what I could for now...I hope when things calm down a little bit for me I'll be able to contribute more.

I'm very grateful to them for what they're doing for Maryland though.

Drmsparks · Jul 29, 2010

Another MSI point- with this lawsuit in the works, a shall issue bill has a lot more traction.

With things the way they are now economically, do you think that Md is looking forward to paying Gura and Company over 3 million for a lawsuit they know they will lose?

TRACTION baby!!!!!

Abacab · Jul 29, 2010

Fascinating. I wonder if the AG/Gov/MSP had any idea this was coming.

rambling_one · Jul 29, 2010

Abacab said:
Fascinating. I wonder if the AG/Gov/MSP had any idea this was coming.

They're probably huddling as we speak.

Drmsparks · Jul 29, 2010

rambling_one said:
They're probably Sh*tting themselves as we speak.

fixed it for you....

Abacab · Jul 29, 2010

rambling_one said:
They're probably huddling as we speak.

In Rhode Island, the only way they could get permits issued was through court action. As it stands up there, some towns are issuing as ordered on a shall issue basis while some are still defying the court. The AG continues to defy the court as well.

How much of a fight will Maryland put up? Is it really worth that much to them? If they lose, will they thumb their nose at the court like RI or will they go the Chicago route?

What if they (MD & co.) win? :sad20:

Also, anyone know what kind of timeline this case will operate on?

BenL · Jul 29, 2010

...and so it begins.

More money sent (already a member.)

Everyone please contribute; we always bitch that the big guys in 2A rights ignore this state. Show them we appreciate their action!

http://www.saf.org/

It's tax deductible.

kronusthebonus · Jul 29, 2010

Fantastic news... time to pony up the ducketts

INMY01TA · Jul 29, 2010

This was nice to come home to.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Curmidget

VA Rocks.

Member

Active Member

Podcaster

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

, ,

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Old School Rifleman

Member

Ultimate Member

Old School Rifleman

Member

John Galt Speaking.

Jackwagon

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics