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

esqappellate · Jul 20, 2012

Patrick said:
Yes it does. And no lawsuit will go anywhere because of it. But they have not done it. There is no downside risk to MSP in denying your app. But they have not. Think.

Third Rule of Shooting: Know your target and what is behind it.

That also applies to politics. Look behind the law, and see who is there. It ain't the MSP.

Damn, Patrick, there you go again, making sense! :thumbsup:

FWIW, I completely agree with Patrick.

BenL · Jul 20, 2012

Patrick said:
So if we entertain conspiracies, how about we entertain a more plausible version: MSP is following the law put before them and at the same time trying to not harm us any more than possible. They could have kept all those post-stay checks, made a few phone calls and then denied everyone outright. They did not. That is hardly evil. Perhaps they just don't want to hear the complaints. Whatever the reason, they have not worked against us like they could have. They are sitting this one out as best they can.

^
This.

Everyone's frustrated; we won, but it doesn't feel like it.

I think the MSP is truly trying to do the right thing by everyone, within the confines of the law as it currently stands.

Garet Jax · Jul 20, 2012

esqappellate said:
Damn, Patrick, there you go again, making sense! FWIW, I completely agree with Patrick.

FWIW (and it is worth much less than esqappellate's endorsement) - so do I.

I know Judges are supposed to be exempt from knee jerk reactions (but I know they are also human), but could the Colorado shooting have an impact on Judge Legg or the 4th circuits viewing of this case?

Broadside · Jul 20, 2012

esqappellate said:
Damn, Patrick, there you go again, making sense! FWIW, I completely agree with Patrick.

esqappellate,

What's to stop someone from starting a brand new lawsuit just the way Raymond Woollard did?

I thought the stay was in place for a single judge's order.

It has been quite some time since I took business law, but as I recall you can bring a civil suit against someone to get money (damages), or you can bring a civil suit against someone to force them to do something or stop doing something (equity). Raymond Woollard's case is the latter I believe.

In the process of bringing a suit for equity relief. I think in some cases a plaintiff can also sue to have legal expenses reimbursed. Is this not correct?

Now, if we had 100 people decide to sue in Federal Court the MSP to force the MSP to issue permits, I realize that a Federal Judge would most likely place the cases on hold pending the outcome of Judge Legg's ruling on the permament stay and/or a ruling by 4th Circuit. But that doesn't mean that 100 people couldn't bring suit and then the state would at the very least have to submit briefs.

Where is my understanding incorrect? Thanks.

Merlin · Jul 20, 2012

Patrick said:
Yes it does. And no lawsuit will go anywhere because of it. But they have not done it. There is no downside risk to MSP in denying your app. But they have not. Think.

Third Rule of Shooting: Know your target and what is behind it.

That also applies to politics. Look behind the law, and see who is there. It ain't the MSP.

esqappellate said:
Damn, Patrick, there you go again, making sense! FWIW, I completely agree with Patrick.

I agree with you two guys as well. And please let me say to the group that I think the MSP are the good guys here. I'm not trying to imply in any way they are up to anything devious or underhanded at all. I was just asking why do we think they are not denying our app's because they have every right to. If you think about MOM and the Ag being their boss, it seems stranger they are not returning app's.

Again let me say I think the MSP want to and will do the right thing. I do not think that our enemy in any way. But we do allot of speculating in these groups without the slightest fact to back up what we say. So I was just asking why? I think there is more to it besides they just want to do us a favor. That's all.

Merlin · Jul 20, 2012

Broadside said:
esqappellate,

What's to stop someone from starting a brand new lawsuit just the way Raymond Woollard did?

I thought the stay was in place for a single judge's order.

It has been quite some time since I took business law, but as I recall you can bring a civil suit against someone to get money (damages), or you can bring a civil suit against someone to force them to do something or stop doing something (equity). Raymond Woollard's case is the latter I believe.

In the process of bringing a suit for equity relief. I think in some cases a plaintiff can also sue to have legal expenses reimbursed. Is this not correct?

Now, if we had 100 people decide to sue in Federal Court the MSP to force the MSP to issue permits, I realize that a Federal Judge would most likely place the cases on hold pending the outcome of Judge Legg's ruling on the permament stay and/or a ruling by 4th Circuit. But that doesn't mean that 100 people couldn't bring suit and then the state would at the very least have to submit briefs.

Where is my understanding incorrect? Thanks.

The MSP has done nothing wrong to want to bring a suite. If anything they should be denying app's and they are not. Legg said G&S is wrong, But Legg put the stay in place saying don't change anything just yet. Whatever the reason it's happening is a good thing.

gmhowell · Jul 20, 2012

Off topic, but yet not off topic. Since there has been no decision from Legg, is it possible that today's events in CO may color his ultimate decision? What about when CA-4 is asked for a stay when/if Legg upholds his?

CAS_Shooter · Jul 20, 2012

Merlin, what would be the purpose or value to the speculation?

Abacab · Jul 20, 2012

gmhowell said:
Off topic, but yet not off topic. Since there has been no decision from Legg, is it possible that today's events in CO may color his ultimate decision? What about when CA-4 is asked for a stay when/if Legg upholds his?

If they choose to do their job as a Judge should, then no, it won't color anything.

Merlin · Jul 20, 2012

CAS_Shooter said:
Merlin, what would be the purpose or value to the speculation?

None really. But that's seems to be what we often do here. I was not asking for any to speculate. I was hoping someone may know a fact that give us the answer.

Merlin · Jul 20, 2012

gmhowell said:
Off topic, but yet not off topic. Since there has been no decision from Legg, is it possible that today's events in CO may color his ultimate decision? What about when CA-4 is asked for a stay when/if Legg upholds his?

Abacab said:
If they choose to do their job as a Judge should, then no, it won't color anything.

Agreed. But people are people to include judges, and if it did color his decision, I would think CCW's are needed more because of what happen and judge Legg would even be more convinced he did the right thing, as well as being well over due.

Patrick · Jul 20, 2012

Merlin said:
None really. But that's seems to be what we often do here. I was not asking for any to speculate. I was hoping someone may know a fact that give us the answer.

There are no answers right now. Nobody has them.

Everything else is just chatter.

esqappellate · Jul 20, 2012

Broadside said:
esqappellate,

What's to stop someone from starting a brand new lawsuit just the way Raymond Woollard did?

I thought the stay was in place for a single judge's order.

It has been quite some time since I took business law, but as I recall you can bring a civil suit against someone to get money (damages), or you can bring a civil suit against someone to force them to do something or stop doing something (equity). Raymond Woollard's case is the latter I believe.

In the process of bringing a suit for equity relief. I think in some cases a plaintiff can also sue to have legal expenses reimbursed. Is this not correct?

Now, if we had 100 people decide to sue in Federal Court the MSP to force the MSP to issue permits, I realize that a Federal Judge would most likely place the cases on hold pending the outcome of Judge Legg's ruling on the permament stay and/or a ruling by 4th Circuit. But that doesn't mean that 100 people couldn't bring suit and then the state would at the very least have to submit briefs.

Where is my understanding incorrect? Thanks.

Succiently put, nothing is stopping you from bringing suit. Bringing suit is easy. You would need to have your permit denied. Such a suit would be for injunctive relief, ala Woollard. Hard to see any case for damages. I tend to doubt that you would be able to bring a 1983 suit to force the MSP to issue a decisionon a pending application. That would be for a writ of mandamus and would be filed in state court. But suits (state or federal) are expensive. Nothing is going to happen with your suit until the 4th Circuit rules. If Woollard wins, we all benefit without further ado. If Woollard loses, it will set binding precedent and you lose on the merits. If you win, you get fees and costs. If you lose, you get nothing.

As to forcing the state to file briefs, probably not. If I were representing the state, the very first thing I would do is file a motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the CA4 ruling in Woollard. It would be a 3 page motion that I could draft in an hour. That motion would most likely be granted and you would be right back to where you started, minus the filing fee and the upfront costs of retaining counsel. Not much point in that.

Patrick · Jul 20, 2012

There are follow-ons to G&S and Woollard. But right now everything is dependent on moving up the ladder one rung at a time. Woollard is a big step. Until it is done, everyone keeps their powder dry.

Trust me, there are more rungs above G&S.

Deep breathing, all.

Merlin · Jul 20, 2012

esqappellate said:
Succiently put, nothing is stopping you from bringing suit. Bringing suit is easy. You would need to have your permit denied.

esqappellate,

When you say "have your permit denied", you mean if the stay was off and the MSP still denied you?

If they denied you now during the stay, when they have every right to deny you, how can you, (or why would anyone want to because the MAP did nothing wrong) bring a suit?

esqappellate · Jul 20, 2012

Merlin said:
esqappellate,

When you say "have your permit denied", you mean if the stay was off and the MSP still denied you?

If they denied you now during the stay, when they have every right to deny you, how can you, (or why would anyone want to because the MAP did nothing wrong) bring a suit?

You can bring suit to challenge a denial regardless of when they deny your application and regardless of the reason. If you want to challenge G&S ala Woollard, then they need to deny you for that reason. I see no reason to bring suit if your application is still pending.

Merlin · Jul 20, 2012

esqappellate said:
You can bring suit to challenge a denial regardless of when they deny your application and regardless of the reason. If you want to challenge G&S ala Woollard, then they need to deny you for that reason. I see no reason to bring suit if your application is still pending.

If you were to challenge a denial and you request a hearing from the board, that is not consider a suit is it?

esqappellate · Jul 20, 2012

Merlin said:
If you were to challenge a denial and you request a hearing from the board, that is not consider a suit is it?

Correct, you can certainly attempt to have the Board correct the MSP denial and then sue the Board and the MSP after that. That is what Woollard did IIRC. And it makes sense to do so, as it precludes any "exhaustion" argument later.

Biggfoot44 · Jul 20, 2012

They have too much history on 2A for me to suddenly consider the MSP *Good Guys* . I would observe that at the present time they doing everything they can to do nothing at all , while keeping their options open for the future to go either direction.

As things stand at this moment , that is relativly benign for us, and probably better than if we somehow forced them into a corner.

Post the lifting of Stay and/or exhaustion of Wollard judicial process , it will undoubtedly be a whole new ballgame on both sides.

Rossi357 · Jul 20, 2012

It just occured to me.....Maybe they are processing the aps and getting them ready to issue permits if the stay if lifted. If the stay is not lifted, thay just sit on them till the outcome of the CA4 appeal.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

President, MSI

John Galt Speaking.

Not ignored by gamer_jim

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Banned Yet

Active Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

President, MSI

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics