Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

daNattyFatty · Dec 19, 2019

NYRangers917 said:
sigh maybe next year..... there should be a rule against the state dragging their feet to prolong this sh*t without good cause

What needs to happen is for an example to be made.

“Oh, you didn’t feel it necessary to respond? Ok, guess we’ll proceed on the merits of the plaintiff’s case. Toodles.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Kharn · Dec 19, 2019

I like this one:

And in Heller II, the District of Columbia Circuit used
the two-step framework and intermediate-level scru-
tiny in upholding the District’s laws regarding assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Did they forget to look up the dissent, who the judges were on that case, and their future judicial careers? :rofl:

Applehd · Dec 19, 2019

"Instead, it allows a lawful owner of a handgun
to wear, carry, or transport the handgun without a
permit in a public place in connection with a wide
range of activities..."

Hmmm... now go ask the guy(I believe he's now prohibited) that stopped at the RoFo outside of FreeState gun range how that stop for a soft drink and a snack on the way home went for him... :rolleyes:

dgapilot · Dec 19, 2019

Wonder if that brief could be used at the handgun permit review board as licensing decision written policy?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blacksmith101 · Dec 19, 2019

daNattyFatty said:
What needs to happen is for an example to be made.

“Oh, you didn’t feel it necessary to respond? Ok, guess we’ll proceed on the merits of the plaintiff’s case. Toodles.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Isn't that the kind of thing that happened in United States v. Miller?

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.[2] [3]

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

daNattyFatty · Dec 19, 2019

Blacksmith101 said:
Isn't that the kind of thing that happened in United States v. Miller?

That’s exactly what I was thinking about while replying. Seems the court has gotten away from that practice (was it even a thing, or did the ol 2A two step exist back then?)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

dblas · Dec 20, 2019

Reading the brief makes my head hurt. Do they really believe that Wrenn was about a complete ban on carrying in DC and not DC's version of G&S?? WOW.....

motorcoachdoug · Dec 20, 2019

That was total BS they Maryland submitted to the court. So if maryland says you must prove apprehended danger then can you use that when you have to go before the ALJ hearing after you are turned down by MSP?

pcfixer · Dec 20, 2019

motorcoachdoug said:
That was total BS they Maryland submitted to the court. So if maryland says you must prove apprehended danger then can you use that when you have to go before the ALJ hearing after you are turned down by MSP?

The appellant suggests that the phrase “reasonable precaution against apprehended **298 danger” is the sole criterion for defining “good and substantial reason.” He urges that “apprehended danger” is to be viewed from the subjective standpoint of the applicant.

purely subjective to 'Me". I live in apprehended danger every day of my life.

kenpo333 · Dec 20, 2019

Does Malpasso V. Pallozzi go into the fact that only .4% of the Mayrland population have Wear and Carry. Got the stat off an USCCA article and that if nothing else show suppression. That was close to the botton with New York, New Jersey, and California.

delaware_export · Dec 20, 2019

It’s odd hearing stats from the restricted world.

Our office, of no special privilege such as threats, money, and such has about 30 something employees and at least 12-14 people with cc permits. I don’t think folks carry at work, but they have the permits. There was even an unofficial “ccw party class” with about 12 employees and another 8 or so family members and friends.

The reject / approval stats are interesting. Last I heard Hawaii had a near zero, and maybe full zero, disapproval rating. Basically when you tell everyone no for many years, they stop applying. See. Nothing to reject. And you get the Young case. Zero permits were issued in Hawaii for the last year I recall stats on.

I’d venture to say the same is true for Maryland and other states. If they’re going to tell you no, why waste the time and money applying. Self fulfilling prophecy. Just as .gov intended.

Kharn · Dec 20, 2019

And how many of those "thousands of permits" are for personal protection vs assumed risk positions?

The licensing division is apparently categorizing those with permits for Top Secret clearances as personal protection instead of assumed risk positions, despite the clearance being directly job related.

danb · Dec 20, 2019

All the stats are irrelevant. In this case, the petitioner was denied a carry permit, the only reason being lack of G&S. To make an analogy with the first amendment context, it does not matter if for example WAMTA accepts 99.9% of advertisements, if they deny even one purely based on viewpoint, its unconstitutional. They need to defend G&S based on history, text, and tradition. It was a waste of precious words. Honestly, I think that they phoned this one in and just wrote a "greatest hits" brief because they knew there were other carry cases being held. 5 strictly carry cases now are before the court.

What I really want to know is how many Bloomberg lawyers embedded in the AG office participated in this. Yes, its true, Bloomberg has "donated" and paid for legal eagles in the Maryland AG office. Its hard to even believe thats legal, not some form of illegal interest-peddling corruption.

teratos · Dec 20, 2019

I have my permit. I can carry to and from my office. If I go out to lunch, I can't carry. Despite the fact that I can prescribe unlimited quantities of narcotics from my iPhone.

Kharn · Dec 20, 2019

danb said:
All the stats are irrelevant. In this case, the petitioner was denied a carry permit, the only reason being lack of G&S. To make an analogy with the first amendment context, it does not matter if for example WAMTA accepts 99.9% of advertisements, if they deny even one purely based on viewpoint, its unconstitutional. They need to defend G&S based on history, text, and tradition. It was a waste of precious words. Honestly, I think that they phoned this one in and just wrote a "greatest hits" brief because they knew there were other carry cases being held. 5 strictly carry cases now are before the court.

What I really want to know is how many Bloomberg lawyers embedded in the AG office participated in this. Yes, its true, Bloomberg has "donated" and paid for legal eagles in the Maryland AG office. Its hard to even believe thats legal, not some form of illegal interest-peddling corruption.

I know that's not legal on the federal level, Uncle Sam can't accept services without paying market value for them.

BeoBill · Dec 20, 2019

Blacksmith101 said:
Page 1 second paragraph.

So "apprehended danger" must be the only "good and substantial reason" you need.

Luckily enough, living in a gang crime infested sh1t hole like Bloodymore City is not a good enough or substantial enough reason. Unless you're a pol, of course...

ETA:

I find it incongruous that even though my level of "apprehended danger" is not sufficient for Maryland to grant me a W&C, my Utah CCL renewal arrived in the mail today.

BeoBill · Dec 20, 2019

dgapilot said:
Wonder if that brief could be used at the handgun permit review board as licensing decision written policy?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not after the 31st.

PharaohF4 · Dec 20, 2019

teratos said:
I have my permit. I can carry to and from my office. If I go out to lunch, I can't carry. Despite the fact that I can prescribe unlimited quantities of narcotics from my iPhone.

you cant appeal for an unlimited restriction since MSP changed the policy earlier this year?

teratos · Dec 20, 2019

PharaohF4 said:
you cant appeal for an unlimited restriction since MSP changed the policy earlier this year?

Denied on informal, we’ll see what happens with the board. I’m not the business owner.

LeadSled1 · Dec 21, 2019

teratos said:
Denied on informal, we’ll see what happens with the board. I’m not the business owner.

I hope that is part of the case right there. Under Maryland law you are not allowed to use deadly force to protect personal property. Of the few permits that have been issued, the majority are under association with businesses to protect personal property. Money, medications, valuables, and information. Almost none were issued just to protect life and limb, which are the only reasons allowed under Maryland law to use deadly force.

Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Throbbing Member

Active Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics