Maryland files final brief in Woollard v. Sheridan

JanesDad · May 25, 2012

Here's an update about the Woollard v. Sheridan case written by John Pierce.

Mr H · May 25, 2012

JanesDad said:
Here's an update about the Woollard v. Sheridan case written by John Pierce.

Nice bit... and very well written (and thought-out)

dlmcbm · May 25, 2012

Very nice. I actually enjoyed reading that. It gives new hope from an outside party (outside of MDshooters).

EL1227 · May 25, 2012

'Doogie' should be ashamed of that submission, and I would be surprised if Judge Legg accepts it on merit ... it's the equivalent of 'the dog ate my homework' excuse.

Of course, everyone knows that this is just a delaying tactic so that Owe'Malley and Frosh could whip the legislature into submission during the 'special sessions', and if it weren't for the budget vs. casino kerfuffle AND MSI's yoeman work in fighting it, they would have pulled off a 2A coup during the final hours of the 430th session of General Assembly. We're not there yet, but with SAFs help we will be. Just remember ...

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

ericahls · May 26, 2012

"declared Maryland’s requirement that applicants articulate a “good and substantial reason” unconstitutional both in general and as-applied to Mr. Woollard."

So according to the article, you don't have to request "Self Defense" on the app.

In my case I have a G&S but as I read it I should also be included in the broader "unrestricted" category as well.

teratos · May 26, 2012

ericahls said:
"declared Maryland’s requirement that applicants articulate a “good and substantial reason” unconstitutional both in general and as-applied to Mr. Woollard."

So according to the article, you don't have to request "Self Defense" on the app.

In my case I have a G&S but as I read it I should also be included in the broader "unrestricted" category as well.

as should we all.

OnTarget · May 26, 2012

Good assessment of what is occurring.

OLD FORD GUY · May 29, 2012

The Metro section of the "Washington Times" had an article by David Hall titled "Appeal of voided Md. gun-permit law awaits ruling." Some interesting numbers: "According to state police, Marylanders filed 5,216 permit request last year and 251 of them were rejected- 179 on grounds that applicants did not have an adequate reason". I don't recall seeing such a large number of applications before. Perhaps I just missed it. The number seems high to me.

crj200 · May 29, 2012

ericahls said:
"declared Maryland’s requirement that applicants articulate a “good and substantial reason” unconstitutional both in general and as-applied to Mr. Woollard."

So according to the article, you don't have to request "Self Defense" on the app.

In my case I have a G&S but as I read it I should also be included in the broader "unrestricted" category as well.

Why is your G&S reason better than my 14th amendment right to equal protection?

crj200 · May 29, 2012

OLD FORD GUY said:
The Metro section of the "Washington Times" had an article by David Hall titled "Appeal of voided Md. gun-permit law awaits ruling." Some interesting numbers: "According to state police, Marylanders filed 5,216 permit request last year and 251 of them were rejected- 179 on grounds that applicants did not have an adequate reason". I don't recall seeing such a large number of applications before. Perhaps I just missed it. The number seems high to me.

That sure isn't a 97% approval rating! But the better question would be how many have applied this year? How many applied since the ruling?

woodstock · May 29, 2012

"...a glut of applications..."

ericahls · May 29, 2012

crj200 said:
Why is your G&S reason better than my 14th amendment right to equal protection?

Because we don't currently have equal protection. If your politically connected, rich and or a business owner then maybe you can protect yourself with a hand gun.

Everyone else needs to seek alternatives, perhaps a rape whistle. :lol2:

OLD FORD GUY · May 29, 2012

crj200 said:
That sure isn't a 97% approval rating! But the better question would be how many have applied this year? How many applied since the ruling?

Actually is is close to 97% Using the numbers in the Article I get 96.2%

Mr H · May 29, 2012

OLD FORD GUY said:
Actually is is close to 97% Using the numbers in the Article I get 96.2%

But remember...

A huge number of those applications are for security, armored car, etc., which are more for the employer than the individual, and are "easy" apps.

If it was possible to break those out of the numbers given, I would guess the "approval rate" (which I've always considered suspect and mostly inapplicable to the cause at hand) to be closer to 10 or 15%.

woodstock · May 29, 2012

keep applying

gmhowell · May 30, 2012

OLD FORD GUY said:
Actually is is close to 97% Using the numbers in the Article I get 96.2%

Close. 95.2. (I know what you did, silly math error)

mr h said:
But remember...

A huge number of those applications are for security, armored car, etc., which are more for the employer than the individual, and are "easy" apps.

If it was possible to break those out of the numbers given, I would guess the "approval rate" (which I've always considered suspect and mostly inapplicable to the cause at hand) to be closer to 10 or 15%.

But then it becomes apples and oranges, and twisting statistics to make a point. Remember that the plaintiff is trying to avoid this. The real reason for pursuing RKBA outside the home is because it's a right. All this business about how many people were denied or how many want it or anything else is just various smokescreens.

But I do see what you are saying. People looking for CCW simply to KBA as opposed to doing work, are far, far more likely than 3% to be turned down.

crj200 · May 30, 2012

ericahls said:
Because we don't currently have equal protection. If your politically connected, rich and or a business owner then maybe you can protect yourself with a hand gun.

Everyone else needs to seek alternatives, perhaps a rape whistle.

My 2nd and 14th amendment rights are all the good and substantial reason I need.

pcfixer · May 30, 2012

I like this part:

Since it has historically been a proxy for “politically connected, white, donor,” it is easy to understand why the state would want to protect those they have rewarded. But that’s the problem. A discretionary system guarantees that cronyism, racism, bigotry and administrative inertia will all poison the process.

Maryland files final brief in Woollard v. Sheridan

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Active Member

Member

Banana'd

Banned

Not Banned Yet

Banned

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics