HQL lawsuit

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!
  • fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    So gun stores should have forms for visitors to, upon discovering that they can't buy a handgun in MD without an HQL, put their name, address, and gun model that they wanted to purchase on a complaint list. Even if we capture 10% (which would have been higher in 2014), that number could be substantial.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

    MSI and a gun shop surviving standing in this lawsuit would have been a miracle. Now, exactly why the individual plaintiffs did not survive the issue of standing will be intriguing. For those of you that have read the opinion, did the judge say why each individual plaintiff did not survive the challenge on standing?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    MSI and a gun shop surviving standing in this lawsuit would have been a miracle. Now, exactly why the individual plaintiffs did not survive the issue of standing will be intriguing. For those of you that have read the opinion, did the judge say why each individual plaintiff did not survive the challenge on standing?

    Yes, apparently there was nothing preventing any of the individual plaintiffs from obtaining an HQL. None of them did try and obtain a HQL however.

    People should remember that Heller was not the originally name of the case and there were five other plaintiffs. Heller was the only one that actually applied for a permit and was the only one to survive issue of standing.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Yes, apparently there was nothing preventing any of the individual plaintiffs from obtaining an HQL. None of them did try and obtain a HQL however.

    People should remember that Heller was not the originally name of the case and there were five other plaintiffs. Heller was the only one that actually applied for a permit and was the only one to survive issue of standing.

    Yeah, that is what I have been trying to stress lately. Picking plaintiffs is really, really, really important before rushing off to litigate something. Being saying that about the Rapid Fire Trigger Device litigation, even though I think the entire premise of that is a loser since banning the entire gun, trigger and all, was already upheld by the 4th and cert was denied by SCOTUS.

    So, not a single one of the plaintiffs actually attempted to obtain an HQL. None of them could testify that they were prevented from doing so because of training being virtually impossible to attend for lack of a vehicle, the HQL being too expensive for them to pay for while on food stamps, section 8, WIC, SSI, etc., or whatever other reason made it impossible and discriminatory to them.

    Hope I can find time to read the opinion this weekend. Not being familiar with what happened in discovery or having it available to review, makes putting it all together a little tough. However, reading the opinion will be a great starting place.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,776
    Bel Air
    The suit against the HQL should be a facial claim. The law is plain Unconstitutional.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll

    smkranz

    Certified Caveman
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 21, 2013
    4,350
    Carroll County
    Here's an excerpt which I find sets up a remarkably unrealistic and unattainable burden for ordinary citizens:

    Ms. Hoffman maintains that her "severe hyperacusis," a hearing disorder that renders her unable to tolerate sound, prevented her from attending a training "in a room with a bunch of other people learning about gun safety" and from going "to a firing range and fir[ing] a gun." ECF 59-14 at 5-6. She spoke to one person who provides a firearms safety training course, but she did not know how much the trainer charged. ld. at 6-9. Apart from speaking to this one trainer, she has performed no other research on one-on-one firearms safety training. ld. Moreover, she did not seek an accommodation from the MSP for such training. ld. at 10. Although she has spoken to firing ranges about shooting there to satisfy her "live fire" training requirement (id. at 9-10), the record does not reflect that she sought an accommodation from the MSP as to the "live fire" training requirement.

    The record does not demonstrate that it would have been futile for Ms. Hoffman to seek accommodations. Notably, on November 17, 2017, in response to numerous requests, the MSP issued Advisory LD-HQL-17-004, which permits the use of alternative ammunition in the form of non-lethal, marking projectiles to satisfy the live-fire requirement. ECF 59-7 at 100, Johnson Declaration, Exhibit 9. In his Declaration (ECF 59-7 at 1-9), MSP Captain Johnson explains that the use of these projectiles "does not require access to a firing range," ld. ~ 29. Further, he attests that, in his experience, the firing of the projectiles "is significantly quieter than firing of traditional ammunition," such that he does "not wear ear protection" when firing the projectile rounds.

    Without applying for the HQL, or even investigating the process for the application, the individual plaintiffs' claims are purely "speculative" or "conjectural." Therefore, the individual plaintiffs cannot meet their burden to establish constitutional standing to challenge the HQL.

    Opinion, pp.27-28​

    So, how was this plaintiff supposed to know or intuit any of this crap such as seeking an accommodation, or finding MSP Advisory LD-HQL-17-004? In order to have standing to challenge a financial and physical burden on a constitutional right, an every-day individual has to take double-secret steps unknown to anyone except the MSP, and this Court? Granted, it was a long time ago and I probably only got a C in it, but that ain't the Constitutional Law I remember.

    And to answer an earlier question, MSI promises an appeal.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    There are other training work arounds that the judge is unfamiliar with apparently. More to the point, even if someone had training covered, opens up an HQL application online, but doesn't get the fingerprinting, then I believe the application would stay open indefinitely (with no denial - it's not like sending in a paper form that is returned to you as incomplete). What sort of damage is the court seeking to have standing? Perhaps borrow money to pay for the fingerprinting and licensing fees and not having the ability to pay off this debt. More likely, some people that haven't moved forward need to budget for both the HQL and handgun, and if this is prohibitive, they stop or possibly get a rifle.

    Again, I'd love to see a comparison of handgun purchases in MD in the 2010-2012 vs 2014-2016 period. All during the Obama administration. 2008/2009 might have been higher nationwide not knowing how Obama was going to act on gun control, esp with Democrats controlling Congress.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Here's an excerpt which I find sets up a remarkably unrealistic and unattainable burden for ordinary citizens:

    Ms. Hoffman maintains that her "severe hyperacusis," a hearing disorder that renders her unable to tolerate sound, prevented her from attending a training "in a room with a bunch of other people learning about gun safety" and from going "to a firing range and fir[ing] a gun." ECF 59-14 at 5-6. She spoke to one person who provides a firearms safety training course, but she did not know how much the trainer charged. ld. at 6-9. Apart from speaking to this one trainer, she has performed no other research on one-on-one firearms safety training. ld. Moreover, she did not seek an accommodation from the MSP for such training. ld. at 10. Although she has spoken to firing ranges about shooting there to satisfy her "live fire" training requirement (id. at 9-10), the record does not reflect that she sought an accommodation from the MSP as to the "live fire" training requirement.

    The record does not demonstrate that it would have been futile for Ms. Hoffman to seek accommodations. Notably, on November 17, 2017, in response to numerous requests, the MSP issued Advisory LD-HQL-17-004, which permits the use of alternative ammunition in the form of non-lethal, marking projectiles to satisfy the live-fire requirement. ECF 59-7 at 100, Johnson Declaration, Exhibit 9. In his Declaration (ECF 59-7 at 1-9), MSP Captain Johnson explains that the use of these projectiles "does not require access to a firing range," ld. ~ 29. Further, he attests that, in his experience, the firing of the projectiles "is significantly quieter than firing of traditional ammunition," such that he does "not wear ear protection" when firing the projectile rounds.

    Without applying for the HQL, or even investigating the process for the application, the individual plaintiffs' claims are purely "speculative" or "conjectural." Therefore, the individual plaintiffs cannot meet their burden to establish constitutional standing to challenge the HQL.

    Opinion, pp.27-28​

    So, how was this plaintiff supposed to know or intuit any of this crap such as seeking an accommodation, or finding MSP Advisory LD-HQL-17-004? In order to have standing to challenge a financial and physical burden on a constitutional right, an every-day individual has to take double-secret steps unknown to anyone except the MSP, and this Court? Granted, it was a long time ago and I probably only got a C in it, but that ain't the Constitutional Law I remember.

    And to answer an earlier question, MSI promises an appeal.

    The plaintiff's lawyer should tell her that she does not have sufficient standing to be part of the case. They should have advised her to contact MSP and verify that they would not accommodate any deviation (or do it themselves) before adding her as a plaintiff.

    The advisory appears to demonstrate that MSP would be willing to make an accommodation, which undermines any argument that it would have been futile to try and apply.

    The courts are not friendly to these types of cases. Why should we make it easy for them to find faults.

    I think it would be a waste of money to file an appeal. Take some time to address the issues the court identified and file a new case when you can find people that can demonstrate standing.
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    The plaintiff's lawyer should tell her that she does not have sufficient standing to be part of the case. They should have advised her to contact MSP and verify that they would not accommodate any deviation (or do it themselves) before adding her as a plaintiff.

    The advisory appears to demonstrate that MSP would be willing to make an accommodation, which undermines any argument that it would have been futile to try and apply.

    The courts are not friendly to these types of cases. Why should we make it easy for them to find faults.

    I think it would be a waste of money to file an appeal. Take some time to address the issues the court identified and file a new case when you can find people that can demonstrate standing.

    I'm not sure this is sarcasm or not. The standing that the plaintiffs seek was due to the cost. A plaintiff that cannot afford an HQL isn't going to be able to get advice from an attorney.

    Are you a member of MSI? If so, have you tried to get on the board?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I'm not sure this is sarcasm or not. The standing that the plaintiffs seek was due to the cost. A plaintiff that cannot afford an HQL isn't going to be able to get advice from an attorney.

    Are you a member of MSI? If so, have you tried to get on the board?

    Not sarcasm.

    A plaintiff, by definition is someone bringing a lawsuit. All of the plaintiffs in this case were represented by an attorney. That attorney should have reviewed the standing of everyone they included in the lawsuit. Based upon the opinion of the court, the plaintiff's attorney did a poor job of determining if they had standing.

    I am not a member of MSI.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    At a bare minimum they should have been given leave to amend to cure the alleged defects.
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Not sarcasm.

    A plaintiff, by definition is someone bringing a lawsuit. All of the plaintiffs in this case were represented by an attorney. That attorney should have reviewed the standing of everyone they included in the lawsuit. Based upon the opinion of the court, the plaintiff's attorney did a poor job of determining if they had standing.

    I am not a member of MSI.

    I get that. I'm an attorney. I think you're missing the point that not everyone can bring a case and afford an attorney.

    If you are s critical of MSI, why don't you get on the board? All you do is trash everyone else's work. It's easy to armchair after the decision comes out.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,171
    They need to have someone attempt to get a HQL who does not have a computer, or a credit card and try to do it by mail. The state police will not accommodate that because when it first went into effect I mailed them a check and asked for forms to apply and the check was returned with a note it had to be by computer and credit card.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I get that. I'm an attorney. I think you're missing the point that not everyone can bring a case and afford an attorney.

    If you are s critical of MSI, why don't you get on the board? All you do is trash everyone else's work. It's easy to armchair after the decision comes out.

    I get the fact that not everyone can bring a case and afford an attorney. It is precisely this reason that the ones you do bring should be as perfect as you can get them. Every time you bring a bad case you make the next one that much more difficult.

    I am not critical of MSI, just the lawyers that bring the cases. It is certainly much easier to armchair after the decision comes out and not every decision is easy to predict beforehand. I try and predict beforehand what the likely outcome will be, and am certainly not correct all the time.

    I have read a lot of these decisions and have begun to see a lot of repetitive patterns. I do not see changes to the arguments that would achieve a better result. I see most people here give praise for doing something, without critically analyzing it for flaws.

    I don't see that praising something is going to change anything. In order to change you need to understand where the flaws are and how to craft better arguments so that you can succeed the next time. I am trying to provide people here with the understanding of where the flaws are and how to craft better arguments.

    I am certainly frustrated that we keep loosing these cases. I can see how what I am doing can seem very negative, but how do you get the lawyers to change the arguments? I am more than willing to listen to suggestions if anyone has any better ideas.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    Yes, apparently there was nothing preventing any of the individual plaintiffs from obtaining an HQL. None of them did try and obtain a HQL however.

    People should remember that Heller was not the originally name of the case and there were five other plaintiffs. Heller was the only one that actually applied for a permit and was the only one to survive issue of standing.

    Heller was NEVER about being able to obtain a permit, as a matter of fact DC didn't even issue permits of any type back in 2008. It was about being able to own a firearm in DC, period.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    I get the fact that not everyone can bring a case and afford an attorney. It is precisely this reason that the ones you do bring should be as perfect as you can get them. Every time you bring a bad case you make the next one that much more difficult.

    I am not critical of MSI, just the lawyers that bring the cases. It is certainly much easier to armchair after the decision comes out and not every decision is easy to predict beforehand. I try and predict beforehand what the likely outcome will be, and am certainly not correct all the time.

    I have read a lot of these decisions and have begun to see a lot of repetitive patterns. I do not see changes to the arguments that would achieve a better result. I see most people here give praise for doing something, without critically analyzing it for flaws.

    I don't see that praising something is going to change anything. In order to change you need to understand where the flaws are and how to craft better arguments so that you can succeed the next time. I am trying to provide people here with the understanding of where the flaws are and how to craft better arguments.

    I am certainly frustrated that we keep loosing these cases. I can see how what I am doing can seem very negative, but how do you get the lawyers to change the arguments? I am more than willing to listen to suggestions if anyone has any better ideas.



    I'm going to give you credit for at least reading the decision before you made multiple posts about it.

    Serious question though, if you think that MSI has been using shitty lawyers why don't you offer up your services?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,951
    Messages
    7,260,253
    Members
    33,353
    Latest member
    sstrum

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom