Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 15th, 2019, 09:22 PM #51
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,278
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,278
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
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2019, 10:16 PM #52
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 689
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by smkranz View Post
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.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2019, 10:42 PM #53
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Prince Frederick, MD
Posts: 3,683
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Prince Frederick, MD
Posts: 3,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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?
Not_an_outlaw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2019, 11:36 PM #54
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 689
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_an_outlaw View Post
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.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2019, 12:06 AM #55
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,172
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,172
At a bare minimum they should have been given leave to amend to cure the alleged defects.
wolfwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2019, 12:17 AM #56
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Prince Frederick, MD
Posts: 3,683
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Prince Frederick, MD
Posts: 3,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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.
Not_an_outlaw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2019, 01:09 AM #57
Blacksmith101 Blacksmith101 is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,575
Blacksmith101 Blacksmith101 is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,575
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.
Blacksmith101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2019, 01:17 AM #58
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 689
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_an_outlaw View Post
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.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2019, 05:03 AM #59
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,367
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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.
__________________
"If it pleases the crown"
dblas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2019, 06:51 AM #60
Stoveman's Avatar
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 14,207
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
Stoveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 14,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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?
__________________
_______________
Proud CCW Cultist
Stoveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Tags
here we go again, wwnc but we will count


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service