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

frozencesium said:

You want to be the one to test that theory? I promise you that you'll be arrested for "disturbing the peace" or some other non-sense. All Gainsler said was "We can't arrest you for OCing your rifle", he never mentioned not arresting you for something else.

Click to expand...

DeeDeub said:

This is awesome:

Maryland is a relatively small state encompassing a number of metropolitan jurisdictions with significant illegal drug problems. Although it has made significant strides in recent years, Maryland had the ninth highest violent crime rate in the United States in 2009. CIUS 2009, Table 4. Maryland’s largest city, Baltimore, consistently ranks as one of ten most violent cities in the country. (pg. 21)

Are they trying to help SAF?!

/lurker mode OFF!!

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Fodder for another thread perhaps?....ideas are running through my head as well.

Click to expand...

Second, the requirement of showing a good and substantial reason, by reducing the carrying of handguns by citizens who lack legitimate reasons for wearing and carrying
them in public, helps prevent non-lethal confrontations from turning lethal. The
prevalence of guns has been shown to increase the death rate from crimes such as assault
and robbery.

Click to expand...

the good and substantial reason requirement reduces negative impacts on
the safety and effectiveness of police officers created by the proliferation of light-weight,
easily-concealable handguns in public among people with no legitimate need for them.15

Click to expand...

Srsanbo said:

I feel at the same time that I am being looked down-upon and lumped into the same category of the criminal.

Click to expand...

Patrick said:

The case will be appealed by either party, and to be sure everyone here is clear: we are still the underdogs at this level.

A stay in the decision may or may not happen. We have to win first. In the case of Heller, the decision was stayed because it introduced guns into homes where none previously existed. If the decision had been overturned, people would have had to turn in their guns or move or be prosecuted. Much like the gay-marriage decisions that were stayed because you generally cannot undo a marriage by force; or even the decision against Don't Ask Don't Tell that would have made impossible for gay service member to "un-tell" their story after the fact.

The big consideration in all of these cases: you cannot unring a bell. In each case, an overturn of the decision would cause harm to someone who relied upon it.

In the case of permitted carry of firearms by lawful citizens in Maryland, the "inherent risk" of citizen carry would have been addressed by the judge in response to Maryland's defense. He cannot say "no risk" in the opinion and then stay the same opinion due to the risk inherent in it. And frankly, this is one bell that can be "un-wrung" quite easily: if Maryland eventually wins on the merits they can administratively rescind any and all permits issued without good cause. One day. Done. People still have their guns for home and the shooting range, which they already purchased before the permit was issued. In short, there is no harm to people if the ruling is later reversed on appeal.

So my view is that a stay from the District judge based on public safety would be surprising. He - or the 4th Circuit - might issue one because this is a question of first impression with some societal impacts, though it'd be a stretch to say Maryland would fare worse doing just what every other member of the 4th Circuit (and 80%+ of the nation) already does.

We're just thinking out loud at this point. We are still the underdogs.

Click to expand...

yellowsled said:

my favorite part....

"Outside of limited exceptions, Maryland does not require a permit to wear and
carry a long gun outside the home."

Looks like I am gonna put that sling on my MAK-90 to good use.

Click to expand...

fightinbluhen51 said:

Reading the table of contents...and I'll have to read through the whole brief...does this mean we can now have an "open carry" of "non-regulated" arms in front of the State House at Independence Mall?

I wonder what the legislators would think about that!

Click to expand...

shawn said:

Hey not bad......They are telling us we can carry our rifles open or concealed.


Maybe I will have to start carrying my undefolder ak .

Click to expand...

Third, the law does not regulate the wearing and carrying of all firearms in public,
but is limited only to handguns. Even individuals who lack a good and substantial reason
to obtain a permit to wear and carry a handgun have the option of wearing and carrying
other types of firearms in public

Click to expand...

pcfixer said:

Yep, this is on page 30

Click to expand...

(“The government’s interest in protecting the citizenry from crime is without question
compelling.”); Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville, 159 F.3d 843, 848 (4th Cir. 1998);
Peruta, 2010 WL 5137137, at *8 (“The government also has an important interest in
reducing the number of concealed handguns in public because of their disproportionate
involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence, particularly in streets and other public
places.”); Heller II, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 190-91.
2.

Click to expand...

pcfixer said:

This is really something coming from an attorney...give me a break... page 43

Click to expand...