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

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!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Oreo

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Mar 23, 2008
    1,394
    I'm betting the state does the most predictable thing & declares everything within 1000ft of a school is "sensitive areas" and all permits are restricted to outside these areas excepting private residences in said areas and those permits for security personnel who will additionally be permitted to carry at the sensitive place they are employed at. They probably won't think far enough ahead to question transport laws and passing through sensitive areas so you'll automatically be illegal if you're the subject of a traffic stop near a school where the state would require your weapon to be stored in locked case separate from ammo & in the trunk.
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    I'm betting the state does the most predictable thing & declares everything within 1000ft of a school is "sensitive areas" and all permits are restricted to outside these areas excepting private residences in said areas and those permits for security personnel who will additionally be permitted to carry at the sensitive place they are employed at. They probably won't think far enough ahead to question transport laws and passing through sensitive areas so you'll automatically be illegal if you're the subject of a traffic stop near a school where the state would require your weapon to be stored in locked case separate from ammo & in the trunk.

    Then there is the ever popular carrying to work, but you can't leave it anywhere, because your employer won't allow it in, or on, the premises.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    OK, here's what the lawsuit is asking:

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against
    Defendants as follows:
    1. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii);
    2. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from denying a permit to carry firearms on grounds that the applicant does not face a level of danger higher than that which an average person would reasonably expect to encounter.
    3. An order commanding Defendants to renew Plaintiff Woollard’s permit to carry a handgun;
    4. Costs of suit, including attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
    5. Declaratory relief consistent with the injunction; and
    6. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

    Restrictions on when to carry or the conditions required to carry (moving cash, etc.) are all predicated on the "enhanced level of danger" inherent in those actions. In other words, MD says you must demonstrate a heightened level of need to carry a gun because personal self protection is not enough - the cash is the enhancement that makes carry possible (in their world). So it is reasonable under the current regime to restrict carry to only those times when the enhancement is in effect -- when you are carrying cash, for instance.

    The suit seeks to stop the practice of requiring that enhanced, "heightened" danger for permits. This would also apply to the practice of making restrictions that are also dependent upon the same heightened risk. Those restrictions flow from the law and practice under challenge.

    I'm not as confident that we have reached the point where 2A issues will be subjected to strict scrutiny. In Heller, the court ruled out rational basis scrutiny, but stopped there.

    It seems to me the court left that open. Perhaps McDonald and Heller did not provide the opportunity to refine the majority thinking.

    I'd be curious to read your opinion on this issue.

    As for the use of Strict Scrutiny versus "something else", I'll agree nothing is guaranteed. Much of what we discuss here is predicated on a strict review of restrictions on the 2A.

    The Supreme Court has spoken on this in the past. Essentially, a right deemed "Fundamental" is afforded strict protections. But this is not absolute - different aspects of the right can be subject to varying reviews. This applies in the First Amendment as well - churches are still subject to zoning laws even though they are afforded strict protection for the religion they espouse. They cannot say "God commands me to build a 10,000 car parking lot in this residential neighborhood" and tell the zoning people to burn in Hell (this has been tried, by the way).

    Likewise 2A. Scalia said it best when he said Heller does not allow you to anything you want, wherever and whenever you want. So the argument now is not whether some part of 2A requires strict scrutiny (the "Fundamental nature" of it pretty much guarantees that) - the arguments will be over what part of 2A gets this protection.

    Anti-2A forces are already drawing their line: 2A is afforded protection in the home. In other words, "keep arms" is protected. They won't actually come out and say "strictly", but I think they would split the baby there if they could. They argue that "bearing" also applies only in the home.

    The challenge for those who are against this civil right are hard. Something about 2A is "Fundamental" and the Heller and McDonald opinions both said it was "personal protection" at the core of the right. The amendment is rather short, and the "collective versus individual right" was settled handily in Heller. But the Court did not break down exactly what scrutiny to afford any part of 2A.

    The hard part for MD is going to be splitting that baby: keep and bear. The text of 2A is rather short and to the point. The previous argument over interpretation (collective/individual) is settled. According to Heller and McDonald, that leaves a clear meaning: 2A is an individual, fundamental right to self defense. The challenge for MD/NY/DC and others is somehow appending the words "in the home" to the end of that meaning. Problem is, the Constitution says no such thing and this Court is not the type that just adds words to amendments as they see fit.

    I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture for our side. I'm spending most of the time looking at this from the other side - I ask "how do I restrict 2A" under the current rationales. Just how do I thread that needle?

    When it comes to the stated purposes of the right - "individual protection" - it is going to be a tough thing to restrict to just the home.

    But NFA, machine guns, etc. are those pieces that I can see successful arguments for restrictions at a lower than strict basis. I know it disappoints everyone, but we'll probably be stuck fighting those in the court of public opinion and legislation. It will be easier, but it'll still take time.

    I'm betting the state does the most predictable thing & declares everything within 1000ft of a school is "sensitive areas" and all permits are restricted to outside these areas excepting private residences in said areas and those permits for security personnel who will additionally be permitted to carry at the sensitive place they are employed at. They probably won't think far enough ahead to question transport laws and passing through sensitive areas so you'll automatically be illegal if you're the subject of a traffic stop near a school where the state would require your weapon to be stored in locked case separate from ammo & in the trunk.

    Lots of law in that line and you are right that they can/will take that position. But they will get smacked down. 1000' puts me two city blocks from a school I cannot see. Or a daycare provider who happens to also do preschool in her house. The state cannot just declare areas "sensitive" and then not post them, but then also charge you criminally for getting stuck in that minefield.

    The state will need to notify you of restrictions (signage). If enough of the state or city is declared "sensitive" by the state, you can bet they will be sued and lose. They cannot make "creative" ways of restricting your rights. If the 1000' exclusionary zones make a city center all but impassable, they will have a tough fight on their hands. Likewise the argument over picking your child up from school - the exclusionary zone would restrict your ability to defend yourself on the way to and from that zone. Some states have handled this in law, other not. I think there is a good fight to be made here that would also apply to transport to/from any "excluded" zone, including private property/work.

    Creative restrictions have been tried numerous times with other rights. Permits for religious practice, charging a tax to vote, etc. I'm not saying they won't so it, only that it is unlikely they will succeed in the long term.
     

    miles71

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jul 19, 2009
    2,522
    Belcamp, Md.
    I just keep thinking about the founding fathers sitting in a room, writting the constitution, saying to themselves "Thats good, how could anyone take that the wrong way? Seems very clear the way it is worded." and then "how about those amendments, they seem like good clarification. Especially that 2nd one, lets keep it short and to the point."

    Wonder what they would think if they came back and saw how the world is nowadays.
    TD
     

    h2u

    Village Idiot
    Jul 8, 2007
    6,694
    South County
    I just keep thinking about the founding fathers sitting in a room, writting the constitution, saying to themselves "Thats good, how could anyone take that the wrong way? Seems very clear the way it is worded." and then "how about those amendments, they seem like good clarification. Especially that 2nd one, lets keep it short and to the point."

    Wonder what they would think if they came back and saw how the world is nowadays.
    TD

    This would pretty much sum it up....
     

    Attachments

    • Georgewashingtonwtf.jpg
      Georgewashingtonwtf.jpg
      51.7 KB · Views: 249

    h2u

    Village Idiot
    Jul 8, 2007
    6,694
    South County
    That's a great picture there h2u, and I am inclined to agree with Patrick's "strippers and coke" theory when it comes to the NRA

    Picture was "borrowed" from one of the MDS members. I loved the picture because it IS worth a thousand words...
    I'd also like to think that right after George utters "WTF", he pulls a pistol and starts cleaning house - old school.....I can at least dream :D
     

    hvymax

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 19, 2010
    14,011
    Dentsville District 28
    Just joined NRA yesterday. Will be joining MSI and SAF next week. Why isn't the NRA in this fight???

    They are more worried about JOB SECURITY than the second ammendment and your rights. They have joined the NAACP in preferring something to raise money about than any meaningful solution to the issues.
     

    bulletbill

    Agent provocateur
    Dec 31, 2008
    2,908
    SW FL
    A little off topic but my wife told me tonight that they have a sign at the local Toy R Us stating "No firearms on the premises". She hadnt really noticed it before and we have only recently been going to Toys R Us due to our first sons birth. Since I am "always on the computer talking about guns" she told me about this.

    It hadnt hit me how stupid this practice is until now. Bad Guy "Gee, I wonder what store I should rob? Maybe the one with no guns allowed."

    One of the most important things I could protect would be my son and wife, makes me wonder. What will happen if this suit is won, will some businesses start to lose customers?

    TD

    Simple answer Yes. Pretty much my philosophy with the state of MD right now. Establishments will begin to see these, if only from myself should this go positive...


    NoGunsNoMoney-Variety.gif
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    They are more worried about JOB SECURITY than the second ammendment and your rights. They have joined the NAACP in preferring something to raise money about than any meaningful solution to the issues.

    Think about it, Rev's Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not want equal rights. If that were to occur beyond a shadow of a doubt, they would be out of a job. Therefore, they keep raising doubt.

    Is the NRA, therefore, "raising doubt", or are they in the fight. Inquiring minds want to know.
     

    Kashmir1008

    MSI Executive Member
    Mar 21, 2009
    1,996
    Carroll County
    Just joined NRA yesterday. Will be joining MSI and SAF next week. Why isn't the NRA in this fight???

    Because the NRA has become a bunch of complacent fat cats - they are only interested in preserving their position and the status quo. They have become a huge bureaucratic political monster, and as such they have to play the political game.

    The NRA has to pick and choose their agenda and battles very carefully. They don't want to risk burning political capital or bad press that would make them appear weak or ineffectual. That's the nature of politics. So why would they want to go to bat for us in MD and risk anything? They won't.

    That doesn't work for me. I need my rights protected and I was counting on the NRA to back me. Instead they waited for someone else to do all the work and then they jumped on the band wagon and tried to make it look like they were in the fight the whole time. Typical spineless political maneuvering. IMHO the NRA's behavior was pathetic and shameful.

    I did not renew my NRA membership and I am drafting a letter to them to explain that the SAF is the organization that best represents my interests. It was the SAF that challenged D.C., it was the SAF that tackled Chicago, it was the SAF that is going after NY and now MD. The SAF and GOA are now the recipients of my hard earned cash.

    Time to change the guard
     

    miles71

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jul 19, 2009
    2,522
    Belcamp, Md.
    The NRA does certify instructors, and I am sure it is nice to have an organization behind you for liability. To bad the SAF doesnt have an instructor certification, or do they?

    Does anyone else besides the NRA do this certification thing for instructors?

    TD
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    The NRA still does good work in the sporting and instructor side of things. They did great technical work on range safety and backstop construction that someone here pointed my way. It's good stuff.

    I think the problem is they cry about protecting our rights to get our money and then we are disappointed when they are MIA.

    I would not be surprised to find someone from the NRA here on the forum. More than a few instructors. Seriously would like to hear the things they've done for us in MD. Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding and we simply are ignorant of the facts.

    Or maybe they do need to step up. In which case, join the discussion and tell us how you will help.

    But something in my head tells me the NRA is not watching the flow here because they are so absent from MD they could care less what we think or say about them. I hope they prove us wrong, because we need lots of help here. Let the SAF fight in the courts; we need power on the ground in Annapolis working both fronts at the same time.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom