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.

    Spot77

    Ultimate Member
    May 8, 2005
    11,591
    Anne Arundel County
    here is a link to the complaint, off the SAF website:
    http://saf.org/default.asp?p=legalaction#md-lawsuit

    I have a personal PACER account and can keep things updated. Right now, the summons was issued to the defendants, telling them to answer the complaint within 20 days. I attached the one I downloaded since I already paid for it. These things are 8 cents a page, so I may have to limit the downloads.

    The updates and access is worth it; keep track of what you're spending on it and we'll help out.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    That was post #185. Here it is:

    Agreed, the MD government will use every last second it has and try to drag this out, even if they know in the end they'll lose. A few million dollars to hang on to their "may-issue" system for a few extra months is worth it to them but not to the taxpayers.
     

    prpete

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2008
    111
    Aberdeen
    Why doesn't someone sue the permit law on the grounds of equal protection/application of the law?Maryland's permit application is unconstitutional in other areas other than in the Second amendment.Maryland's permit application law's wording doesn't require that lawyers, or pharmacists, or business owners need to prove, or demonstrate any reasonable danger of violence/danger or threats of violence against permit applicant's life.They only need to prove their vocations during the application process, and they recieve their Second amendment rights.Why are we (the rest of the law abiding citizenry)treated like second class citizens in this application of the second amendment?There are plenty of professionals in other fields of work that deserve rights just as anybody else, and almost everyone has to carry cash sometimes, just like any business owner.
     
    Last edited:

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Why doesn't someone sue the permit law on the grounds of equal protection/application of the law?Maryland's permit application is unconstitutional in other areas other than in the Second amendment.Maryland's permit application law's wording doesn't require that lawyers, or pharmacists, or business owners need to prove, or demonstrate any reasonable danger of violence/danger or threats of violence against permit applicant's life.They only need to prove their vocations during the application process, and they receive their Second amendment rights.Why are we (the rest of the law abiding citizenry)treated like second class citizens in this application of the second amendment?There are plenty of professionals in other fields of work that deserve rights just as anybody else, and almost everyone has to carry cash sometimes, just like any business owner.
    That COULD be done, but suing based on the fact that this is a Constitutional right is the most "bullet proof" way of doing it. Once that is established, there is no room for argument. If you said "lots of other people have a good and substantial reason", you are still leaving the door open for the State to say that there are people who do not have a good reason.
     

    prpete

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2008
    111
    Aberdeen
    That COULD be done, but suing based on the fact that this is a Constitutional right is the most "bullet proof" way of doing it. Once that is established, there is no room for argument. If you said "lots of other people have a good and substantial reason", you are still leaving the door open for the State to say that there are people who do not have a good reason.

    That's just it, though.I can't remember off hand, but I know that the constitution guarantees equal application and protecton of law as a constitutional right.Constitutional rights, from my understanding, cannot in this country, be granted or bestowed to certain classes or groups of people, and then be denied to others.That, in itself, is unconstitutional.I can't remember what amendment it is, but I know it's there.So, my point is that Maryland permit law is more than just unconstitutional on a second amendment, but on atleast other constitutional laws as well.
     

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    Why doesn't someone sue the permit law on the grounds of equal protection/application of the law?Maryland's permit application is unconstitutional in other areas other than in the Second amendment.Maryland's permit application law's wording doesn't require that lawyers, or pharmacists, or business owners need to prove, or demonstrate any reasonable danger of violence/danger or threats of violence against permit applicant's life.They only need to prove their vocations during the application process, and they recieve their Second amendment rights.Why are we (the rest of the law abiding citizenry)treated like second class citizens in this application of the second amendment?There are plenty of professionals in other fields of work that deserve rights just as anybody else, and almost everyone has to carry cash sometimes, just like any business owner.

    What you're talking about is a Guillory-style equal protection attack, essentially get all of the copies of the licensing applications statewide, scour through them to find all of the cronies who have been issued licenses solely for "self defense", and then have people apply, get denied, and then sue. It worked in California, and could work in Maryland, except now it's completely unnecessary as bearing arms is now a fundamental right. The Guillory-style attack presumes that as long as everyone who applies is treated equally (even if treated badly), that is perfectly OK for the equal protection purposes. This is a "Liberty Clause" case, not an equal protection case. Seem it simple, focused, and using surgical strikes.
     

    prpete

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2008
    111
    Aberdeen
    What you're talking about is a Guillory-style equal protection attack, essentially get all of the copies of the licensing applications statewide, scour through them to find all of the cronies who have been issued licenses solely for "self defense", and then have people apply, get denied, and then sue. It worked in California, and could work in Maryland, except now it's completely unnecessary as bearing arms is now a fundamental right. The Guillory-style attack presumes that as long as everyone who applies is treated equally (even if treated badly), that is perfectly OK for the equal protection purposes. This is a "Liberty Clause" case, not an equal protection case. Seem it simple, focused, and using surgical strikes.

    If you have read, and or filled out a permit to carry application, you will notice that there are a few catagories the applicants that are eligible for approval fall under, check the box and apply.One if you are seeking protection from threats made onto you.Another is for business owner.Another is for armed security, and yet another is for professionals; pharmacist, lawyers are given as example.ALL other people are ineligible to apply.There is no need to scour through applicants, as catagories are clearly defined as being ineligible, or not, by the application's structure, and wording.(Then, there is a racist question, after all ready filling out what race you are, in a seperate section, asking appicant whether or not the applicant is hispanic/latino, you have to check "yes", or "no", which is probably niether he nor there, unless I as a white Latino could get the Latin defamation league to launch a suit on racial equality as well)
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    That's just it, though.I can't remember off hand, but I know that the constitution guarantees equal application and protection of law as a constitutional right.Constitutional rights, from my understanding, cannot in this country, be granted or bestowed to certain classes or groups of people, and then be denied to others.That, in itself, is unconstitutional.I can't remember what amendment it is, but I know it's there.So, my point is that Maryland permit law is more than just unconstitutional on a second amendment, but on at least other constitutional laws as well.

    Yes. You know it, I know it. Someone just needs to tell Maryland. They probably know it too, but since they don't like it, they are holding their breath and closing their eyes and sticking their fingers in their ears. The MD government will not recognize it until the dunce cap is put on them and they are forced to write on the chalkboard: "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" 100 times.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    I am very glad the SAF has sued. I have contibuted to both MSI and SAF
    to support this lawsuit.
    Just wondering why the suit is againt the police super and 3 on the handgun review board? Why not the AG too? Don't understand the line of thinking in this?
    Good thing I'm not a lawyer!!
     

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    If you have read, and or filled out a permit to carry application, you will notice that there are a few catagories the applicants that are eligible for approval fall under, check the box and apply.One if you are seeking protection from threats made onto you.Another is for business owner.Another is for armed security, and yet another is for professionals; pharmacist, lawyers are given as example.ALL other people are ineligible to apply.There is no need to scour through applicants, as catagories are clearly defined as being ineligible, or not, by the application's structure, and wording.(Then, there is a racist question, after all ready filling out what race you are, in a seperate section, asking appicant whether or not the applicant is hispanic/latino, you have to check "yes", or "no", which is probably niether he nor there, unless I as a white Latino could get the Latin defamation league to launch a suit on racial equality as well)

    That would complicate the case unnecessarily.
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    Lawsuit challenges Maryland's handgun restrictions
    By BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press Writer
    Published 07/31/10
    BALTIMORE (AP) — Maryland places too great a burden on residents who seek permits to carry handguns, gun-rights advocates claim in a lawsuit that builds on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms.



    http://www.hometownannapolis.com/ne...hallenges-Marylands-handgun-restrictions.html
     
    Last edited:

    Walter

    Active Member
    May 23, 2010
    868
    WOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!! HEARING THIS MADE MY DAY!!!!!!!


    I cant donate for life membership to the SAF right now because I don't have the funds to spare :(. If only this had happened a week earlier before I bought those new subs!!!

    But I will definitely make sure to donate when I have the funds to spare!!!
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,365
    White Marsh
    Just as a heads up for folks who are thinking about donating to SAF, MSI is going to take all donations submitted between 7/29 and midnight on 8/7 and send them off to SAF. It would look great if MSI could follow up the fantastic support that we as individuals have given with a great group effort from the single best 2A organization in Maryland. More details in the latest MSI update here: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=40727
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    Yep I heard that!

    Someone asked me today where their money would best be spent, with MSI or SAF.

    I never thought about it before, but replied, well, I guess MSI because MSI will most likely give the SAF folks some money and it will show a lot of solidarity if we have one voice, under MSI on this issue.

    Didn't know this plan was in the works, for MSI to whole-sale donate to SAF.

    I also suggested that MSI has been pretty good with spending it (our) money very responsibly.

    Also the attorney's sending this bill are not asking for money, they are doing it pro-bono, the SAF site has a 'donate link', either way, it's a nice gesture to send them a message (cash never hurts). In my opinion, best if organized through MSI, they are trust worthy and the leaders on the issue of Self-defense in Maryland.
     
    Last edited:

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    Also the attorney's sending this bill are not asking for money, they are doing it pro-bono, the SAF site has a 'donate link', either way, it's a nice gesture to send them a message (cash never hurts). In my opinion, best if organized through MSI, they are trust worthy and the leaders on the issue of Self-defense in Maryland.

    The loser pays the court costs. Don't worry, DC and Chicago owe Mr. Gura a large, large, tab.
     

    Spot77

    Ultimate Member
    May 8, 2005
    11,591
    Anne Arundel County
    I guess another "plus" is that if the money comes from a MD grassroots effort, we can better ensure that the money will be used to properly fund this case.

    Or maybe not......who knows....
     

    prpete

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2008
    111
    Aberdeen
    That would complicate the case unnecessarily.

    Complicate it yes.Only it (Maryland handgun permit law) needs to be confronted and challenged in EVERY possible direction that is needed to stop it.How much easier to stop it if it not only is in violation of one costitutional amendment, but 2 or 3, all together?
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,449
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom