Patrick
MSI Executive Member
These motions to dismiss are effectively a "trial" on procedural issues: do the plaintiff's have standing; do the plaintiff's have a claim that can be remedied, etc.yellowsled said:
They can go on as long as the court allows them. These current motions are all basically about standing and some other related jurisdiction/process issues. At some point the court rules one way or the other on each argument. This round of motions should be dealt with soon, as MD has all but exhausted their arguments here.
For their next step, the state will make another motion to dismiss, again arguing that the plaintiffs have no claim that requires relief - they will argue that the plaintiffs have no case because no court of competent jurisdiction has said that the right to bear arms exists outside the home. MD will point to "numerous cases decided since Heller" that all conclude the right is limited to the home. This will require some careful cherry-picking, but they'll do it all the same. They will point to the recent Ezell case where the SAF was denied a preliminary injunction against the Chicago gun range ban because "no harm was anticipated" by the plaintiffs. Again...serious cherry-picking that ignores a score of issues in that case.
At some point various arguments get settled along the way and we get down to brass tacks. If MD were to file a motion using the argument I outline above, we are essentially dealing with 2A issues (where we want to be). That is when it gets more interesting.
Overall, MD has to be careful here. If they were to get the case dismissed too soon, it will be appealed up to the Circuit level in Richmond immediately. This would actually be a bit like "fast tracking" this case up the chain. Not all defeats are bad for our side.
As for a trial...hopefully there will not be one. Trials are used for "fact finding", not interpretation of written law. The SAF suit is asking for a review of the law, as a "matter of law". Meaning: all facts are based on written MD law and there is no need to discover anything or to ascertain the "truth" of a stated fact.
That said, MD will ask for more "limited discovery", probably to challenge the lead Plaintiff's claim or even again to challenge SAF's standing (a lesson from Chicago, though it failed there). This will eat up more time, but not much. And it is unlikley to require a trial, maybe a hearing or two.
At some point the court will force MD to respond to the complaint - meaning reply in detail to the charges made by the SAF that MD law is unconstitutional. That back and forth will take about 3 months, assuming the usual argument/counter-argument schedule is maintained.
Summing up the current case status, big-picture-wise (my view): the SAF filed a complaint and MD has pulled out all the stops to avoid responding to it. At this point in time, we have yet to see MD actually address the issue at hand, though it is getting harder for them to avoid it. At some point they will have no choice but to respond, but expect at least one more attempt at misdirection from them in the meantime. We are maybe 6 months from seeing this close to done.
