I'm guessing, MD will wait 1 minute before the courts close to file for an extension.
MD has realized that they are wrong and that normal civilians have a right to protect themselves just like people with money or government connections do. They forfeit.
Oh yeah, and they realized that their gun laws are idiotic and reversed the 20+ round mag "ban" as well as the assault weapons regulations.
Oh but you can only carry concealed if a heavy barrel.
Slow day in your mother's basement?
It's called "The Police", and while a good number of them will not care, enough will to make a problem.
They didn't want to say something we can turn around on them in court later. For them to acknowledge the issue means they can be shown to be willfully holding back or ignoring it.
Agreed, but it is still "cat herding". Yes, you get a few, but a few scurry around behind you, and when you aren't looking others pop the cage door open and run... kinda like crackheads.
Oh, believe you me, they telegraphed that intent a MILE a friggin' away. Like I said, during the review the MDSP started to launch, as soon as the word "Second" rolled out of my lips, and the lawyer on the panel pointed and looked at him, without saying a word, with that parental STFU look.
MD is almost surely going to argue the right does not exist.
I think you just called cops "crackheads". That takes LEO-bashing to a new level here on the forum. You win.
MD does not recognize the Second Amendment. It simply does not exist in our state. At least, it did not prior to June 28. So all the laws they are using against you are codified with no rights in existence. You cannot argue 2A because it is invisible.
Acknowledging the 2A in your hearing gives rise to a new set of challenges. Once they start arguing the facets of the 2A, they acknowledge the right exists.
Of course, this is all theater. The right does exist in MD, but it is not codified or acknowledged (doesn't need to be under federal civil rights law). The real issue we have is that 2A is not defined in this case anywhere in the nation. There is simply no recognition of the right to bear arms in public, outside of a few state Constitutions.
MD is almost surely going to argue the right does not exist. That means they are not going to debate it with you in a venue subject to external interpretation.
My guesses.
No,silly,I was comparing cops to catstoand silly crackheads. Hard to catch, as they scurry about. The cops have a hard time catching them, and when they do the courts let them out...
Anyway, whenever I made my closing remarks, I specifically stated that in previous cases, whereby permits were denied for "good and substantial" reasons, the case "Onderdonk vs. the Review Board has always been cited. In that case, the line that they always point to is where the State has clearly claimed that the 14th Amendment does not allow for the 2A to carry directly through to the State. I then read Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito's certiorari opinion whereby he clearly states that the 2A DOES transfer to the states.
In previous denials, the Review Board has addressed such ascertions, again, citing Onderdonk. This time, however, they just plain BYPASSED.
Besides Onderdonk, cases against the MD Handgun board:
Williams v MD
Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Bd 2005
Snowden v Handgun Permit Review Board 1980
Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 1979
Thanks to Kharn...
EDIT: Nothing on PACER as of 13:52.
That's an interesting change. Almost like they are setting up for the time when Onderdunk is overturned so they can avoid an automatic granting of all that has come before. Maybe they saw the numbers here who said they would apply post-McDonald and don't want the deluge of automatic approvals that would come after. Or...they know it's wrong and don't want to extend the injustice - meaning they just invented a new form of injustice that we have not complained about yet.
And I agree, cops are like silly crackhead cats.
Scherr v Hangun Permit Review Board said:"While Scherr does not explicitly identify any fundamental right or liberty that was violated and that was protected by the right of substantive due process, he presumably contends that the right to wear, carry, or transport a handgun is a 'fundamental right.' Scherr fails, however, to offer any support for this implied contention."