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

SkunkWerX · Jan 21, 2011

This case (Woollard) always had legs. Gura would not have tried to play footsy in MD unless he thought it did.

Now, as the bricks continue being placed, and the mortar (like the Chester decision) cements them together, it's looking more and more like we're building a fortress, not just a brick house.

Personal opinion: The Woollard case is looking more like a steamroller at this point.

I cannot see a way out for Gansler/MD. Perhaps they can pull some in-state shenanigans after-the-fact, document a need to ramp up, re-train, stall, budget cutbacks causing long wait periods....that kind of stuff. But as far as this case goes, someone will have to tell us if there is a bogeyman hiding somewhere, that is going to spring from the shadows and wizz on our parade. I don't see it.

Inigoes · Jan 21, 2011

SkunkWerX said:
someone will have to tell us if there is a bogeyman hiding somewhere that is gonig to pop out and wizz on our parade. I don't see it.

The MD legislature

Kharn · Jan 21, 2011

I wonder how a court would react if the MSP started requiring 20 letters of recommendation from people you have known longer than 10 years. That's about all they could do after a loss on this case.

hvymax · Jan 21, 2011

Kharn said:
I wonder how a court would react if the MSP started requiring 20 letters of recommendation from people you have known longer than 10 years. That's about all they could do after a loss on this case.

What are you stuffing the MSP suggestion box or something!!!!! Thanks a Buttload.

SkunkWerX · Jan 21, 2011

Inigoes said:
The MD legislature

The courts trump the legislature. They cannot legislate away a civil right that the courts have ruled upon.

This is why we are in the courts now, we tried the legislative approach for the past umpteen years, and what has it gotten us?

Inigoes · Jan 21, 2011

SkunkWerX said:
The courts trump the legislature. They cannot legislate away a civil right that the courts have ruled upon.

This is why we are in the courts now, we tried the legislative approach for the past umpteen years, and what has it gotten us?

Tell that to DC post heller. :sad20:

SkunkWerX · Jan 21, 2011

Inigoes said:
Tell that to DC post heller.

True enough. And to the games being played in IL.
I do expect MD to play games. Why wouldn't we?

But with this decision in our pocket, we are are on much firmer ground.

If MD suddenly raised fees, or created a 1-year wait, they would effectively be denying the very same civil right that was ruled upon.
That wouldn't go very well for them.

hvymax · Jan 21, 2011

SkunkWerX said:
True enough. And to the games being played in IL.
I do expect MD to play games. Why wouldn't we?

But with this decision in our pocket, we are are on much firmer ground.

If MD suddenly raised fees, or created a 1-year wait, they would effectively be denying the very same civil right that was ruled upon.
That wouldn't go very well for them.

Maybe after a few more years of litigation and if the SCOTUS does not take a left turn only requiring one coinflip loss.

Gray Peterson · Jan 21, 2011

Kharn said:
I wonder how a court would react if the MSP started requiring 20 letters of recommendation from people you have known longer than 10 years. That's about all they could do after a loss on this case.

Inigoes said:
Tell that to DC post heller.

SkunkWerX said:
True enough. And to the games being played in IL.
I do expect MD to play games. Why wouldn't we?

But with this decision in our pocket, we are are on much firmer ground.

If MD suddenly raised fees, or created a 1-year wait, they would effectively be denying the very same civil right that was ruled upon.
That wouldn't go very well for them.

Inigoes said:
The MD legislature

Folks,

I think all of you are slightly mistaken as to why the MSP cannot pull any shenanigans. Look at the lawsuit. It is not a lawsuit to strike down a law. It is a lawsuit to injunct an issuing authority from exercising their discretionary authority in an unconstitutional manner. The MSP, after a judgment against them, would be under the supervision of Judge Motz or a special master appointed by the judge to make sure they are in compliance with the judge's order.......

That's quite a bit different than Heller and McDonald, which is seeking the strike down of actual law, versus discretionary actions. Strike down of laws allow for the legislature to repass a law that is less onerous but may require litigation. This is not such a lawsuit.

Dead Eye · Jan 21, 2011

SkunkWerX said:
This case (Woollard) always had legs. Gura would not have tried to play footsy in MD unless he thought it did.

Now, as the bricks continue being placed, and the mortar (like the Chester decision) cements them together, it's looking more and more like we're building a fortress, not just a brick house.

Personal opinion: The Woollard case is looking more like a steamroller at this point.

It's solid, because THAT is what the Founding Fathers intended it to be. The notion that 2A is not transportable is ludicrous. This isn't like "neighborhood rules", when you were a kid, and you only had to run fast enough to make it to your front porch and you were safe!

I realize I am preaching the choir but we need to burn the house down and kill the DNA! This illegal stealing of our Constitutional Rights should have never come to be to start with. Of course, our point of view will carry the day, because it fits with the original intent.

Rhetorically speaking, how did we get to this point? Once taken back, let us never lose sight of how precious and fleeting our freedoms can be! Let us be ever vigilant and NEVER let this happen again.

Shutting up.

OLM-Medic · Jan 21, 2011

Kharn said:
I wonder how a court would react if the MSP started requiring 20 letters of recommendation from people you have known longer than 10 years. That's about all they could do after a loss on this case.

I don't think I've even known that many people for that long. LOL.

Dead Eye · Jan 21, 2011

Dead Eye said:
It's solid, because THAT is what the Founding Fathers intended it to be. The notion that 2A is not transportable is ludicrous. This isn't like "neighborhood rules", when you were a kid, and you only had to run fast enough to make it to your front porch and you were safe!

I realize I am preaching the choir but we need to burn the house down and kill the DNA! This illegal stealing of our Constitutional Rights should have never come to be to start with. Of course, our point of view will carry the day, because it fits with the original intent.

Rhetorically speaking, how did we get to this point? Once taken back, let us never lose sight of how precious and fleeting our freedoms can be! Let us be ever vigilant and NEVER let this happen again.

Shutting up.

How ironic, in that right after I posted this, the topic came up on televsion whereby my wife thought, as most people erroneously do, that it is the legal obligation of the police to secure your personal safety.

I had to find her case law examples of where it has been established legally, that it is NOT required that the police are bound to that duty, as they cannot be held liable (except in specific cases).

So there is your hypocracy in the highest order! The police are not legally bound to provide for your personal safety, yet will not allow for you to provide for your own! We, therefore, shouldn't even be having this discussion about whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves, in our homes or in public. Our Founding Fathers, were they alive today, should take, and rightfully so, all our man cards and stamp a big old pink "P" on all our foreheads (unless of course you are part of the fight to take our rights back)!!!

O.K., this time I'm really shutting up.

Patrick · Jan 21, 2011

Gray Peterson said:
Folks,

I think all of you are slightly mistaken as to why the MSP cannot pull any shenanigans. Look at the lawsuit. It is not a lawsuit to strike down a law. It is a lawsuit to injunct an issuing authority from exercising their discretionary authority in an unconstitutional manner. The MSP, after a judgment against them, would be under the supervision of Judge Motz or a special master appointed by the judge to make sure they are in compliance with the judge's order.......

That's quite a bit different than Heller and McDonald, which is seeking the strike down of actual law, versus discretionary actions. Strike down of laws allow for the legislature to repass a law that is less onerous but may require litigation. This is not such a lawsuit.

And to reinforce Gray's point, the challenge Gura is making is quite broad. In simple terms, it says that the state - as a general rule - has no place in evaluating your need to bear arms. None. There is no required cause, nor can subjective character references be required.

In Gura's world, the state has an exceptionally limited role that allows them to perform a background check only for constitutionally allowable factors. And they don't include traffic tickets.

The legislature is exceptionally limited in this world. So is the MSP. It takes 4 hours to run a detailed background check. Not 90 days. But that will be another fight...

drwalther · Jan 22, 2011

Dead Eye said:
How ironic, in that right after I posted this, the topic came up on televsion whereby my wife thought, as most people erroneously do, that it is the legal obligation of the police to secure your personal safety.

I had to find her case law examples of where it has been established legally, that it is NOT required that the police are bound to that duty, as they cannot be held liable (except in specific cases).

So there is your hypocracy in the highest order! The police are not legally bound to provide for your personal safety, yet will not allow for you to provide for your own! We, therefore, shouldn't even be having this discussion about whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves, in our homes or in public. Our Founding Fathers, were they alive today, should take, and rightfully so, all our man cards and stamp a big old pink "P" on all our foreheads (unless of course you are part of the fight to take our rights back)!!!

O.K., this time I'm really shutting up.

DeadEye....

NEVER shut up.

Gray Peterson · Jan 22, 2011

Patrick said:
And to reinforce Gray's point, the challenge Gura is making is quite broad. In simple terms, it says that the state - as a general rule - has no place in evaluating your need to bear arms. None. There is no required cause, nor can subjective character references be required.

In Gura's world, the state has an exceptionally limited role that allows them to perform a background check only for constitutionally allowable factors. And they don't include traffic tickets.

The legislature is exceptionally limited in this world. So is the MSP. It takes 4 hours to run a detailed background check. Not 90 days. But that will be another fight...

The above is correct. Folks, please stop with the incessent and unneccesary handwringing and BGOS. It serves no one, continues the spread of FUD, and makes people afraid to apply for a carry license post-Woollard......

Dead Eye · Jan 22, 2011

Gray Peterson said:
The above is correct. Folks, please stop with the incessent and unneccesary handwringing and BGOS. It serves no one, continues the spread of FUD, and makes people afraid to apply for a carry license post-Woollard......

Correct, we should be flooding the MDSP with CCW applications, and if they are denied, flood the Appeals Board, the courts, whatever...

If you're not willing to fight for it, it must not mean that much to you.

krucam · Jan 22, 2011

There is an as yet, still unanswered MSJ submitted by Plaintiff's (SAF). Judge Motz stated in November, not to address the MSJ until he ruled on the Defendants MTD. He did so, denying the MTD from the state and away went standing, Younger abstention, etc....

We now have a Motz-directed amended complaint addressing a lacking 'Equal Protection' Count II from the original complaint, and the MSJ that is still standing out there in all its glory, now with a 4th Circuit decision in Chester, where MD would have to appeal assuming they lose in the District.

Any guesses as to whats next? :innocent0

Anyone listen to the CATO forum from Thursday with Gura & Henigan (Brady)?

Do you see what is happening with Nordyke in the 9th?

BIG PICTURE folks. Enough with FUD and BGOS...ain't gonna happen.

2011 is going to be a great year...

Inigoes · Jan 22, 2011

krucam said:
BIG PICTURE folks. Enough with FUD and BGOS...ain't gonna happen.

2011 is going to be a great year...

Is it time to start filling out the CCW/LTCF applications?

krucam · Jan 22, 2011

Inigoes said:
Is it time to start filling out the CCW/LTCF applications?

Mine is filled out...just awaiting a few more motions in Woollard. May/June if I were SWAG-ing, assuming no appeal to the inevitable loss in the 4th.

I wonder if the app will change....

http://msp.maryland.gov/downloads/licensing_application.pdf

Inigoes · Jan 22, 2011

krucam said:
Mine is filled out...just awaiting a few more motions in Woollard. May/June if I were SWAG-ing, assuming no appeal to the inevitable loss in the 4th.

I wonder if the app will change....

http://msp.maryland.gov/downloads/licensing_application.pdf

The application will have to change.

The MSP has the documentation required portion for personal protection....

f) Personal Protection: There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.

(31) Give complete details of any investigative experience or activities through Police Service, Military
Service, Private Detective, and any organized municipal, county, state or federal police force. (Refer to Title 13, Section 13-303, Title 19, Section 19-303 for the experience requirements of the individual and licensee):

Reference # 1:
Full name: _________________________________________________________________________
Residence Address: ___________________________________________________________________
Name of Employer: ___________________________________________________________________
Residence Phone: _________________________ Employer’s Phone: ___________________________

Reference # 2:
Full name: _________________________________________________________________________
Residence Address: ___________________________________________________________________
Name of Employer: ___________________________________________________________________
Residence Phone: _________________________ Employer’s Phone: ___________________________

Reference # 3:
Full name: _________________________________________________________________________
Residence Address: ___________________________________________________________________
Name of Employer: ___________________________________________________________________
Residence Phone: _________________________ Employer’s Phone: ___________________________

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Banned

Active Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

MSI Executive Member

MSI Executive Member

Active Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics