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

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 21, 2011

SkunkWerX said:
-Social Science data? very interesting, this part could backfire on Gansler. How many years has the current scheme been in place? Do we still have violent crime, including specifically gun crime?

A win is a win is a win, as they say, but what kind of win is more lasting? Our argument has hinged on nothing but historical context and good jurisprudence, not a social science data that (unless you subscribe to the lesser biased John R. Lott) that has been manipulated, and then prayed to like the temple of Allah. (Seriously, do you trust the CDC's numbers that Gansler will point to as "non-biased, non-rigged, government statistics that is read lies, damned lies, and more bold faced damned lies"?).

Sorry for the ranty run on sentence. Using social science data and equating it to an enumerated civil right is a set up for failure. No one would dare equate social science data to the 1st amendment, and I hope that is the arguement that Legg hears and Gura makes.

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 21, 2011

Inigoes said:
Has anyone else seen the interesting omission?

Judge Legg wants to discuss Masciandaro, and Ezell. Notice, Williams isn't part of the discussion...

I missed that one. The only difference is it works in defendant's favor and not for the plaintiff. Perhaps THAT is the biggest telegraph?

I would tend to think though, that most federal judges prefer not to bother themselves with cases that are from the state bench and not their respective circuits (or "respected" [sarcasm]) circuits.

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 21, 2011

SkunkWerX said:
Perhaps the two cases are mirror images of each other, Woollard within the system cannot get his permit renewed, where Williams deals with it from a "without permit" situation.

it is rather interesting how both of the "W" cases are leading to the same place, via different routes.

It does seem, at some point in the argument Williams can say, "See Woollard!"

Which, with a federal court ruling against us, does it make it THAT much easier to get SCOTUS to hear our case, and nix this :bs:

almost immediately.

shawn · Jul 21, 2011

Plinkey said:
Well, SCOTUS said two (somewhat) different things in the opinion.

Is possession outside of the home for self-defense not a 'traditional lawful purpose' of owning/carrying a firearm?

I assume that SCOTUS skirted the non-home issues on the last page of the decision on purpose.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

such as self-defense within the home

that was an example not an all encompassing list

the District must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.

in my opinion I see this as them ruling narrowly on the issue before them.
I dont see them as only saying the right exsists only in the home.

It seems to me they like ruling narrowly but now with all of this going on they might rule a little broader so lawyers dont misconstrue their words.

BenL · Jul 21, 2011

Anyone on the scene with news to share?

SkunkWerX · Jul 21, 2011

tick tick tick.....

:popcorn:

I do apprecaite eveyone's comments, last night I was just thinking out loud, conjecturing and mostly blabbing. :blah:

There are a lot of angles, and the game is much bigger than just Woollard, so btoh sides will not only be fighting the case, but also setting the stage for further action.

All of the cases, or most, are moving uphill. if we take a loss on Wollard, we are still advancing the argument to the next level.

Being highly impatient, I'll just say, snails during an ice age seem to move more quickly than our judicial system.

Inigoes · Jul 21, 2011

Anyone know how to get a copy of audio or a transcript?

I've been all over the www.mdd.uscourts.gov website, and can't find anything...

Plinkey · Jul 21, 2011

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/Forms/TranscriptOrderInstructions.pdf

That should get you in the right direction.

Patrick · Jul 21, 2011

Ok. First read and report from my iPhone. So not too detailed.

It went well. Good, even.

This judge was prepared. He studied everything, including cited cases.

His words: he leans towards the right extending outside the home...but it might be subject to lesser scrutiny. The question is whether G&S survives that intermediate standard. Also discussed was the idea of "advanced intermediate" (his words), muck like Ezell. He asked both sides if it existed. Both pretty much said yes.

The judge recognized that the point of Maryland regulation was to reduce the number of permit holders in the state. The state reluctantly agreed. The judge asked about statistics of permit holders that commit crimes...in Texas. Maryland tripped over it Gura said "zero point one three percent."

The judge asked if the state public interest argument let's them "ration a constitutional right." The state said yes.

It is not all roses for our side. The judge appears sympathetic to arguments that dense populations in parks or downtown will represent a significant risk. But then he noted that would be another case, if Maryland banned those areas.

We can still lose this, easily. The number one question asked was literally "how do I end-run the constitutional question?"

The 4th circuit said don't answer it if you can avoid it. So the first hurdle is just getting him to answer it.

I won't handicap this yet. I have six pages Of notes and will do a full report later when the iPhone and lunch is not an issue.

navycraig · Jul 21, 2011

Thanks for the quick down and dirty Patrick. Been looking forward to it all day and also look forward to your full thoughts when time permits.
Cheers.

yellowsled · Jul 21, 2011

Thanks for the update Patrick!

eruby · Jul 21, 2011

Patrick said:
...The judge asked if the state public interest argument let's them "ration a constitutional right." The state said yes....

As always, thank you Patrick. :thumbsup:

I had to read the bold above several times before I realized it wasn't going to change and Maryland blew it's nose into the Constitution.

Welcome to Maryland. The ~~Free~~ Constitutional Rights Rationing State

BenL · Jul 21, 2011

navycraig said:
Thanks for the quick down and dirty Patrick. Been looking forward to it all day and also look forward to your full thoughts when time permits.
Cheers.

+1

You are a tremendous asset, sir.

Atlasarmory · Jul 21, 2011

BenL said:
+1

You are a tremendous asset, sir.

+1

Dave · Jul 21, 2011

eruby said:
As always, thank you Patrick.

I had to read the bold above several times before I realized it wasn't going to change and Maryland blew it's nose into the Constitution.

Welcome to Maryland. The ~~Free~~ Constitutional Rights Rationing State

that's a keeper! and thanks for the update Patrick

Hopalong · Jul 21, 2011

Patrick said:
The judge recognized that the point of Maryland regulation was to reduce the number of permit holders in the state. The state reluctantly agreed. The judge asked about statistics of permit holders that commit crimes...in Texas. Maryland tripped over it Gura said "zero point one three percent."

I'm very surprised that the state yielded this point. They just admitted that the regulation exists to reduce the number of permit holders; not to reduce crime, not because of some stupid legislative privilege, and not even "for the children".

It is a regulation expressly for the purpose of restricting a fundamental constitutional right. Period. And they just admitted it in front of a federal judge. I gaurantee you that'll bite them in the ass at some point.

EDIT: Thanks so much Patrick for going and taking notes.

Boondock Saint · Jul 21, 2011

Outstanding, Patrick. Well done. :thumbsup:

Weak_Hand_Only · Jul 21, 2011

Where were you? I was dead center tan suit. Nice summary, I got the same thing out of it. "Ration a constitutional right" was an awesome phrase. The judge came up with that all by himself.

annihilation-time · Jul 21, 2011

yellowsled said:
Thanks for the update Patrick!

Yes. Thank you very much.

Integrity · Jul 21, 2011

Thanks Patrick! I appreciate your updates and your explanations in layman's terms.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Active Member

John Galt Speaking.

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Retired C&R Addict

Confederate Jew

John Galt Speaking.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Man of Many Nicknames

Ultimate Member

Active Member

MOLON LABE

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics