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.

    Nobody

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,810
    Don't be so so sure. The fact that Gura said this could go to the supreme court means he is willing to take it there....MD will be out millions in fees for the plaintiffs. Money is tight and the state is not in great shape. I wouldn't be surprised to see political pressure to resolve this early. Just one way it could play out.


    What does this matter to THEM, it is not THIER money and since when do THEY care what we think. We were against the sales tax increase and yet THEY raised it. Things WILL NOT change here in MD UNLESS, we hit the polls and take them out. Other than that it will take a judge telling MOM or the State police in ccharge of issuing permits that jail is in thier future.

    Even IF THEY have to issue permits expect the policy to be HARASS the gun nuts until it is not worth it for them to carry.

    This State SUCKS A$$ big time, I am not tready to leave until the prior generation in my and my wifes family are gone. If we are not CCW by then, then I am gone.

    NOBODY
     

    miles71

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jul 19, 2009
    2,522
    Belcamp, Md.
    So basically the state could sy "ok, we will go shall issue but we are still going to keep the rest of our present policies in place." Which would mean thay could still issue restricted permits until it was challenged.

    Like I have said before, I hope we are headed the right direction and it all happens while I can still walk upright.

    TD
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    So basically the state could sy "ok, we will go shall issue but we are still going to keep the rest of our present policies in place." Which would mean thay could still issue restricted permits until it was challenged.

    Like I have said before, I hope we are headed the right direction and it all happens while I can still walk upright.

    TD

    What restrictions would pass muster given a complete win for the SAF?

    That is the question MD must ask. The answer is, "damn few". They can restrict within limited "sensitive places" (schools, courthouses, etc.). They can restrict who they give them to based only on non-subjective, "dangerous individuals" (felons, for the most part).

    Restrictions based on time of day, reason for carrying (holding cash, etc.)...gone.

    You would be allowed carry for defensive purposes at the time of your choosing in public, non-sensitive places. We can argue over sensitive places another time.
     

    mrjam2jab

    Active Member
    Jul 23, 2010
    682
    Levittown, PA
    What restrictions would pass muster given a complete win for the SAF?

    That is the question MD must ask. The answer is, "damn few". They can restrict within limited "sensitive places" (schools, courthouses, etc.). They can restrict who they give them to based only on non-subjective, "dangerous individuals" (felons, for the most part).

    Restrictions based on time of day, reason for carrying (holding cash, etc.)...gone.

    You would be allowed carry for defensive purposes at the time of your choosing in public, non-sensitive places. We can argue over sensitive places another time.


    If I recall correctly...MD doesn't really have much of a "sensitive place" list?

    Schools....demonstrations....under the influence of drugs/alcohol....anything else?

    Not counting federal restrictions....
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    If I recall correctly...MD doesn't really have much of a "sensitive place" list?

    Schools....demonstrations....under the influence of drugs/alcohol....anything else?

    Not counting federal restrictions....

    MD doesn't have a list like we are discussing because they haven't had to compile one. Everyone is restricted.

    They will make one. A big one.

    The requirement to have a permit will almost surely pass strict constitutional muster, as long as the process fulfills an overriding interest of the government (restricting guns from dangerous people, etc.), is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictive way of meeting the need. MD will need to tow that line. You can ponder what that line looks like and probably argue forever on the details (NC can issue a permit the same day...why can't MD?, etc.)...but at the end of the day there will be no "Constitutional Carry" the way many of you think of it (no permit, no restrictions).

    Assuming we win, the next fights will be over sensitive places, fees, permit processing, etc.

    I am seriously interested in where fees are going. I think they will stay, but be highly regulated and limited in scope and price. From a more practical matter I am interested in the time it takes to issue a permit and what data they will try to use. Can they ask for a medical release to ensure you are not on heavy meds or been diagnosed clinically depressed (VA talked about this and I think it got shot down)?

    Lots of details need to be worked out and the arguments will never end.
     

    miles71

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jul 19, 2009
    2,522
    Belcamp, Md.
    You would be allowed carry for defensive purposes at the time of your choosing in public, non-sensitive places.
    We can only hope.
    If I recall correctly...MD doesn't really have much of a "sensitive place" list?

    Schools....demonstrations....under the influence of drugs/alcohol....anything else?

    Not counting federal restrictions....
    You are correct.

    TD
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    There has been a bunch of HYPOTHETICALS and misunderstandings here, myself included... :spank:

    From the Complaint:
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
    1. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii);
    2. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants,
    employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from denying a permit to carry firearms on grounds that the applicant does not face a level of danger higher than that which an average person would reasonably expect to encounter.
    An order commanding Defendants to renew Plaintiff Woollard’s permit to carry a handgun;
    4. Costs of suit, including attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
    5. Declaratory relief consistent with the injunction; and
    6. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
    Case 1:10-cv-02068-JFM Document 1 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 8

    4-203 will not be wiped with this case, 5-306(a)(5)(ii) would be if won. Look at posts #371 and 372 (Kharn, Patrick), on pg 19 in this thread for this problem sentence in 5-306(a)(5)(ii) that would either disappear or just be neutered from the statute.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    To quote again,

    § 5-306.
    (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a
    person who the Secretary finds:
    (1) is an adult;
    (2) (i) has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor for which a sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year has been imposed; or
    (ii) if convicted of a crime described in item (i) of this item, has been pardoned or has been granted relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c);
    (3) has not been convicted of a crime involving the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance;
    (4) is not presently an alcoholic, addict, or habitual user of a controlled dangerous substance unless the habitual use of the controlled dangerous substance is under legitimate medical direction; and
    (5) based on an investigation:
    (i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and
    (ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

    That's it guys. That's the case. Everything else is another fight, another day.

    Eliminating that line (and all equivalents) will create "Shall-Issue" within MD. The part that could be troublesome is 5(i), "has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another." They might want to do a background investigation (interviews, etc.) as they do now.

    Other issues: Shall Issue will increase the investigative costs of the MSP in excess of new revenue from all of us. It will operate at a net structural deficit (according to previous analysis from the Comptroller). Seriously, lots of people here seem to operate under the impression that MD will make money off of us. Not if they perform live investigations. That means they might try to raise the fees. There is already quite a bit of talk in some circles about whether this is disadvantageous to the poor. Chicago is getting sued right now for their fees, and DC is next up. The arguments are that if a fee is high enough to discourage exercise of the right, it is too high.

    MD will not change the law to make things easier. So investigations will probably remain. The difference will be they no longer have to determine "good cause", only that you are not violent, etc.

    I think we will get our permits. It just won't be easy.

    Krucam is right. Don't put too many eggs in this basket. It's a huge deal if it wins and it will make a difference in your ability to get a permit. But it won't give you what you want.

    Seriously, though - what are the chances you guys would ever be happy with anything less than a gun issued to you by the state at birth and upgraded annually for life? ;)
     

    Nobody

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,810
    To quote again,


    Other issues: Shall Issue will increase the investigative costs of the MSP in excess of new revenue from all of us. It will operate at a net structural deficit (according to previous analysis from the Comptroller). Seriously, lots of people here seem to operate under the impression that MD will make money off of us. Not if they perform live investigations. That means they might try to raise the fees. There is already quite a bit of talk in some circles about whether this is disadvantageous to the poor. Chicago is getting sued right now for their fees, and DC is next up. The arguments are that if a fee is high enough to discourage exercise of the right, it is too high.

    ;)

    If VA can do it for $100.00 then why can't MD? And I am sure that VA is making a few bucks off of us.

    It has been a few years for me but what is the cost of the background check for purchasing a regulated firearm? The permit (Man I hate that term) should
    not cost but maybe $10,00 more than that.

    If as an employer I wanted to have a B/R check done on an employee, what would the FBI charge me for such a search?

    NOBODY
     

    mrjam2jab

    Active Member
    Jul 23, 2010
    682
    Levittown, PA
    If VA can do it for $100.00 then why can't MD? And I am sure that VA is making a few bucks off of us.

    It has been a few years for me but what is the cost of the background check for purchasing a regulated firearm? The permit (Man I hate that term) should
    not cost but maybe $10,00 more than that.

    If as an employer I wanted to have a B/R check done on an employee, what would the FBI charge me for such a search?

    NOBODY

    PA's legal fee is $25. :D
    UT is only $65.25...$30.25 of which is paid to FBI for check.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    The FBI does not do background checks for private employers unless it involves the government and is required by the government. But I catch your drift.

    In answer, there is a process for all of this. It's not just a couple of guys winging it. True, it seems that way at time.

    The big things to look for in these cases (not just MD, but everywhere) is the scrutiny applied to various pieces of the 2A. "Keep and Bear" are right up there on the list of things that appear to be fundamental, requiring a strict review. Like the First Amendment, there can be differing levels of scrutiny applied to various aspects of the right. The important first step here is to break down what (if any) portions of 2A require the most protection from government intrusion. That level is called "strict scrutiny".

    Strict scrutiny requires that three-pronged test we're talking about: restrictions must meet a compelling government interest; be narrowly tailored to meet that interest; and be the least restrictive way of meeting that need.

    The first question is simply "does the MD requirement to demonstrate a heightened need for protection pass constitutional muster?" The answer requires an implicit evaluation of "bear arms" and its scrutiny. So we really have two questions: the one asked and the one implied. The implied question is much more powerful and interesting, and the most likely to earn another visit to the Supreme Court.

    So...assuming bearing requires strict scrutiny...

    Is a long-tailed background investigation narrowly defined and is it the least restrictive way of performing the task? This implies other questions: can the government choose disqualifiers that have not been used to restrict other fundamental rights ("propensities" without convictions)? If not, the personal background investigation (talking to neighbors, etc.) becomes moot and maybe even unconstitutional as it might require you to suspend your 4th and 5th.

    So you can see where all this goes: even more questions.


    The process starts here in Federal District Court. From there it moves up, then up. Each time you move up more people get involved, and in theory you get better judicial review. Also, these cases will begin to merge findings and disagreements. At some point - probably next year if two Circuit Courts disagree on a common question - someone petitions the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

    The biggest question in all of these cases (DC, CA, NY, MD, NC) is the one not even written: just how do we interpret "keep and bear" now that you call it fundamental?

    Everything else - the current questions, and future questions - flow from that one answer. And there is a reason it is being asked in a lot of places at the same time -- to get it into the Supreme Court as fast as they can.

    So this is not about CCW in MD. It's a much bigger question that will impact the exercise of this right in all ways for a long damn time.
     

    TheZman

    Active Member
    May 10, 2010
    112
    So...assuming bearing requires strict scrutiny...

    I have no quibble with the rest of your post. I think it was a very good summary of the issues at hand - in the general fight of 2A issues.

    I'm not as confident that we have reached the point where 2A issues will be subjected to strict scrutiny. In Heller, the court ruled out rational basis scrutiny, but stopped there.

    It seems to me the court left that open. Perhaps McDonald and Heller did not provide the opportunity to refine the majority thinking.

    I'd be curious to read your opinion on this issue.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    I have no quibble with the rest of your post. I think it was a very good summary of the issues at hand - in the general fight of 2A issues.

    I'm not as confident that we have reached the point where 2A issues will be subjected to strict scrutiny. In Heller, the court ruled out rational basis scrutiny, but stopped there.

    It seems to me the court left that open. Perhaps McDonald and Heller did not provide the opportunity to refine the majority thinking.

    I'd be curious to read your opinion on this issue.

    McDonald gave us the 2A as a FUNDAMENTAL right, enumerated Fundamental at that. Incorporated in whole and it along with Heller gave us "Self Defense" as central to the 2A. Wow.

    Now...what to do with this hodgepodge of wonderful ingredients, what will this make for us...

    Strict Scrutiny seems likely given a Fundamental Enumerated right. We just need some Circuit to come out and say it. With that in our pocket, it will become a very, very interesting ride.

    I have a lot of confidence with the "plan" SAF and Gura have laid out with their cases in the various Circuits...CA/NC/NY/DC/MD. There is going to be a Circuit split on one or more issues in the next year, you can count on another SCOTUS case after that split.
     

    downforthecause

    refugee from communist MD
    Nov 13, 2009
    329
    Nutshell here please

    I haven't signed on often for the past few months due to recent poorness...I've sifted through the 28 PAGES!! here and would like to know, did I miss something!?!? MD is becoming sensible on CCW??!! Can somebody give me a nutshell lowdown of what is going on with this case as of today?? I have some new room on the the ol' Discover card, may have to bust it out!!
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    I haven't signed on often for the past few months due to recent poorness...I've sifted through the 28 PAGES!! here and would like to know, did I miss something!?!? MD is becoming sensible on CCW??!! Can somebody give me a nutshell lowdown of what is going on with this case as of today?? I have some new room on the the ol' Discover card, may have to bust it out!!

    Atty Gura, who successfully represented "McDonald", in "McDonald vs. Chicago" the recent Supreme Court battle over the 2A has taken up a similar case, here in Maryland, representing a gentleman by the name of Woollard. Mr. Woollard had a permit, but it was recently denied, because the Review Board said that his threat no longer existed. The case is predicated on nullifying the "good and substantial" clause of the current law. Atty Gura is an attorney for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Many people here, myself included, have sent both the SAF, and MSI (Maryland Shall Issue) money to "fight the good fight".
    As low down and dirty as I can get it.
     

    downforthecause

    refugee from communist MD
    Nov 13, 2009
    329
    haha, well I am aware of what and why the case was brought about, I am curious to know what is currently going on with it? Any decisions?? but thanks for being so filthy with it.:D
     

    miles71

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jul 19, 2009
    2,522
    Belcamp, Md.
    Maybe I wasnt clear about "restrictions". I was wondering about restrictions like" from resident while carrying money from business" being the only time one can carry. Some of you have answered, and I agree, that these type restrictions should go away if this latest battle is won.

    Hopefully these nasty restrictions will go away soon on the back of the permits and our state will become shall issue sooner than later.

    TD
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,430
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom