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

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

Dead Eye said:
A little presumptuous, aren't we?

History and law are not personal, and neither was my post. Seriously, if you take personal exception to any fact in there then you need to do some research. Like I said, I understand the anger and share it myself. Nothing pissed me more than reading your excellent account of what happened.

I've also contemplated your route (with legal counsel, though) and come to the conclusion I could not add anything of value to an already capable field. There is no ending to this that does not include a direct case to the Supreme Court. If - in some miraculous exception - you actually got to that level, you will still need counsel because by law you cannot even submit a cert to be heard. There is a special class of attorney who can argue at the Court. So the point is simple: there is no way that you can even finish the job, assuming you do not fail at step one.

I'd rather save what I got to fight the next fight, which will almost surely focus on local issues. In other words, keep the powder dry to take on the next one that the SAF/NRA won't be able to fight.

Future Fights

There are literally dozens of permutations at play even if the SAF wins this case big. We will need to fight locality restrictions, time/place sensitivity restrictions, "sensitive place" restrictions, capricious denial issues, arbitrary revocation issues, etc. These are all things that are important, but after the Supreme Court rules there are going to be hundreds (literally) of similar issues that come up. Each one will need fighting, and the national organizations cannot be everywhere at once.

Assuming we win big through the SAF case, here are some of the fun things we have to look forward to:

- Definition of "Concealed": The MD critters will require concealed to mean that there is zero exposure or sign of a weapon. If you print, bend over and expose your holster or otherwise show signs you are carrying you will be guilty of brandishing and your permit is revoked.

- They will define all state-owned property as a "sensitive place". Note that Nordyke might limit or allow this.

- They will expand permissible sensitive places well beyond what we consider rational. For instance, they will take the federal 1000' zone around a school and declare it "sensitive". No guns for you. Carry through and be guilty of a crime.

- There will be issues with people who carry weapons being denied service in private establishments. Think: Best Buy. How does the state handle this?

All of these are going to need fighting. I'm suggesting that rather than charge forth in the wake of a much larger Army (the SAF) and potentially inflicting damage to our side, that you hold in reserve long enough to take on truly local issues where your fight counts.

Otherwise I'm not here to pick a fight or get into a flame war. So if I caused you some offense, my apologies.

Wraith · Sep 20, 2010

Here I sit, so dishearted,
Hoping Maryland would drop it's ****,
But like usual, it probably only farted.

Honestly, we all know what is coming, they will quote somewhere else with selective permit issue, that is unless the file for an extension to hold this up even longer.

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

Patrick said:
History and law are not personal, and neither was my post.

No offense taken. You make excellent points.

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

Honestly, we all know what is coming, they will quote somewhere else with selective permit issue, that is unless the file for an extension to hold this up even longer. Honestly, we all know what is coming, they will quote somewhere else with selective permit issue, that is unless the file for an extension to hold this up even longer.

True and a good point.

MD might also take a page from Chicago and ask for discovery or a fact-finding phase so that they can draw out the clock. They might want to probe the threat to the plaintiffs, operating under the assumption their restriction is valid and that the case is really about them in particular.

BenL · Sep 20, 2010

Could the state do a 180 "our bad", give this one guy his permit, and be done with it (for now)?

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

BenL said:
Could the state do a 180 "our bad", give this one guy his permit, and be done with it (for now)?

There is more than one plaintiff and the SAF claims standing. As long as that holds (and it generally does), there is no way the case can be settled on that merit alone. The case is constructed to challenge the "show cause" provisions for all MD residents. That's the 180 they would need to take.

And frankly, I am a bit surprised to see anti-gun jurisdictions fighting this. They must know that absent some kind of emergency they will face a Supreme Court hostile to their arguments. That's a fight you only get to lose once.

Strategically, it would make more sense for them to acquiesce and give us our permits under a permitting-scheme they develop on their own but without the case law to support it as a "right". Then they could install restrictions when a more friendly court (anti-gun, in their case) comes around. Then the fight is made and lost by us. Once. They win.

But the nice thing about politicians is they cannot see past the end of their outstretched arms. As Alan Gottlieb of the SAF said...the willingness of the anti-gunners to fight is proving quite valuable to the long-term RKBA cause. They are shortening the normal curve for this right by many, many years. God Bless the gun grabbers.

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

BenL said:
Could the state do a 180 "our bad", give this one guy his permit, and be done with it (for now)?

I'm sure that is possible, but then they would have to continue with "my bads", because everyone, including myself, will continue to persue the "good and substantial" issue.

OLM-Medic · Sep 20, 2010

Patrick said:
- There will be issues with people who carry weapons being denied service in private establishments. Think: Best Buy. How does the state handle this?

QUOTE]

Isn't this just the private business' rule? If something is legal, like carrying a knife but the store says no knives then that doesn't make it illegal. That just means they can tell you to leave if they want. With a CCW they wouldn't know you had it anyway. Am I wrong?

I just wish they would stop fighting so hard to violate peoples rights.

swinokur · Sep 20, 2010

- They will expand permissible sensitive places well beyond what we consider rational. For instance, they will take the federal 1000' zone around a school and declare it "sensitive". No guns for you. Carry through and be guilty of a crime.

The current GFSZA allows carry within 1000 feet of a school with a CCW permit. Will MD law supersede that? I guess thy can arrest you for violating MD law, but not Federal.

What a mess.

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

Isn't this just the private business' rule? If something is legal, like carrying a knife but the store says no knives then that doesn't make it illegal.

Pretty much. The issue I speak of is how MD handles it. Some chatter in the anti-gun community about making it more than simple trespass if you do it...some kind of wanton "gun crime". In other words, a misdemeanor capable of stripping your rights on a more permanent basis.

This will be a new issue, because by definition Shall-Issue states are today more RKBA-friendly than MD - even North Carolina where it is a "barely friendly" place. So in NC, walking into "Karen's Bakery" (I should not have used the "Best Buy" name because I have zero knowledge of their RKBA stance) armed when she says "no guns allowed" is just a simple matter of trespass if you refuse to leave.

So what happens in places like NY, NJ, DC and MD when they are not the least bit RKBA friendly? When they are forced to give you a permit?

Unlike other states where RKBA is a political positive, we will have no such political cover. They might very well decide to go after us for every nit they can find. These will be expensive and tiresome fights against a foe who has almost unlimited resources.

That's why I say we need to keep our powder dry for the moment. Because these are the kinds of cases we will need to fight in the future, and they are largely going to be fought on our own. There will come a day when RKBA is mainstream even in places like MD, but it'll be a few long years at best (I suggest at least a decade for the general consensus to change opinion).

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

Patrick said:
Pretty much. The issue I speak of is how MD handles it. Some chatter in the anti-gun community about making it more than simple trespass if you do it...some kind of wanton "gun crime". In other words, a misdemeanor capable of stripping your rights on a more permanent basis.

This will be a new issue, because by definition Shall-Issue states are today more RKBA-friendly than MD - even North Carolina where it is a "barely friendly" place. So in NC, walking into "Karen's Bakery" (I should not have used the "Best Buy" name because I have zero knowledge of their RKBA stance) armed when she says "no guns allowed" is just a simple matter of trespass if you refuse to leave.

So what happens in places like NY, NJ, DC and MD when they are not the least bit RKBA friendly? When they are forced to give you a permit?

Unlike other states where RKBA is a political positive, we will have no such political cover. They might very well decide to go after us for every nit they can find. This will be expensive and tiresome to fight.

That's why I say we need to keep our powder dry for the moment. Because these are the kinds of cases we will need to fight in the future, and they are largely going to be fought on our own.

I realize that there would be cases of such, but I also "sense" that would very difficult to persue on a continual and broad basis. For instance, they would have to catch YOU violating a carry rule, pull your permit, and then catch ME, and then catch, WHOMEVER. Do they have the resources to do that? Perhaps if they profile, or use "the list" to track you down and surveil your every movement.

Personally, I see them going the route of having you take three written exams, a physical combat training course, 90 day waiting period, and then negating it all, because you didn't spell out your middle name in full, on the application.

jonnyl · Sep 20, 2010

Dead Eye said:
I realize that there would be cases of such, but I also "sense" that would very difficult to persue on a continual and broad basis. For instance, they would have to catch YOU violating a carry rule, pull your permit, and then catch ME, and then catch, WHOMEVER. Do they have the resources to do that? Perhaps if they profile, or use "the list" to track you down and surveil your every movement.

Personally, I see them going the route of having you take three written exams, a physical combat training course, 90 day waiting period, and then negating it all, because you didn't spell out your middle name in full, on the application.

They'd probably count on the deterrence factor. They wouldn't need to nail too many regular Joe's to the wall before people start figuring it's not worth the hassle. Then they start going after the people dis-arming in the parking lot for "brandishing".

If these are people who honestly believe it's dangerous to have regular folks walking around armed, they won't view it as picking nits, they'll be saving the children and everyone they nail that we'd consider a regular guy will be branded a psycho...

Or they may see the light....

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

jonnyl said:
They'd probably count on the deterrence factor. They wouldn't need to nail too many regular Joe's to the wall before people start figuring it's not worth the hassle. Then they start going after the people dis-arming in the parking lot for "brandishing".

If these are people who honestly believe it's dangerous to have regular folks walking around armed, they won't view it as picking nits, they'll be saving the children and everyone they nail that we'd consider a regular guy will be branded a psycho...

Or they may see the light....

I understand, but at that point I can assure you that based on the numbers here, as well as those that would apply just because they now can, I see the State's efforts in doing so as akin to trying to "herd cats".

Point being, there is an old military axium, in that if I am looking for you, I don't have to run all over the countryside looking for you. I am better off hiding beside your front gate. You will eventually come home.

I can, therefore, see the state upping the ante, so to speak, making it difficult for you to obtain the permit, rather than trying to "net" everyone after they have already received it. It requires much greater effort, on their behalf, to do so.

Or they just might see the light...

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

Do they have the resources to do that?

It's called "The Police", and while a good number of them will not care, enough will to make a problem. Especially in jurisdictions where the chief likes to bust guns (anyone care to suggest Baltimore will soon be RKBA friendly?). Not to mention the possibility of civil charges (not criminal) for third-party reporting. The wildest of the ideas (civil charges) may not take hold, but it's notable that if you can think it, they will consider it.

Personally, I see them going the route of having you take three written exams, a physical combat training course, 90 day waiting period, and then negating it all, because you didn't spell out your middle name in full, on the application.

Pretty much. Denial of rights through scheduling is going to be a big one. Maybe even fees, though only if prohibitive (I think some will survive).

Much of this has been tried before. Blacks were prevented from voting because the time it took to register was excessive and the fees costly. This was eventually solved: you do not need to register for a general election at all. But it took a long time for them to get there.

There is a reason these cases are being fought the way they are. The claims are specific and designed with intent. You'll notice that even though they have been filed nationwide against different parties (CA, DC and MD in particular) they are all complaining about near identical issues. It's not that these are the only issues at play in RKBA (or even the most onerous); it's that this strategy is the fastest and most direct way to come to the heart of 2A rights. It's not that the SAF is flush with cash and wishes to fight three times what could be fought once...it's that they are doing what is most likely to push this question to the Supreme Court as fast as they can.

And the phrasing of the question itself is also key. Because a win on SAF grounds sends a clear signal that RKBA is a core civil right worthy of protections afforded other civil rights. That short-circuits so many future fights due to historical civil rights precedent.

The 2A is going to ride that history a couple of ways. First, we know the tricks and can predict the fight. Second, we have a ton of jurisprudence saying that a "fundamental right" requires certain treatments. It took decades for the civil rights warriors of past to create what we can simply cite in a footnote - many of those fights also have bearing on 2A.

The grabbers are going to fight and fight hard. They know that if RKBA is defined the way we want, future courts will have to evaluate restriction on it as a potential restriction on other rights.

That's why Maryland is going to argue today that 2A is not "really" a right like others. The only way they can succeed is to split it off as a special right that deserves alternate scrutiny. But I think McDonald made that damn hard on them.

I can, therefore, see the state upping the ante, so to speak, making it difficult for you to obtain the permit, rather than trying to "net" everyone after they have already received it. It requires much greater effort, on their behalf, to do so.

True, that.

That will be one of our first fights.

yellowfin · Sep 20, 2010

Dead Eye said:
I will be really surprised, since in my denial letter, they never even addressed the Second Amendment issue, like something was afoot. I don't why they didn't address it, like they thought I would forget about it, or if I tried to continue further they could all conveniently forget me ever mentioning it, or what?

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.

BenL · Sep 20, 2010

I could absolutely seeing the city making it unlawful to carry a weapon with 1000 feet of a school, federal building, post office, city park, fire station, police station, university, or hospital. That, alone, would make it nearly impossible to carry in the city.

If that happens, SAF has a great "test case" in me.

krucam · Sep 20, 2010

Spot77 said:
That's the only reason I'm reading this thread anymore.

It HAS gotten slightly derailed (jacked) from the original intent...

Just logged into PACER, nothing yet.

Edit:
Nothing as of noon...

OLM-Medic · Sep 20, 2010

The day is here...

NattyBoh · Sep 20, 2010

Whats today? and yay or nay day?

Boxcab · Sep 20, 2010

MrOneEyedBoh said:
Whats today?

Maryland must respond to the claim.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MSI Executive Member

Active Member

Banned

MSI Executive Member

John Galt Speaking.

MSI Executive Member

Banned

Banned

In a State of Bliss

MSI Executive Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

MSI Executive Member

Pro 2A Gastronome

John Galt Speaking.

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

MSI EM

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics