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

Kharn · Sep 20, 2010

I'd love to hear the MSP's reaction to an SAF suggestion that they call everyone that has been issued a CCW for deposition to check for equal protection violations. Their <3 year standard for when the attack occurred was probably waived for a person or two...

Inigoes · Sep 20, 2010

Kharn said:
I'd love to hear the MSP's reaction to an SAF suggestion that they call everyone that has been issued a CCW for deposition to check for equal protection violations. Their <3 year standard for when the attack occurred was probably waived for a person or two...

There was an article not to long ago in the Baltimore area, where a crack house was in a politicians neighborhood, he was issued a carry license, and said he had to move.

Wraith · Sep 20, 2010

Mind if I sum it up simply?

Maryland: *sticks it's fingers in its ears, and starts screaming* "I can't hear you! And since I can't hear you, I don't have to listen!"

Grade School Hissy Fit anyone?

Kharn · Sep 20, 2010

Krucam:
I wouldn't worry about Younger exemption 3, the state has to prove its constitutional for that to hurt us, and they won't want SAF digging into good cause data/notes for issued permits.

MD-Dave · Sep 20, 2010

I am no lawyer but it looks like Younger requires a three prong test. I think they can fight them on "B. This Case Implicates Important State Interests." From the document where Gansler starts to enumerate all the handgun crime and how criminals use handguns, etc.

Inigoes · Sep 20, 2010

MD-Dave said:
I am no lawyer but it looks like Younger requires a three prong test. I think they can fight them on "B. This Case Implicates Important State Interests." From the document where Gansler starts to enumerate all the handgun crime and how criminals use handguns, etc.

Which is precisely why the case came about, which would strengthen the SAF argument.

krucam · Sep 20, 2010

I spend a bit of time on Calguns and one of the members there, Gene Hoffman, is an active lawyer on the forum, working for the Calguns Foundation. There is a thread there on the case here in MD: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=326537&page=2

Says Gene (today):

Younger abstention doesn't apply to prospective injunctions and SAF clearly has standing.

-Gene

Crap, now I need to dig into "prospective injunctions"...I'll be qualified as a law clerk someday...oh, and I need an assistant...

Gray Peterson · Sep 20, 2010

krucam said:
I spend a bit of time on Calguns and one of the members there, Gene Hoffman, is an active lawyer on the forum, working for the Calguns Foundation. There is a thread there on the case here in MD: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=326537&page=2

Says Gene (today):

Crap, now I need to dig into "prospective injunctions"...I'll be qualified as a law clerk someday...oh, and I need an assistant...

Gene is not a lawyer (though he probably knows a lot more about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other fine art of civil rights litigation than most J.D.'s. He is, however, the chairman of the CalGuns Foundation.

Jim Sr · Sep 20, 2010

krucam said:
I spend a bit of time on Calguns and one of the members there, Gene Hoffman, is an active lawyer on the forum, working for the Calguns Foundation. There is a thread there on the case here in MD: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=326537&page=2

Says Gene (today):

Crap, now I need to dig into "prospective injunctions"...I'll be qualified as a law clerk someday...oh, and I need an assistant...

novus collectus - Where are you, when we need you? :innocent0

boricuamaximus · Sep 20, 2010

Im rooting for Gansler. All he wants to do is keep us safe. We have enough crime already, no point in issuing out permits. Now we will have to put up with road rage shootouts killing puppies and kittens all over the place.

Think of the children people.

yellowsled · Sep 20, 2010

that really puts things in perspective.

Mr H · Sep 20, 2010

Dead Eye said:
They spelled out that I did not meet the State's standards, by not being able to provide documented evidence of incidences.

Waitaholdit...

I know I'm new to all this.

I also know I [apparently] don't fully understand the depths to which Maryland will go to deny an individual his/her rights (but I'm learning).

But...

You're telling me that a perceived, circumstancial, and (I assume) considerable concern for one's safety rates a complete GONG from the MSP Gestapoids??

Dang.............

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

Maybe if I try single spacing....

I'm no lawyer, but this is the way my feeble mind processes all that I have read from the Gansler motion to dismiss. Am I close, or way off the mark, here?

Claims by Gansler:
Mr. Woollard:
1. Failed to file a new application, having had his permit officially revoked in November of 2009, as a result of the “Board” review and subsequent denial.
2. Jumped the gun, by filing in the Circuit Court of Maryland, rather than first filing in the Circuit Court of Baltimore County.

Motion to dismiss based on:
1. “Younger” abstention, claiming Mr. Woollard must go back to the Circuit Court of Baltimore, and complete the linear process, thus allowing Maryland to “work it out”.
2. SAF doesn’t have a “dog in the fight”, since it is neither directly effected by this case, nor is its members.
3. Plaintiffs fail to provide even minimal notice for the basis of the claim that their 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, has been violated.

Questions:
1. How does SAF “bridge the gap”, so to speak, between the “Boards” denial in November of 2009, and filing suit in July 2010, and get around the State’s claim for need of a new application?
2. As a member of the SAF, as well as someone who has been “wronged” through this process, through me for example the SAF can then, therefore, claim “associational” standing, can they not?
3. Wouldn’t the fact that a HUGE disparity exists in the percentage of applicants among specific groups that are granted permits, be grounds for the Equal Protection clause, or in this case, lack thereof?

ezliving · Sep 21, 2010

We will see the Plantiff's response soon: Responses due by 10/7/2010

press1280 · Sep 21, 2010

Dead Eye said:
Maybe if I try single spacing....

I'm no lawyer, but this is the way my feeble mind processes all that I have read from the Gansler motion to dismiss. Am I close, or way off the mark, here?

Claims by Gansler:
Mr. Woollard:
1. Failed to file a new application, having had his permit officially revoked in November of 2009, as a result of the “Board” review and subsequent denial.
2. Jumped the gun, by filing in the Circuit Court of Maryland, rather than first filing in the Circuit Court of Baltimore County.

Motion to dismiss based on:
1. “Younger” abstention, claiming Mr. Woollard must go back to the Circuit Court of Baltimore, and complete the linear process, thus allowing Maryland to “work it out”.
2. SAF doesn’t have a “dog in the fight”, since it is neither directly effected by this case, nor is its members.
3. Plaintiffs fail to provide even minimal notice for the basis of the claim that their 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, has been violated.

Questions:
1. How does SAF “bridge the gap”, so to speak, between the “Boards” denial in November of 2009, and filing suit in July 2010, and get around the State’s claim for need of a new application?
2. As a member of the SAF, as well as someone who has been “wronged” through this process, through me for example the SAF can then, therefore, claim “associational” standing, can they not?
3. Wouldn’t the fact that a HUGE disparity exists in the percentage of applicants among specific groups that are granted permits, be grounds for the Equal Protection clause, or in this case, lack thereof?

I'm not up on the technicalities of the standing issue. It is interesting how these states like to say there is no equal protection violation but yet want to keep all records of those who have been issued CCWs under lock and key. You can't prove because you have no evidence and no, we won't let you see it either.

Patrick · Sep 21, 2010

I think the Equal Protection issues you guys are bringing up are valid. But don't mistake them for the issues raised under this suit. True, the 14th's Due Process clause was used to incorporate, but looking deeper it really had nothing to do with classes of people. Historically, Due Process has been used much as Privileges and Immunities was intended - to extend the rights to the people irrespective of the states. It was only in the 20th Century that the DP theory of "Substantive Due Process" was invented. Think of it this way: effectively P&I was partially rolled into DP via a controversial yet acceptable theory. It brought some life back to the 14th.

Back to your actual point: it's a good one and I think someone could make some work from it. But at the end of the day it is still a matter of subjective analysis: someone is reviewing an applicant and making a decision on their ability to exercise what we argue are fundamental rights. So even entering into the discussion means we acknowledge the right is limited to those who "qualify" according to governmental criteria. Ugh.

It certainly does demonstrate the arbitrary nature of the process. That may come up in this suit, but the real goal is to stop the evaluation itself from even happening.

Philosophically we are looking to draw a line in the sand that says "government has an extremely small, limited role in RKBA and does not make the rules. The right to bear arms is not a privilege to be doled out by the government - it is a right of the people and only the people can remove it from another citizen. The Government role is only to weed out those who the people have proven an exigent, demonstrable risk to members of our society."

Dead Eye · Sep 21, 2010

Patrick said:
I think the Equal Protection issues you guys are bringing up are valid. But don't mistake them for the issues raised under this suit. True, the 14th's Due Process clause was used to incorporate, but looking deeper it really had nothing to do with classes of people. Historically, Due Process has been used much as Privileges and Immunities was intended - to extend the rights to the people irrespective of the states. It was only in the 20th Century that the DP theory of "Substantive Due Process" was invented. Think of it this way: effectively P&I was partially rolled into DP via a controversial yet acceptable theory. It brought some life back to the 14th.

Back to your actual point: it's a good one and I think someone could make some work from it. But at the end of the day it is still a matter of subjective analysis: someone is reviewing an applicant and making a decision on their ability to exercise what we argue are fundamental rights. So even entering into the discussion means we acknowledge the right is limited to those who "qualify" according to governmental criteria. Ugh.

It certainly does demonstrate the arbitrary nature of the process. That may come up in this suit, but the real goal is to stop the evaluation itself from even happening.

Philosophically we are looking to draw a line in the sand that says "government has an extremely small, limited role in RKBA and does not make the rules. The right to bear arms is not a privilege to be doled out by the government - it is a right of the people and only the people can remove it from another citizen. The Government role is only to weed out those who the people have proven an exigent, demonstrable risk to members of our society."

I think I'm beginning to understand. It's kinda like saying to Gansler -

"Dude, get real. Here we are talking about matters of great importance, like our personal liberties and freedoms as though they were given to us by God, and you're worried about as to whether or not we put our return address on the envelope. Don't even go there."

No?

shawn · Sep 21, 2010

Patrick said:
IMD does not recognize the Second Amendment. It simply does not exist in our state. At least, it did not prior to June 28

Patrick,

You keep saying there was no second amendment in Maryland before June but is that really the case?

The state of maryland has always been bound to the U.S. Constitution.

I know that the second is now incorporated against the states but the supremacy clause says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Patrick · Sep 21, 2010

That's part of it.

Another analogy would be the government claiming they need to approve a speech you were about to make to your church. It's a bit more extreme, but it highlights the concept behind "fundamental right" - it is yours and "they" need not approve.

These suits are fighting to redefine the very role of government in RKBA: as a representation of "the people", government needs to exclude those we find dangerous from the core of gun carriers/owners. And even this is an exceptional circumstance - restricting fundamental rights should be a hard thing to accomplish. We only do it for those deemed especially dangerous (felons and the like).

So going back to our analogy above, having the discussion with Gansler (suing MD) over the permit percentages awarded to certain classes of people is much like arguing with the government over the fact they approve Baptist speeches more than Catholic ones - the discussion itself is abhorrent when considered in light of the meaning of "fundamental".

Much of the anti-carry debate is focused on the "drivers license" analogy. That analogy should stop at the process of getting a carry permit because driving is considered a "privilege" not a "right". The comparison should stop at the paperwork processing.

So anticipating a question: Why a permit at all?

Simply put, there is an interest in weeding out dangerous people. That interest would survive a constitutional challenge so long as it is objective (not subject to personal views) and the terms of the permit process clearly acknowledge the fundamental nature of your right.

The definition of that right is what is at stake here and now. Our view is that society must assume that you qualify; it is up to the government (as representative of society at large) to identify those who should not qualify. And for the most part, those who do not qualify should only lose those rights by way of a jury of his/her peers (some exceptions apply in cases of mental incapacity, etc.).

krucam · Sep 21, 2010

shawn said:
Patrick,

You keep saying there was no second amendment in Maryland before June but is that really the case?

The state of maryland has always been bound to the U.S. Constitution.

I know that the second is now incorporated against the states but the supremacy clause says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Read pgs 22-26 of the Scherr (2005) case: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2005/780s04.pdf

They (MD) still live in that world...

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

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Active Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Retired C&R Addict

Banana'd

Banned

Besieger

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Banned

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics