dlmcbm
Ultimate Member
If Judge Legg does not give the state there stay they they will have to ask for one from the CA4. Legg's ruling will stand till the CA4 grants a stay or makes a ruling against Legg's.
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!
Member Benefits:
- Status
If Judge Legg does not give the state there stay they they will have to ask for one from the CA4. Legg's ruling will stand till the CA4 grants a stay or makes a ruling against Legg's.
Or affirms his ruling.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Judge Legg's ruling becomes moot when the Court of Appeals rules, one way or the other....
Judge Legg's ruling does NOT become moot when they CA4 "wrap their arms around it", assuming that means takes the case. His ruling is in full force (minus any potential Stay) until affirmed, rejected or remanded at the Appellate level.
jkray
Active Member
Is there any reason to think that we may not see a ruling on the stay? I mean politically speaking would it be in anyone's interest (aside from the Sate) to not rule on the permanent stay and just have the temp stay inplace until the CA4 rules?
Justice delayed is justice denied. Legg won't do that IMO
Mr H
Banana'd
Free Ray Woollard!!!!!
Judge Legg has bent over backwards to give MD every opportunity to match SAF's case, and prove him wrong.
So far, The Gansler Gang has done nothing but further bury themselves and prove the otiginal ruling to proper choice (i.e., to return Maryland to Constitutional principles).
He's crossed his Ts, etc., and should be providing a very thorough basis fot the higher Court(s). Vacating his stay seems the only logical choice at this point, and let it play out.
Ideally, I'd like to see the stay vacated, CA4 refuse to emplace their own stay, and Woollard be issued his permit next week. Then, MSP would have no choice but to begin issuing permits to any other non-disqualified applicants (and then we'd possibly see a Special Session to begin rewriting the laws and try to further restrict carry... but that's another fight, more geared to the rest of us, than this case).
Judge Legg has bent over backwards to give MD every opportunity to match SAF's case, and prove him wrong.
So far, The Gansler Gang has done nothing but further bury themselves and prove the otiginal ruling to proper choice (i.e., to return Maryland to Constitutional principles).
He's crossed his Ts, etc., and should be providing a very thorough basis fot the higher Court(s). Vacating his stay seems the only logical choice at this point, and let it play out.
Ideally, I'd like to see the stay vacated, CA4 refuse to emplace their own stay, and Woollard be issued his permit next week. Then, MSP would have no choice but to begin issuing permits to any other non-disqualified applicants (and then we'd possibly see a Special Session to begin rewriting the laws and try to further restrict carry... but that's another fight, more geared to the rest of us, than this case).
Last edited:
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
We will get a decision, have no fear.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
A Special Session over this would be inordinately difficult, though not impossible.
I think our first order of business, assuming the state must start acting on these permits this summer, will be engaging the right people and monitoring progress on their end. They will have a small window to get up to speed, but the continuation of discretionary practices will lead to trouble for all.
Let's see where this goes. I don't think we have much longer to wait. If nothing else, we are probably going to see the CA-7 Moore case (IL Permits) get a ruling before the end of August. That means our case gets heard after the 7th make their call, and frankly I agree with others here that the extreme laws in IL are likely to get overturned. That can only help us here.
This is progress. Slow, but moving the right way.
I think our first order of business, assuming the state must start acting on these permits this summer, will be engaging the right people and monitoring progress on their end. They will have a small window to get up to speed, but the continuation of discretionary practices will lead to trouble for all.
Let's see where this goes. I don't think we have much longer to wait. If nothing else, we are probably going to see the CA-7 Moore case (IL Permits) get a ruling before the end of August. That means our case gets heard after the 7th make their call, and frankly I agree with others here that the extreme laws in IL are likely to get overturned. That can only help us here.
This is progress. Slow, but moving the right way.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I very much agree, a favorable 7th Circuit decision in Moore will help immensely. The 7th is very well regarded. And if it is a Posner opinion, even more so. I thought the argument in Moore went very well and I am looking forward to the decision. It will be very clear on whether the right obtains outside the home. That's not necessarily enough to get us a win in Woollard, as you still have to examine G&S under the apppropriate standard of review, but it will establish Circuit precedent for the first time on that key point.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
From the orals, it seems like Posner would be writing something. I cannot imagine him taking a backseat here. A pro-plaintiff decision from him would be strong.
The only thing that makes me worry about the 7th was the significant time spent looking for the edges of the right. I understand that is part of the game, but the inquiry made once or twice that, "..were we to provide Illinois guidance..." is disconcerting when taken with the subtle references to Chicago being a sensitive fiefdom.
The 7th gave us Ezell, and we loved the "guidance" provided in that case that went well beyond gun ranges. Not so sure we'd love the guidance this panel would offer when it comes to TPM restrictions. But a win is a win and you never win all at once. Assuming we get good stuff here, we can just hope that it doesn't open the doors to more craziness. Either way, it'd probably help us quite a bit.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
And having listened to the oral arguments audio last week, it seems that Gura did a good job to abate and mitigate the impact on TPM restrictions as best he could. Posner was REALLY trying to flesh out limitations (so much so it gives me heartburn, but he's an anti-guy more or less right?).
Hopefully, Gura was persuasive enough with his briefs and as much so in orals to basically get the court to understand that those restrictions belong in the hands of the legislators first, and the courts second. At least, that's what I hope he accomplished; those glorious words of scope creeping government, "presumptively lawful."
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I don't see that the 7th will be giving detailed directions on what the state can enact. I can see it talking about presumptively lawful regulations, ala Heller in general. Heller has already crossed that bridge. But apart from such broad categories, the court will leave it up to the state legislature to devise its own legislation. Anything else would be outside the judicial function. I take Posner's and Judge Williams' comments and questions as more designed to flesh out the weaknesses of the State's total ban on outside the home than as recommendations or guidance on what would pass constitutional muster, if enacted. The court need only rule that the state ban is unconstitutional, viz., the 2A right extends outside the home. The court's reasoning will be key on this, but, from the tone at argument, they will be heavily guided by Heller. We shall see. I agree that Posner is more likely than not to assign the case to himself. It if often the case that the most active judge at argument gets the assignment and that was clearly Posner.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Posner was looking for limits, hopefully not a catch-all concession on some grand TPM restrictions that could be swept into the case. I suspect that is why we found the good Mr. Gura especially cagey this time around; I've read and heard Gura arguments that would have been more direct of the booze question. Caution was the better option here, probably. Let's get the major ruling and leave the rest for the next fight.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Agree, but we saw the Ezell case take on a bit more than gun ranges. It was first out of the gate so the time was ripe for a "grand unification theory" of gun-law in the 7th. Just worried this can go both ways. TPMs are the next level of the fight, and everyone knows it.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Exactly right. If Posner writes the opinion, it should be out quickly, e.g. by September. No difficult fact questions. Not even a difficult legal question. Only one legal issue and it is (or can be viewed) as relatively simple after Heller. Posner is usually fast. So we shall see.
Mr H
Banana'd
OK... I'm thinking out loud again...
But doesn't that place the onus back on the state and legislature to find a way to argue for "sensitive places", etc. without unduly hindering the exercise of the right?
I would hope that there could be some form of common template compiled from across the existing carry-friendly states, that an agreeable list (not necessarily boiler-plate, but common nonetheless) can be put in play.
Now we know MD will try to stretch TPM to the breaking point, but to my (layman's) thinking, the sorts of wide-ranging restrictions we can imagine them going for (days ending in Y, within 2 miles of a school...
) would just tick off the Court rather than meet the needs of the rulings we anticipate.
But doesn't that place the onus back on the state and legislature to find a way to argue for "sensitive places", etc. without unduly hindering the exercise of the right?
I would hope that there could be some form of common template compiled from across the existing carry-friendly states, that an agreeable list (not necessarily boiler-plate, but common nonetheless) can be put in play.
Now we know MD will try to stretch TPM to the breaking point, but to my (layman's) thinking, the sorts of wide-ranging restrictions we can imagine them going for (days ending in Y, within 2 miles of a school...
) would just tick off the Court rather than meet the needs of the rulings we anticipate.
And with G & S gone, whatever TPM restrictions they enact, they will apply equally to all.
Al Norris
Spud Head
Over at TFL, I went out on a limb and suggested that the decision in Moore/Shepard would be out within 60 days. Folks over at the ISRA seem to agree.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Maybe. There doesn't seem to be a dissent on the panel and that will speed it up. And this court acts pretty fast as a rule (unlike the 9th). And that would correspond with the departure of existing clerks and the arrival of new ones. Still, 60 days is fast for any court of appeals to act, so I tend to think that 60 days is doable, but optimistic.
Edit: I just did a quick Westlaw search on opinions authored by Judge Posner. Of the opinions released this year, they were all about 2-3 months with a few of less than 2 months (except for an en banc case that took 9 months and was per curiam). So 60 days could well be quite reasonable.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (2 Viewers)
- Latest: BurkeM
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (2 Viewers)- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 42