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.

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    DING DING DING!

    I have been formulating this theory for a while now, and I'm more convinced than ever that 'liberalism' is in fact a psychological deficiency in which individuals are incapable of maturing and thus suffer from massive projection of their deficiencies.

    Why do they condemn the tea parties for being racist? Because they know that deep down inside they're racist themselves, and can't believe that anyone else wouldn't be. These accusations towards tea parties have been thoroughly demonstrated to be completely false, whereas day after day we're seeing the racist underbelly of progressives, both black and white, revealed more and more.

    What about the violence? No tea partier has engaged in any violence, whereas SEIU thugs have been repeatedly assaulting people, not to mention all the leftist protests where riot police inevitably have to take over.

    And Patrick's right on the money with the guns - they don't believe people should have guns because they don't believe they should have guns. They know that they aren't mature enough to handle them safely and not abuse the power they could potentially wield, and thus, project these deficiencies onto others.

    Calling right-wingers "greedy"? Yup, you guessed it - look at the levels of private charity donated by Republicans and then charity donated by Democrats.

    Immaturity and psychological projection really is the unifying theory of liberalism.
    Our VP is a prime example. Expects us to pay thousands to millions in taxes and charitable contributions, but, he himself, paid out less than 10k in annual donations. Pathetic.
     

    Ethan83

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 8, 2009
    3,111
    Baltimoreish
    Our VP is a prime example. Expects us to pay thousands to millions in taxes and charitable contributions, but, he himself, paid out less than 10k in annual donations. Pathetic.

    Ah yes, he was the one that said it's our "patriotic duty" to pay more taxes, right? It's a shame he never learned about the Revolutionary War.
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    I believe the running tally of events in this case can be had at the iacourts US Archive website. They're currently only showing one document which is the original complaint referenced earlier.

    Woolard et al v. Sheridan et al
    http://ia360701.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html

    This IS a Civil Rights Case, being heard by Judge J. Frederick Motz.
    OH GOOD! He's a Reagan appointee!

    http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/JudgesBio/motz.htm

    District Judge J. Frederick Motz was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1942. Judge Motz obtained his undergraduate degree in 1964, from Wesleyan University. He continued his studies at the University of Virginia School of Law, receiving an LL.B degree in 1967.



    Following law school, Judge Motz served as law clerk to the Honorable Judge Harrison L. Winter, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from 1967 to 1968. He entered private practice in l968, joining the law firm of Venable, Baetjer and Howard, where he remained until 1981, except for a two-year period of service (1969 to 1971) as an Assistant United States Attorney. In 1981 Judge Motz was appointed to the position of United States Attorney for the District of Maryland.



    Judge Motz continued in this capacity until July 12, 1985, when he was commissioned as United States District Judge, having been nominated by President Reagan on April 23, 1985. On October 21, 1994, Judge Motz became chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. He served in that capacity until October 19, 2001, when his term expired.



    Judge Motz is a member of many professional organizations, including the American College of Trial Lawyers; the American Law Institute; the American Bar Association; American Bar Foundation; Baltimore City Bar Association; Maryland Bar Foundation; Maryland State Bar Association; Lawyers Roundtable; and Wednesday Law Club. He served on the board of trustees of Friends School of Baltimore from 1970-77 and 1981-88, and on the advisory board of the Baltimore City Department of Social Services from 1973-81. He is presently a trustee of The Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Health System. In addition, Judge Motz served as a member of the board of editors of the Manual of Complex Litigation (Fourth), and he serves on the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
     

    Sev

    "Vern"
    Mar 18, 2010
    719
    formerly silver spring
    glad they're challenging the law, but cautious of the outcome. Seems there are many ways this can go wrong, but it can also go right. (note: I am by no means read into the details of the case, but i finally have time to tonight!)

    hopefully this works right and the laws are reformed in a positive manner.

    I won't be truly happy until i see a positive verdict.
     

    AliasNeo07

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    6,548
    MD
    Hmmm. I guess I'm the only one skeptical of this whole thing. The supreme court seems to have established that reasonable gun restrictions were okay. Though I don't consider this a reasonable gun restriction, the argument could certainly be made. Whereas I was nearly sure we'd win heller and mcdonald, this one I don't know. I really don't. I'm not a lawyer but I'm not going to hold my breath.

    That being said, when I get paid tomorrow I'm going to get a lifetime SAF membership and donate to MSI. And thank you to anyone viewing this thread (Norton, etc) who are fighting for our rights!
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Hmmm. I guess I'm the only one skeptical of this whole thing. The supreme court seems to have established that reasonable gun restrictions were okay. Though I don't consider this a reasonable gun restriction, the argument could certainly be made. Whereas I was nearly sure we'd win heller and mcdonald, this one I don't know. I really don't. I'm not a lawyer but I'm not going to hold my breath.

    That being said, when I get paid tomorrow I'm going to get a lifetime SAF membership and donate to MSI. And thank you to anyone viewing this thread (Norton, etc) who are fighting for our rights!

    I'm with you. Dicta in Heller made it sound like they were not aiming to force carry standards. At the same time they were not opposed to it. Those cards are largely on the table.

    The SAF argument is pretty solid but it makes a leap - that "bear arms" applies in public places. They draw a good line to demonstrate it, and history is on our side. But like you say, the word "reasonable" may imply a lot of leeway.

    I still think its a good chance of succeeding and is less of a stretch than Heller just a few years back. The collective v. individual right could have gone the wrong way pretty easily. These cases seem more certain to me, but I wonder if at some point the court says "enough" and holds up its hand.
     

    jonnyl

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    5,969
    Frederick
    Hmmm. I guess I'm the only one skeptical of this whole thing. The supreme court seems to have established that reasonable gun restrictions were okay. Though I don't consider this a reasonable gun restriction, the argument could certainly be made. Whereas I was nearly sure we'd win heller and mcdonald, this one I don't know. I really don't. I'm not a lawyer but I'm not going to hold my breath.

    That being said, when I get paid tomorrow I'm going to get a lifetime SAF membership and donate to MSI. And thank you to anyone viewing this thread (Norton, etc) who are fighting for our rights!

    I think we're in much better shape than if they'd started with a "no issue" state. When asked about carry permits the Maryland officials usually say something like "Yes, we issue carry permits for good reasons, to about 95% of the applicants. What's wrong with that?". I think going at this from a "self defense is a good reason says the SCOTUS and you can't deny that". Puts us on a much better footing than suing a no issue state to say "you must allow people to carry guns in public". Maryland already does allow that.(technically)

    The SCOTUS also seems to look at what is "common". In Heller they pointed out that handguns were commonly used for self defense, so it's unreasonable to deny that use. We're already at about 40 states with Shall issue or better, so it'll get harder to make the case that it's not common to allow carry.

    I'm cautiously optimistic.
     

    Tom43491

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2009
    146
    Timonium
    Hmmm. I guess I'm the only one skeptical of this whole thing. The supreme court seems to have established that reasonable gun restrictions were okay. Though I don't consider this a reasonable gun restriction, the argument could certainly be made.
    I see what you mean. But the way I see it is the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear is a fundamental right to all citizens. A fundamental right is not one that any citizen needs permission from the beaurocracy to exercise. The Supreme Court also ruled that this fundamental right cannot be infringed upon by state and local governments. I do not see how any court could rule against us while following the letter of the law.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    I think we're in much better shape than if they'd started with a "no issue" state. When asked about carry permits the Maryland officials usually say something like "Yes, we issue carry permits for good reasons, to about 95% of the applicants. What's wrong with that?". I think going at this from a "self defense is a good reason says the SCOTUS and you can't deny that". Puts us on a much better footing than suing a no issue state to say "you must allow people to carry guns in public". Maryland already does allow that.(technically)

    I think it would be better if a lot of people applied for permits for "self defense" in the near future and got turned down. If Maryland says "95% of applicants are approved", that sounds really good. If a lot of people are turned away, and the statistic gets to be 80%, 70%, or lower, that is better for us. Then the question is "why are so many people denied? Are all those people felons, or mentally ill? Why are you denying so many permits?
     

    jonnyl

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    5,969
    Frederick
    I think it would be better if a lot of people applied for permits for "self defense" in the near future and got turned down. If Maryland says "95% of applicants are approved", that sounds really good. If a lot of people are turned away, and the statistic gets to be 80%, 70%, or lower, that is better for us. Then the question is "why are so many people denied? Are all those people felons, or mentally ill? Why are you denying so many permits?

    I wonder what the numbers are and how many we'd need to really change the stats?
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    it's pretty convoluted.....you might be able extrapolate it from this data....

    http://www.marylandshallissue.org/ccwdata.html

    the number of active permits in 2004 was 11366 you could divide that by 5 and figure that that is the 95% approval rate per year :shrug:

    Thanks, I have similar 2009 data, but it does not speak to the overall permit picture, nor does it specificallt break down race and gender.

    Where does the "5" come form in your calculation?

    Do you have any info on what the codes in overall permitting numbers mean, i.e., APP, APM, etc...

    Thanks!
     

    TheZman

    Active Member
    May 10, 2010
    112
    I'm with you. Dicta in Heller made it sound like they were not aiming to force carry standards. At the same time they were not opposed to it. Those cards are largely on the table.

    The SAF argument is pretty solid but it makes a leap - that "bear arms" applies in public places. They draw a good line to demonstrate it, and history is on our side. But like you say, the word "reasonable" may imply a lot of leeway.

    I still think its a good chance of succeeding and is less of a stretch than Heller just a few years back. The collective v. individual right could have gone the wrong way pretty easily. These cases seem more certain to me, but I wonder if at some point the court says "enough" and holds up its hand.

    Look at McDonald. Alito for the majority:

    It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperial every law regulating firearms.

    From here on, the court will be refining what are and what are not permissible conditions and qualifications. The MD case, seems to me, is a an attempt to get the court to expand on the right of self-defense to include carrying a firearm outside the home, not just in the home.

    My guess is the NRA will attempt to join this case, assuming it goes through the courts, and offer additional arguments on due process and equal protection grounds. That gives the court a safe fall back.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,214
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom