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

krucam · Jul 6, 2012

Yesterday, from CA4....

07/05/2012 50 MOTION by Appellees Second Amendment Foundation, inc. and Raymond Woollard to extend filing time for response brief until 07/30/2012, reply until 08/22/2012. Date and method of service: 07/05/2012 ecf. [998888474] [12-1437] Alan Gura

07/05/2012 51 ORDER filed [998888873] granting Motion to extend filing time 14 days [50], updating/ resuming briefing order deadlines. Response brief due 07/30/2012. Copies to all parties.Mailed to: Erin Murphy. [12-1437] (DL)

07/05/2012 52 DOCKETING FORMS FOLLOW-UP NOTICE ISSUED to Erin Murphy for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians, Dwight William Stone, II for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians and Mr. Andrew Clayton White for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians re: filing of appearance form (Loc.R. 46(g)). Appearance form due on 07/10/2012 from Erin Murphy, Dwight William Stone II and Andrew Clayton White. Mailed to: Erin Murphy. [12-1437] (DL)

#50 is attached. Mr Gura is a very busy man, as we and others know. SAF/Gura have briefs (in addition to Woollard) coming up in Piscatoski (CA3, 7/16) and Kachalsky (CA2, 7/13).

Woollard remaining schedule "was" to be:
Pltf Response Brief: 7/16/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 7/23/2012
MD Reply Brief: 7/30/2012

We're now looking at:
Pltf Response Brief: 7/30/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 8/6/2012
MD Reply Brief: 8/22/2012

SAF/Gura finish off with saying that these shifts to the right will not impact Oral Arguments. :thumbsup:

Oh...there's something going on with the Legal Historians Amicus. I'm not that curious about it... :cool:

Get on your bikes and ride...

Al Norris · Jul 6, 2012

Mark, doc #52 is the attorneys for appellant amicus Legal Historians filing forms to appear at orals (this was seen in the Peterson case). The court does not have to grant this.

krucam · Jul 6, 2012

Al Norris said:
Mark, doc #52 is the attorneys for appellant amicus Legal Historians filing forms to appear at orals (this was seen in the Peterson case). The court does not have to grant this.

Thanks, Al...given that time will be so "precious", typically on the order of 30 minutes total +/- for both sides, it will be a tight fit. Certainly Gura will object.

Maybe if the state allows John Lott some equal time... :innocent0

Merlin · Jul 8, 2012

krucam said:
Yesterday, from CA4....

#50 is attached. Mr Gura is a very busy man, as we and others know. SAF/Gura have briefs (in addition to Woollard) coming up in Piscatoski (CA3, 7/16) and Kachalsky (CA2, 7/13).

Woollard remaining schedule "was" to be:
Pltf Response Brief: 7/16/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 7/23/2012
MD Reply Brief: 7/30/2012

We're now looking at:
Pltf Response Brief: 7/30/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 8/6/2012
MD Reply Brief: 8/22/2012

SAF/Gura finish off with saying that these shifts to the right will not impact Oral Arguments.

Oh...there's something going on with the Legal Historians Amicus. I'm not that curious about it...

Get on your bikes and ride...

Who are the Legal Historians and what impact if any could they have on the case?

MDFF2008 · Jul 8, 2012

Is that the one that is not public?

Boy I wonder what it contains. I wonder why Gura doesn't object to a nonpublic brief.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Biggfoot44 · Jul 8, 2012

While *Legal Historians* invokes an image of long standing impertial facts , I m at least slightly aware of the main players , they are new to me.

Who are they ? What is the full name of the group ? Size and composition of membership ? Policies and other Positions ? How are they regarded in their Field , and among similar organizations ?

Inigoes · Jul 8, 2012

Merlin said:
Who are the Legal Historians and what impact if any could they have on the case?

Amici curiae are professors of legal history at law schools
and universities in the United States, England and Australia
with expertise in English legal history prior to 1789 and/or
early American legal history.

One of their previous amicus SCOTUS briefs
http://www.wilmerhale.com/files/upload/Boumediene_LegalHistoriansamicus.pdf

esqappellate · Jul 8, 2012

krucam said:
Thanks, Al...given that time will be so "precious", typically on the order of 30 minutes total +/- for both sides, it will be a tight fit. Certainly Gura will object.

Maybe if the state allows John Lott some equal time...

I would be astonished if the court gave any amicus any time at all. Participation by amicus in oral arguent is almost never granted unless the request is made by the United States and, to a lesser extent, by a state.

dblas · Jul 8, 2012

gprimr1 said:
Is that the one that is not public?

Boy I wonder what it contains. I wonder why Gura doesn't object to a nonpublic brief.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

The locked amicus (#25) was updated and unlocked (now #38), I have attached for your review.

MDFF2008 · Jul 8, 2012

Here's number 38 from the 4CA Docket. The former locked one.

View attachment Number 38.pdf

I've been researching Legal Historians.

Two of the three people listed seem to be Baltimore based lawyers, one seems to be affiliated with Boston College.

This might be the organization: http://www.legalhistorian.org/

My guess is they are going to be an anti-2A organization argueing that gun control laws have been prevalent throughout American history, that the 2A only applied to the militia in the early USA and gun control is good.

Inigoes · Jul 8, 2012

gprimr1 said:
Here's number 38 from the 4CA Docket. The former locked one.

<img src="http://www.mdshooters.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=61383"/>

I've been researching Legal Historians.

Two of the three people listed seem to be Baltimore based lawyers, one seems to be affiliated with Boston College.

This might be the organization: http://www.legalhistorian.org/

My guess is they are going to be an anti-2A organization argueing that gun control laws have been prevalent throughout American history, that the 2A only applied to the militia in the early USA and gun control is good.

What we don't know is the American society of legal historians is the same organization as the legal historians.

dblas · Jul 8, 2012

gprimr1 said:
Here's number 38 from the 4CA Docket. The former locked one.

View attachment 61383

I've been researching Legal Historians.

Two of the three people listed seem to be Baltimore based lawyers, one seems to be affiliated with Boston College.

This might be the organization: http://www.legalhistorian.org/

My guess is they are going to be an anti-2A organization argueing that gun control laws have been prevalent throughout American history, that the 2A only applied to the militia in the early USA and gun control is good.

All three are from Baltimore, and two are from the same firm per the Amicus (Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC), and the other one is from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP.

If you go here (previous credit to windowseat):

http://truckerguns.files.wordpress.c..._documents.pdf

Start at page 132 and read to the end for their Amicus.

Is there anyway to break a .PDF into parts so we can post the LH Amicus here in two parts since it is larger than the 5.0 MB max for PDF files here on the forums?

dblas · Jul 8, 2012

Inigoes said:
What we don't know is the American society of legal historians is the same organization as the legal historians.

I don't think so, but can't be sure. Others on other boards have been looking for information on them to no avail.

MDFF2008 · Jul 8, 2012

dblas, e-mail the PDF to info@marylandshallissue.org if you can and I'll split it up

dblas · Jul 8, 2012

gprimr1 said:
dblas, e-mail the PDF to info@marylandshallissue.org if you can and I'll split it up

Incoming... :party29:

MDFF2008 · Jul 8, 2012

View attachment legalhistory_small.pdf

Here is the Legal Historians Amicus.

It's def anti-2A.

wjackcooper · Jul 8, 2012

Thanks for the link.

Since Heller/McDonald attempts to undermine the historical meaning of the Second Amendment have included referencing the Statute of Northampton http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html which was enacted in 1328. Three hundred and fifty eight years after the enactment, John Knight was charged (Rex V. Knight, K.B. 1686) with violating the statute. The case remains important on the issue of whether the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, meant what it says on the issue of bearing arms.

Patrick J. Charles in his 2011 article http://originalismblog.typepad.com/...the-home-history-versus-ahistorical-stan.html argues at page 28 as follows: "Indeed, Knight was accused of walking “about the streets armed with guns, but the jury acquitted Knight because he was a government official that was well-affected to the crown."

David I Kaplan in his 1982 article http://www.saf.org/Journal/1/individualcaplan.htm argues a conviction "by 1686" required evidence of intent to "terrify" or "evil intent." "Specifically, in Rex v. Knight the accused had been charged with violating the Statute of Northampton by "walk[ing] about the streets armed with guns, and go[ing] into the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine service, with a gun, to terrify the King's subjects." Under the judge's instructions, that an essential element of the crime of violating the Statute of Northampton was "go[ing] armed to terrify the King's subjects;” the jury acquitted the accused."

Put another way, Charles says Knight got off because of his connection with the government and Kaplan says Knight got off because he had no intent to scare anybody. Charles and Kaplan cannot both be entirely accurate in stating the correct historical reasons for the acquittal.

In my view the better credentialed authorities on the respective sides of this argument support Kaplan’s opinion, but then I may be drinking to much Kool aid.

Regards
Jack Cooper

dblas · Jul 8, 2012

Thanks gprimr1 for breaking it down.

And thanks to DD214, we have space for the entire untouched PDF.

Patrick · Jul 8, 2012

dblas said:
All three are from Baltimore, and two are from the same firm per the Amicus (Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC), and the other one is from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP.

If you go here (previous credit to windowseat):

http://truckerguns.files.wordpress.c..._documents.pdf

Start at page 132 and read to the end for their Amicus.

Is there anyway to break a .PDF into parts so we can post the LH Amicus here in two parts since it is larger than the 5.0 MB max for PDF files here on the forums?

Chase further down the rabbit hole and you'll find that the firms in question are deep into pro bono work for all the usual progressive/lefty subjects: everything from "inmate rights" to lower incarceration for offenders to "get your maximum government benefits" cases.

Typical stuff.

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 9, 2012

Patrick said:
Chase further down the rabbit hole and you'll find that the firms in question are deep into pro bono work for all the usual progressive/lefty subjects: everything from "inmate rights" to lower incarceration for offenders to "get your maximum government benefits" cases.

Typical stuff.

Let me guess...they also have primarily tax exempt status too don't they?

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

Attachments

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Past President, MSI

Attachments

MSI Executive Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics