Whalen v Handgun Permit Review Board Appeal Brief Filed

jcutonilli · Sep 16, 2019

fidelity said:
Post article on the Whalen case ...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has previously ruled in Maryland’s favor, holding that “as we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.”
...
The Constitution, Pennak added, provides that right “to the people, and not a subclass of the people.”

Click to expand...

I see the MD court reaching the same conclusion as the 4th circuit. This lawsuit doesn't evaluate what the governments public safety interests actually mean (the government doesn't really protect individual members of the public). The suit also doesn't seem to care what happens to other people, it is just about the individual in the suit. The laws affect more than just an individual and there are negative implications to the people/public by denying the right to most people.

Kaffakid · Sep 16, 2019

ShafTed said:
Further to WP only being right-ish, they keep mentioning Heller as being the catalyst for furthering carry rights, when in fact it was Wrenn that opened the floodgates for several new carry lawsuits which are steadily percolating up to SCOTUS.

Yes Wrenn and Moore (7th Circuit) have helped create the circuit split making may/shall issue ripe for SCOTUS review.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

esqappellate · Sep 17, 2019

jcutonilli said:
I see the MD court reaching the same conclusion as the 4th circuit. This lawsuit doesn't evaluate what the governments public safety interests actually mean (the government doesn't really protect individual members of the public). The suit also doesn't seem to care what happens to other people, it is just about the individual in the suit. The laws affect more than just an individual and there are negative implications to the people/public by denying the right to most people.

Not true at all. The suit belongs to Mr. Whalen, but that is because he is the only person with standing. That's the legal reality. But, it will likely establish precedent for everyone. And that is the intent.

danb · Sep 17, 2019

If they deny the montion, we all get to write something and attach as an appendix!!

go...

lolololololol.

esqappellate · Sep 17, 2019

Redux. Whalen Motion to Strike (redacted) and Whalen Reply Brief (redacted)
Reply is at https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents/summary/4-public-documents/186-whalen-reply
Motion is at https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...ocuments/185-whalen-motion-to-strike-redacted

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2019

esqappellate said:
Not true at all. The suit belongs to Mr. Whalen, but that is because he is the only person with standing. That's the legal reality. But, it will likely establish precedent for everyone. And that is the intent.

I think you are missing my point. I agree that precedent will likely apply to everyone. The problem is that the existing 4th circuit precedent values societal concerns over individual concerns. The lawsuit simply looks at individual concerns and does not address the fact that more than one individual is impacted. There are societal impacts to denying people their rights. Match the governments societal concerns against the peoples societal concerns. Trying to overcome the governmental societal concern against and individual concerns has failed almost every time with respect to 2A cases. This case is yet another example of some individual trying to overcome government societal concerns and will likely fail because they represent their own interests instead of the people.

teratos · Sep 18, 2019

jcutonilli said:
I think you are missing my point. I agree that precedent will likely apply to everyone. The problem is that the existing 4th circuit precedent values societal concerns over individual concerns. The lawsuit simply looks at individual concerns and does not address the fact that more than one individual is impacted. There are societal impacts to denying people their rights. Match the governments societal concerns against the peoples societal concerns. Trying to overcome the governmental societal concern against and individual concerns has failed almost every time with respect to 2A cases. This case is yet another example of some individual trying to overcome government societal concerns and will likely fail because they represent their own interests instead of the people.

Isn’t this usually how it works? Heller was about Heller.

dblas · Sep 18, 2019

jcutonilli said:
I think you are missing my point. I agree that precedent will likely apply to everyone. The problem is that the existing 4th circuit precedent values societal concerns over individual concerns. The lawsuit simply looks at individual concerns and does not address the fact that more than one individual is impacted. There are societal impacts to denying people their rights. Match the governments societal concerns against the peoples societal concerns. Trying to overcome the governmental societal concern against and individual concerns has failed almost every time with respect to 2A cases. This case is yet another example of some individual trying to overcome government societal concerns and will likely fail because they represent their own interests instead of the people.

And yet, many individuals are getting their indivual 2A issues corrected or overturned. Case in point, there is a lawyer in PA, A very good one, that has been working, one case at a time, to overcome the ATF idea that a lifetime ban should exist for anyone involuntarily committed under any state mental health law.

Kaffakid · Sep 18, 2019

jcutonilli said:
I agree that precedent will likely apply to everyone.

Not likely; will. If G&S is facially unconstitutional, OR if Woollard sets forth a new standard of review (i.e. "G&S light") - all of which is argued in this case - it will apply to all Marylanders applying for a W&C permit. That's the point. A bureaucrat's "societal concerns" (whatever that means) don't trump a fundamental right as enumerated in the 2A, and as properly interpreted in Heller and McDonald.

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2019

teratos said:
Isn’t this usually how it works? Heller was about Heller.

You generally don't see other rights restricted like you see with the 2A. There is a long list of cases where restrictions and bans have been upheld as constitutional. How many of those cases have been overturned by SCOTUS since Heller/McDonald?

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2019

dblas said:
And yet, many individuals are getting their indivual 2A issues corrected or overturned. Case in point, there is a lawyer in PA, A very good one, that has been working, one case at a time, to overcome the ATF idea that a lifetime ban should exist for anyone involuntarily committed under any state mental health law.

And none have overturned the law. It still applies to everyone that has not filed a lawsuit. There certainly have been a few cases that have overcome the governments societal concerns, but they are the exception and none of the examples you cite are examples of this.

This case has been tried and failed in the 4th circuit, why is this case any different?

There are a few people in MD that can get a CCW permit. Should we be happy that at least a few people can get a CCW?

PJDiesel · Sep 18, 2019

jcutonilli said:
.......Should we be happy that at least a few people can get a CCW?

No.

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2019

Kaffakid said:
Not likely; will. If G&S is facially unconstitutional, OR if Woollard sets forth a new standard of review (i.e. "G&S light") - all of which is argued in this case - it will apply to all Marylanders applying for a W&C permit. That's the point. A bureaucrat's "societal concerns" (whatever that means) don't trump a fundamental right as enumerated in the 2A, and as properly interpreted in Heller and McDonald.

It depends on how broad or narrow the ruling is. A very narrow ruling will actually apply to very few people.

Woollard will always say the same thing. G&S is constitutional. There may be another case that overturns it, but Woollard will always say G&S is constitutional.

The governments "societal concerns" in the 2A space is its public safety interest. Everyone seems to agree that they are in fact substantial.

Kaffakid · Sep 18, 2019

jcutonilli said:
It depends on how broad or narrow the ruling is. A very narrow ruling will actually apply to very few people.

Woollard will always say the same thing. G&S is constitutional. There may be another case that overturns it, but Woollard will always say G&S is constitutional.

The governments "societal concerns" in the 2A space is its public safety interest. Everyone seems to agree that they are in fact substantial.

Intermediate scrutiny (which may be what you're trying to articulate) is the standard some courts have applied to the constitutionality of G&S (or variations thereof). This was the case in Woollard and progeny in its sister circuits. One argument in this case is that this is inconsistent with Heller (and thereafter McDonald). If intermediate scrutiny is the improper standard, and G&S fails Constitutional muster - under any level of scrutiny following Heller and McDonald (as Wrenn and Moore held) - then there's no "narrow ruling." G&S, "justifiable need," "good reason," are all unconstitutional. No state will be able to impose such a prerequisite on one's desire to carry a firearm for self defense outside the home.

jcutonilli said:
Should we be happy that at least a few people can get a CCW?

Absolutely positively not.

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2019

Kaffakid said:
Intermediate scrutiny (which may be what you're trying to articulate) is the standard some courts have applied to the constitutionality of G&S (or variations thereof). This was the case in Woollard and progeny in its sister circuits. One argument in this case is that this is inconsistent with Heller (and thereafter McDonald). If intermediate scrutiny is the improper standard, and G&S fails Constitutional muster - under any level of scrutiny following Heller and McDonald (as Wrenn and Moore held) - then there's no "narrow ruling." G&S, "justifiable need," "good reason," are all unconstitutional. No state will be able to impose such a prerequisite on one's desire to carry a firearm for self defense outside the home.

Absolutely positively not.

I am not talking about levels of scrutiny. I am talking about how many people the precedent will apply to. The MSP has a very limited or narrow view of what G&S means. It applies to a few people, but not many. This lawsuit is trying to expand that interpretation of what G&S means. The court may find that the current interpretation is acceptable, like the 4th circuit did. It may also find that the circumstances as applied to Whelen may be sufficient to meet G&S, but those circumstances do not apply to most other people. Your suggesting a very broad ruling where self defense is a G&S reason and almost everyone would meet the definition. That certainly is a possibility.

I believe the plaintiffs in every court case since Heller has stated that the law is inconsistent with Heller, yet very few courts have found that to be the case. This case is just like every other case in that respect. Why should the court come to a different conclusion in this case if the arguments are the same as what has previously been decided?

wjackcooper · Sep 18, 2019

"Intermediate scrutiny (which may be what you're trying to articulate) is the standard some courts have applied to the constitutionality of G&S (or variations thereof). This was the case in Woollard and progeny in its sister circuits. One argument in this case is that this is inconsistent with Heller (and thereafter McDonald). If intermediate scrutiny is the improper standard, and G&S fails Constitutional muster - under any level of scrutiny following Heller and McDonald (as Wrenn and Moore held) - then there's no "narrow ruling." G&S, "justifiable need," "good reason," are all unconstitutional. No state will be able to impose such a prerequisite on one's desire to carry a firearm for self defense outside the home."

Well said.

Regards
Jack

wjackcooper · Sep 18, 2019

"I believe the plaintiffs in every court case since Heller has stated that the law is inconsistent with Heller, yet very few courts have found that to be the case. This case is just like every other case in that respect. Why should the court come to a different conclusion in this case if the arguments are the same as what has previously been decided?"

The arguments (not to mention the facts, and law) have little (probably no) influence on the final result when a Second Amendment case’s outcome is controlled by progressive judges.

Regards
Jack

daggo66 · Sep 18, 2019

What really needs to be challenged is that an American citizen can commit a felony and face incarceration for merely stepping over a political boundary. A legally armed WV resident can cross the the center of the bridge in Harpers Ferry and become a felon. That is wrong.

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2019

wjackcooper said:
"I believe the plaintiffs in every court case since Heller has stated that the law is inconsistent with Heller, yet very few courts have found that to be the case. This case is just like every other case in that respect. Why should the court come to a different conclusion in this case if the arguments are the same as what has previously been decided?"

The arguments (not to mention the facts, and law) have little (probably no) influence on the final result when a Second Amendment case’s outcome is controlled by progressive judges.

Regards
Jack

If the arguments don't matter, why file a lawsuit? How do you know that the arguments don't matter if you use the same argument over and over?

jcutonilli · Sep 18, 2019

daggo66 said:
What really needs to be challenged is that an American citizen can commit a felony and face incarceration for merely stepping over a political boundary. A legally armed WV resident can cross the the center of the bridge in Harpers Ferry and become a felon. That is wrong.

You do know that the Maryland state boundary is the Virginia/West Virginia shoreline. Crossing the center of the bridge would still mean you are in Maryland.

Whalen v Handgun Permit Review Board Appeal Brief Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

President, MSI

dont be a dumbass

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Past President, MSI

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics