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

jpk1md · Nov 26, 2010

Patrick said:
You are aware of Reagan's legacy when it comes to guns, right?

Its certainly a mixed bag.....take 86 FOPA for example....what would the landscape look like if NJ, Mass, Ill and others were allowed to forbid that you transport firearms THROUGH their state on your way to another state.

Patrick · Nov 26, 2010

jpk1md said:
Its certainly a mixed bag.....take 86 FOPA for example....what would the landscape look like if NJ, Mass, Ill and others were allowed to forbid that you transport firearms THROUGH their state on your way to another state.

True. And bans on interstate shipping of ammo weer lifted. Everything is a mixed bag, I guess.

As for the wait...who knows? It makes sense from a point of order perspective. The SAF MSJ may have been the wakeup call we wanted it to be.

I'd hate to see MD's MTD granted. That would require we appeal the dismissal to the Circuit, and then start from where we are now after that appeal was done. Everything would wait during that time.

I think It's OK to lose here on 2A grounds as long as it happens quickly. A win is better, for sure. But playing games with dismissals would be the worst case for us. From what I have read of Younger and it's later applications, Gansler's dog won't hunt. But I'm no judge.

jpk1md · Nov 26, 2010

Patrick said:
True. And bans on interstate shipping of ammo weer lifted. Everything is a mixed bag, I guess..

Not everything is a mixed bag but far far too much of it is.

Until we elect more individuals that resist the path of the career politician and are unwilling to compromise our rights away we will continue to suffer a "mixed bag" of results as well as continue to stack up a pile of negative judicial precedences that only work against us.

The longer this continues the worse it gets for us.

Look at '68 GCA for example......we've been saddled with that unconstitutional pile of crap for so long that has lead to a dumpster full of unconstitutional judicial precedences that are used to continue to prosecute citizens.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Congress was only given the power and authority to pass laws relative to the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution.

While the COURTS in some cases have accepted this law, any moron with the two pre-requisite brain cells to form a synapse and the ability to read the english language can see that there is nothing in the Constitution that granted it the power to pass the '68 GCA....quite the contrary as per the specific and non-ambiguous language in 2A

hvymax · Nov 26, 2010

Of course for the last 60 to80yrs the Constitution has been irrelevant to our Govt. It has become obvious recently when our legislators stated as much when asked about the Constitutionality of their legislation. Unfortunately the Domestic Enemies are clearly in control with only minimal occasional limp opposition from the joke of a republican party.

OnTarget · Nov 26, 2010

SkunkWerX said:
Do we have any background on Judge Motz?

I could have easily missed it, but was wondering if we know what his track record may show?

edit; oh, well now, a Reagan nominee! Could be better than we may think?

I know for a fact that Judge Motz's wife, Diana, used to be an Asst. Attorney General for the St. of MD from 1972 to 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Gribbon_Motz

hvymax · Nov 26, 2010

OnTarget said:
I know for a fact that Judge Motz's wife, Diana, used to be an Asst. Attorney General for the St. of MD back in the 70's.

MD was a different place in the 70s.

OnTarget · Nov 26, 2010

hvymax said:
MD was a different place in the 70s.

Not talking about time periods; talking about person's backgound.

fightinbluhen51 · Nov 26, 2010

hvymax said:
MD was a different place in the 70s.

From 72 till 86, that doesn't bode well.

So, we have "movement" but not really "any" movement. We're in an entrenched warfare operation at the moment.

I know this is purely speculative and of course hard to conjecture on any facet, but the judge not taking and ruling on the MTD, and he won't consider plaintiff's MSJ at least concurrent to the MTD.

Does this mean that the original MTD is the only thing on this Judge's mind with regards to this case? As it goes, we go? So, he can basically F' us and then have to have it appealed, win, and remanded, correct?

Seems like a waste of legal time and energy on such a big case if that's the ruling he's willing to make. Then again, why have any sense of "justice" in our current courts.

krucam · Nov 26, 2010

fightinbluhen51 said:
From 72 till 86, that doesn't bode well.

So, we have "movement" but not really "any" movement. We're in an entrenched warfare operation at the moment.

I know this is purely speculative and of course hard to conjecture on any facet, but the judge not taking and ruling on the MTD, and he won't consider plaintiff's MSJ at least concurrent to the MTD.

Does this mean that the original MTD is the only thing on this Judge's mind with regards to this case? As it goes, we go? So, he can basically F' us and then have to have it appealed, win, and remanded, correct?

Seems like a waste of legal time and energy on such a big case if that's the ruling he's willing to make. Then again, why have any sense of "justice" in our current courts.

That was my "read" on it as well and am hoping I'm wrong. Younger, SAF Standing, etc is on his front burner, SAF's MSJ is back burner. I didn't even think of an eventual Circuit decision remanding back to District...that WOULD be a waste of time/effort...

Inigoes · Nov 26, 2010

krucam said:
That was my "read" on it as well and am hoping I'm wrong. Younger, SAF Standing, etc is on his front burner, SAF's MSJ is back burner. I didn't even think of an eventual Circuit decision remanding back to District...that WOULD be a waste of time/effort...

The read from another angle: MD is shook up,over were the judge is leaning to allow this case to continue.

fightinbluhen51 · Nov 26, 2010

Inigoes said:
The read from another angle: MD is shook up,over were the judge is leaning to allow this case to continue.

That thought crossed my mind as well...could this potentially mean that there might be a settlement? (HAHAHAHHA, sorry, couldn't resist). I mean, MD would be smart to do just that, the question is, how brazen will they be.

krucam · Nov 26, 2010

fightinbluhen51 said:
That thought crossed my mind as well...could this potentially mean that there might be a settlement? (HAHAHAHHA, sorry, couldn't resist). I mean, MD would be smart to do just that, the question is, how brazen will they be.

And for the record, they (MD) have not yet addressed the Complaint outside of a footnote. Perhaps they were told to do so during the conference, perhaps Judge Motz stated he would deny Defendant's MTD during the conference, and he is just being cryptic in this official release.

I guess we'll see...probably fairly soon I'd venture to guess...

9mm · Nov 26, 2010

How soon will we here something.

krucam · Nov 26, 2010

2 weeks.... :innocent0

Sorry, standard response from Calguns.net to these queries. Nobody outside of Judge Motz's clerks knows this answer. What worries me is that they may be entertaining MD's MTD claims (none of it addressing the complaint) on abstention and standing.

If going in our favor on the MTD, it might honestly be 2 weeks. A short denial letter on the MTD, telling MD "nice try", but address the complaint.

If the MTD is to be granted (bad), they will likely have a more involved write-up...which might take 4 weeks...they know we will be taking it to the 4th Circuit in Richmond so they need to cover their '6'.

Only SWAG's right now.

Afield · Nov 26, 2010

So, would granting the MTD mean Woollard would file in MD circuit court? How the heck can federal court not have jurisdiction in civil rights matters? Did every challenge to "separate but equal" go up thru state courts before a federal case?

Kharn · Nov 26, 2010

Woollard would go to the federal Circuit Court in Richmond, VA, not MD.

ezliving · Nov 26, 2010

krucam said:
If the MTD is to be granted (bad), they will likely have a more involved write-up...which might take 4 weeks...they know we will be taking it to the 4th Circuit in Richmond so they need to cover their '6'.

I think there should be some professional pride that would restrain a judge from making a dumb ruling that he knows will be appealed. His name is attached to this case forever and it could make it to the SCOTUS. What judge wants to look like a knucklehead to his peers.

Afield · Nov 26, 2010

Of course it would. What i meant was, what if 4th were to uphold a granted MTD? Then SCOTUS? Then back to MD district to start the case for realz on the issue in question.... Wow this could take years and years.

Anyway, I agree in general that getting this to Richmond will be the only thing that will stick. MD, I'm told, has a bad habit of losing, and then just delaying an appeal and doing NOTHING.

boricuamaximus · Nov 26, 2010

ezliving said:
I think there should be some professional pride that would restrain a judge from making a dumb ruling that he knows will be appealed. His name is attached to this case forever and it could make it to the SCOTUS. What judge wants to look like a knucklehead to his peers.

That's the thing. The knuckleheads around here think their piers are Owe'Malley and Gansler.

Patrick · Nov 28, 2010

If the current MD MTD is granted at the District level, no 2A arguments have been made. The SAF and Woollard must then file an appeal of the dismissal at the Circuit level in Richmond. Assuming the Circuit agrees that the case should not have been dismissed, it is remanded back to the same District Court with an order to proceed. Still...no 2A arguments will have been made. It'd be a colossal waste of time, which would be the point. Then the judge would take forever ruling against the claim itself.

The dismissal, appeal and remand would take about 9 months. Then the actual arguments over the merits a minimum of three more (more like 6).

The upside is that during this time we are quite likely to see a few District Courts decide in our favor (Peruta in San Diego), and maybe even a Circuit (Ninth???). We'll also see some losses (Ninth???), but the MD District Court will be behind the curve. By the time they do eventually get to the finer details...they may have few/no choices due to precedent elsewhere.

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

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

guns and glory

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Besieger

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics