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

mrjam2jab · Mar 12, 2012

Threeband said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Get her to apply, too.
.

Betting with $112 I might be able to convince her since MD is the only state in our "way" right now when we drive to friends in NC....but $224? :sad20:

Mr H · Mar 12, 2012

mrjam2jab said:
Betting with $112 I might be able to convince her since MD is the only state in our "way" right now when we drive to friends in NC....but $224?

But then you're in the same boat I'm in when traveling to IL...

Can't legally even HAVE the darned things while there!!

esqappellate · Mar 12, 2012

swinokur said:
Is an actual injunction possible?

Yes. Judge might "clarify" his opinion and order to add an express injunction. We should wait to see what Gura and his team ask for in their 3/16 papers. The state has said it would comply as a matter of "policy" with a declaratory injunction if it is not stayed. The stay is thus the real issue now.

BenL · Mar 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Yes. Judge might "clarify" his opinion and order to add an express injunction. We should wait to see what Gura and his team ask for in their 3/16 papers. The state has said it would comply as a matter of "policy" with a declaratory injunction if it is not stayed. The stay is thus the real issue now.

What's the likelihood of a stay? I've seen "expert" talking heads say everything from "definitely" to "unlikely".

JMangle · Mar 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Yes. Judge might "clarify" his opinion and order to add an express injunction. We should wait to see what Gura and his team ask for in their 3/16 papers. The state has said it would comply as a matter of "policy" with a declaratory injunction if it is not stayed. The stay is thus the real issue now.

More and more I see the swarms of people applying as a good thing. This gives Gura something to show the judge -- namely that the state is still doing everything they can to infringe upon the right.

Just a few minutes ago I read a piece in the BalSun about the permitting process -- apparently the author used to be on the Permit Board. He pointed out that only 5% of people were denied. Well, that's gonna change.

Link:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-gun-ruling-20120312,0,6166139.story

(My comment is under DucatiRider, if anyone is interested.)

Anyhow, my question is this:

What effect does the hundreds of permit apps have on the chances of a stay or injunction? Will Legg demand that MD implement the ruling asap?

esqappellate · Mar 12, 2012

BenL said:
What's the likelihood of a stay? I've seen "expert" talking heads say everything from "definitely" to "unlikely".

Hard to tell. In order to justify an injunction and in order to get a stay, this is the test that has to be met:

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346–47 (4th Cir.2009), overruling Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir.1977)

Now, Gura did not expressly brief these elements in his SJ papers and the judge only granted declaratory relief without opining one way or the other on injunctive relief. The State has stated in its Stay papers that it will comply with an unstayed declaratory judgment without an injunction, so Gura's problem is thus arguably moot. He doesn't have to argue for injunctive relief as the state says it will comply with the declaratory judgment. Gura's problem is to defeat the stay motion, if he can.

The state has a problem. It has to meet all 4 parts of this test to get a stay pending appeal. Gura has a very good argument that plaintiff suffered irreparable harm by virtue of the unconstitutional statute. That's as a matter of law. Balance of equities is tricky as the state is arguing administrative burdens are too heavy to implement now when it could prevail on appeal. Hard to see this as "irreparable" but it is in the eye of the beholder. Irreparable in the law generally means can't be compensated in damages and the state would undoubtly have lots of costs to implement the court's ruling and those costs would be utterly wasted and otherwise unrecoverable if the decision were to be reversed on appeal. Gura can argue that plaintiffs have been without self protection long enough and more delay would expose the plaintiff to still more risk. Of course, he has had that risk for years now since 2009 when his renewal was denied. Wait and see what else Gura comes up with. My guess: Toss up. Likelihood of success on the merits is also tricky. Judge Legg's decision is exceptionally well reasoned and sound in its application of circuit precedent but there is NO circuit precedent on point and his decision is the first to expressly recognize the right exists outside the home -- three other district courts have rejected that argument, but they are in other circuits and thus are not bound by the 4th Circuit law Judge Legg cites and which will be controlling on this appeal. It breaks new ground, of that there is little doubt. Public interest is a crap shoot. State statutes are presumed to embody the public interest so to assess this intelligently you got to remember that a statute has been invalidated and courts hesitate to do that. It's a big deal. It could go either way.

esqappellate · Mar 12, 2012

JMangle said:
What effect does the hundreds of permit apps have on the chances of a stay or injunction? Will Legg demand that MD implement the ruling asap?

Also hard to tell. None of those applications is a matter of record in district court and decisions are based on the record, not news reports. If Gura has actual hard data from somewhere, he can try to get it in and have the judge consider it. Obviously, it could weigh in on the balance of equities and irreparable harm inquires. Wait and see.

Dead Eye · Mar 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Also hard to tell. None of those applications is a matter of record in district court and decisions are based on the record, not news reports. If Gura has actual hard data from somewhere, he can try to get it in and have the judge consider it. Obviously, it could weigh in on the balance of equities and irreparable harm inquires. Wait and see.

Cecil County Circuit Court Case #07C10000383. There's one. It's not much, but it's a start.

PJDiesel · Mar 12, 2012

Dead Eye said:
Cecil County Circuit Court Case #07C10000383. There's one. It's not much, but it's a start.

That's one, there HAS to be more than one guy who went before the board and was still denied....

Maverick0313 · Mar 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Hard to tell. In order to justify an injunction and in order to get a stay, this is the test that has to be met:

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346–47 (4th Cir.2009), overruling Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir.1977)

Now, Gura did not expressly brief these elements in his SJ papers and the judge only granted declaratory relief without opining one way or the other on injunctive relief. The State has stated in its Stay papers that it will comply with an unstayed declaratory judgment without an injunction, so Gura's problem is thus arguably moot. He doesn't have to argue for injunctive relief as the state says it will comply with the declaratory judgment. Gura's problem is to defeat the stay motion, if he can.

The state has a problem. It has to meet all 4 parts of this test to get a stay pending appeal. Gura has a very good argument that plaintiff suffered irreparable harm by virtue of the unconstitutional statute. That's as a matter of law. Balance of equities is tricky as the state is arguing administrative burdens are too heavy to implement now when it could prevail on appeal. Hard to see this as "irreparable" but it is in the eye of the beholder. Irreparable in the law generally means can't be compensated in damages and the state would undoubtly have lots of costs to implement the court's ruling and those costs would be utterly wasted and otherwise unrecoverable if the decision were to be reversed on appeal. Gura can argue that plaintiffs have been without self protection long enough and more delay would expose the plaintiff to still more risk. Of course, he has had that risk for years now since 2009 when his renewal was denied. Wait and see what else Gura comes up with. My guess: Toss up. Likelihood of success on the merits is also tricky. Judge Legg's decision is exceptionally well reasoned and sound in its application of circuit precedent but there is NO circuit precedent on point and his decision is the first to expressly recognize the right exists outside the home -- three other district courts have rejected that argument, but they are in other circuits and thus are not bound by the 4th Circuit law Judge Legg cites and which will be controlling on this appeal. It breaks new ground, of that there is little doubt. Public interest is a crap shoot. State statutes are presumed to embody the public interest so to assess this intelligently you got to remember that a statute has been invalidated and courts hesitate to do that. It's a big deal. It could go either way.

I am SO glad we have you on our forum to explain things..... :party29:

esqappellate · Mar 12, 2012

Maverick0313 said:
I am SO glad we have you on our forum to explain things.....

Thanks. There is nothing easy about this stuff.

dblas · Mar 12, 2012

Papi4baby said:
Ya think.

I have not bought it up as an issue, but i feel me having to take a copy of my naturalized paperwork and send it in is also BS.

I mean, no one else has to prove they are a citizen, yet i do!

Um, yes we all do, see line 5: DOB, Place of Birth (City/State), and Country.

They check Birth records with Health department where I was born to verify my citizenship by birth.

hvymax · Mar 12, 2012

Maverick0313 said:
I am SO glad we have you on our forum to explain things.....

I suppose Patrick and Krucam might not mind the assist.

Cranky · Mar 12, 2012

I love how they keep bringing up the "only 5% were denied" Of course this is correct because we all knew beforehand that applying was like betting on a lame horse.

JMangle said:
More and more I see the swarms of people applying as a good thing. This gives Gura something to show the judge -- namely that the state is still doing everything they can to infringe upon the right.

Just a few minutes ago I read a piece in the BalSun about the permitting process -- apparently the author used to be on the Permit Board. He pointed out that only 5% of people were denied. Well, that's gonna change.

Link:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-gun-ruling-20120312,0,6166139.story

(My comment is under DucatiRider, if anyone is interested.)

Anyhow, my question is this:

What effect does the hundreds of permit apps have on the chances of a stay or injunction? Will Legg demand that MD implement the ruling asap?

Klunatic · Mar 12, 2012

Cranky said:
I love how they keep bringing up the "only 5% were denied" Of course this is correct because we all knew beforehand that applying was like betting on a lame horse.

Not to mention they actually gave you a chance to "pull" your application prior to its review. I sent in my application about 10 years ago before realized the impossibility of obtaining a permit. A corporal from the permit dept called me to ask my reason for applying. When I told him is was for personal protection he laughed and told me it would be denied on those grounds. He asked if I wanted him to "return" my application and permit fee so I wouldn't waste my money.

I would be willing to bet that I am not the only one to ever receive such a phone call.

LCPIWB · Mar 12, 2012

mrjam2jab said:
I have every intention of applying.....IF i can convince the Mrs. to allow me.

I'd worry about that only if she gets to the mailbox before you when the permit arrives.

Kashmir1008 · Mar 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Hard to tell. In order to justify an injunction and in order to get a stay, this is the test that has to be met:

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346–47 (4th Cir.2009), overruling Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir.1977)

Now, Gura did not expressly brief these elements in his SJ papers and the judge only granted declaratory relief without opining one way or the other on injunctive relief. The State has stated in its Stay papers that it will comply with an unstayed declaratory judgment without an injunction, so Gura's problem is thus arguably moot. He doesn't have to argue for injunctive relief as the state says it will comply with the declaratory judgment. Gura's problem is to defeat the stay motion, if he can.

The state has a problem. It has to meet all 4 parts of this test to get a stay pending appeal. Gura has a very good argument that plaintiff suffered irreparable harm by virtue of the unconstitutional statute. That's as a matter of law. Balance of equities is tricky as the state is arguing administrative burdens are too heavy to implement now when it could prevail on appeal. Hard to see this as "irreparable" but it is in the eye of the beholder. Irreparable in the law generally means can't be compensated in damages and the state would undoubtly have lots of costs to implement the court's ruling and those costs would be utterly wasted and otherwise unrecoverable if the decision were to be reversed on appeal. Gura can argue that plaintiffs have been without self protection long enough and more delay would expose the plaintiff to still more risk. Of course, he has had that risk for years now since 2009 when his renewal was denied. Wait and see what else Gura comes up with. My guess: Toss up. Likelihood of success on the merits is also tricky. Judge Legg's decision is exceptionally well reasoned and sound in its application of circuit precedent but there is NO circuit precedent on point and his decision is the first to expressly recognize the right exists outside the home -- three other district courts have rejected that argument, but they are in other circuits and thus are not bound by the 4th Circuit law Judge Legg cites and which will be controlling on this appeal. It breaks new ground, of that there is little doubt. Public interest is a crap shoot. State statutes are presumed to embody the public interest so to assess this intelligently you got to remember that a statute has been invalidated and courts hesitate to do that. It's a big deal. It could go either way.

Who says legal stuff isn't fun? Hell things don't get much more interesting than this.

...or maybe I should get out more.

Thanks for the play by play esq!

LCPIWB · Mar 12, 2012

JMangle said:
More and more I see the swarms of people applying as a good thing. This gives Gura something to show the judge -- namely that the state is still doing everything they can to infringe upon the right.

Does anyone know if MSI or someone from mdshooters is reaching out to SAF, and Gura to let them know they have a whole bunch of applications that are landing on MSP desk last week and this week alone?

I am imagining that Christmas story movie were the judge is proving that Santa Claus exists by dumping 10tons of letters addressed to Santa Claus on the judge's desk. LOL. :rofl:

X-Factor · Mar 12, 2012

JMangle said:
More and more I see the swarms of people applying as a good thing. This gives Gura something to show the judge -- namely that the state is still doing everything they can to infringe upon the right.

Just a few minutes ago I read a piece in the BalSun about the permitting process -- apparently the author used to be on the Permit Board. He pointed out that only 5% of people were denied. Well, that's gonna change.

Link:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-gun-ruling-20120312,0,6166139.story

(My comment is under DucatiRider, if anyone is interested.)

Anyhow, my question is this:

What effect does the hundreds of permit apps have on the chances of a stay or injunction? Will Legg demand that MD implement the ruling asap?

But if the permit applications get backlogged/intentionally put in a holding pattern...they technically won't be DENIED.

esqappellate · Mar 12, 2012

Kashmir1008 said:
Who says legal stuff isn't fun? Hell things don't get much more interesting than this.

...or maybe I should get out more.

Thanks for the play by play esq!

I think we *BOTH* need to get out more!

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Banana'd

President, MSI

John Galt Speaking.

Handsome Engineer

President, MSI

President, MSI

Banned

Banned

Retired and loving it

President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Banned

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Needs an avatar

MSI Executive Member

Needs an avatar

I don't say please

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics