New Maryland Wear and Carry Lawsuit

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!
  • Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,434
    NRA-ILA, MSRPA bring a new lawsuit against G&S.

    The lawsuit, Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association v. William M. Pallozzi, challenges Maryland’s requirement that a citizen show “good and substantial” reason to obtain a concealed carry permit. Because of this requirement, Maryland residents must prove they are under some extraordinary imminent threat in order to be granted a permit. This effectively bans most citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights outside of their homes.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180412/nra-announces-support-for-maryland-lawsuit

    Good news! Glad NRA and MSPRA picked up the shall issue ball in Maryland.
     

    Zorros

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 10, 2017
    1,405
    Metropolis
    Is there a new argument to be made that gets past wollard’s intermediate scrutiny ( the law advances a substantial state interest, such as safety)? Hasn’t the sct refused to hear this case from california very recently? Or, is it being set up for the 3-4 year timing to get thru the appeals and ask a more friendly sup ct to consider granting cert and hearing it?
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    If I understand your response the point is to lose in 4th Circuit-land and keep appealing until it is possible to request for certiorari to SCOTUS? Combined with other circuit splits might they might be more inclined to take the case this time and resolve the split.
    Sorry for my ignorance.

    That is basically correct. Of course, the 4th is free to go en banc and overrule the Woollard panel. And pigs will fly when that happens. So, the plan is to lose in the 4th and file a petition for cert based on the circuit conflict with Wrenn. Makes sense.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Hasn't a split already been done via Woollard?

    edit: saw IronEye's response... expensive. what's the odds of SCOTUS decision on carry?

    Not that expensive. The plaintiffs expect to lose fast in district court and the court of appeals. So it is basically the cost of a cert petition.
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    Isn't it up to 45 states now that have shall issue or constitutional carry? Would be nice if Maryland got out of the dark ages...
     

    Attachments

    • ccw.jpg
      ccw.jpg
      67.8 KB · Views: 916

    Clark W. Griswold

    Active Member
    Oct 5, 2009
    929
    Great to see.

    But how is this expected to be a different outcome than the Woollard vs Sheridan case? In that case 4th Circuit said that G&S was a permissible burden under intermediate scrutiny.
    Why would this case be expected to result in a different outcome?
    Other circuits have come to different conclusions on the same matter including the District of Columbia. Permits are Shall Issue there now.

    Not trying to be negative - just trying to understand what might be different now.

    If the plaintiff is who I think it is, there’s a wrinkle to this suit that may at a minimum add another definition of good and substantial that lots of folks will be able to take advantage of.

    (Assuming he wins)
     
    Last edited:

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    And of course MD will try to drag its feet as long as possible in responding to this in each court, heck they will even ask for extensions for time to file their reply as well making the MD taxpayer pay to deny us our 2A Constitutional Rights!
     

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,434
    Probably no more frost covered windshield days, have to get your mandatory digs in or JA Local 5 will pull your card.

    The lifetime card can be slightly bent, add a treble hook and makes a nice spoon. The JA LCL5 card is great for lock picking.


    Has anyone found a copy of this suit? I searched Pacer couldn't find.
     

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,239
    Underground Bunker
    Yeah illegals get all the rights by breaking the law daily by being here and get all types of benefits , while American (Maryland) citizens can not even get a basic Constitutional right and God given right . It is about time some of these orgs. we all give money to get with the program and start the legal attack .
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    5,492
    Carroll County!
    I just get tired carrying my M1 Garand straped to my back. But at least I still have that in Maryland.

    Some of the local laws need changed, but I think that would be easier. Law suits against local jurisdictions would be cheaper and warm people up to the eventual change of Maryland becoming shall issue.

    Sent from the 3rd Rock
     

    jkeys

    Active Member
    Jan 30, 2013
    664
    One angle I haven't heard attacked yet is related to the fact that courts have ruled it isn't an all out carry ban because open carry of long guns is legal.

    But MD law makes carrying a loaded rifle in motorized vehicles illegal (DNR regulation to prevent poaching?). Therefore, by not approving concealed carry permits one should be able to argue that the state has a defacto ban on carrying of firearms because you can't carry or transport loaded firearms in your car without a "may issue" license.
     
    Until Ginsberg and/or Kennedy is gone SCOTUS will never hear this. It's a given that the 4th circuit will shoot this down like they did with the MD AWB which other courts are now using to infringe on their citizens. (weapons of war, not covered under the 2A) This could set a precedent that could make it easier for other states to remove SHALL ISSUE from their laws. Besides, hasn't this already been tried and failed?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,699
    Messages
    7,248,919
    Members
    33,309
    Latest member
    Andre

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom