Ray Woollard's Attacker Dangerous Until the End

press1280 said:

The Sun tied this in with the Woollard case. Very nice

Click to expand...

Indeed they did!

Shift said:

This just goes to show that our gun laws need to change, someone this dangerous should have never had access to a gun. We need more restrictive common sense laws that require anyone interested in buying a gun to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, 40 hours of classroom training, 500 rounds of live fire training and sign an affidavit that they will never use their gun against a human or puppies or kittens. They should require all guns be held at local police stations and can only sign them out during hunting season. Also keep strict records of ammunition used and must be bought from local police stations only with a $50 per booollet tax.

Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for.

press1280 said:

The Sun tied this in with the Woollard case. Very nice

Click to expand...

And that comment troll Jack Hayes already started some chit.

HIT IT ...

Vincent DeMarco, president of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, said, "The courts upheld Maryland law, and Maryland law is keeping Marylanders safe. We should retain it."

Regardless of this week's incident, Patrick Shomo, president of Maryland Shall Issue, a nonprofit based in Annapolis that works to preserve gun owners' rights, remains convinced that the state law is overly restrictive.

"It is somewhat irrelevant from a constructional standpoint," he said of the Monday shooting. "Our argument all along had been, you might not like the Second Amendment but respect the law."

He said a right to carry permit should not be dependent upon one's ability to prove a threatening circumstance.

"People need the ability to protect themselves and their family," he said.


Cliff notes: Vinnie is a moron. Patrick and MSI FTW!

danb said:

Seems to me that is circular reasoning. The case is only moot if one assumes you need a G&S reason to have a CCW in the first place.

Click to expand...

The challenge to G&S was that of a facial challenge (that as applied to Mr. Woollard, or any other individual, it would fall).

All this does, is show that the state is at best, a very poor judge of whom may or may not have apprehended danger and deserves a permit. At worst, it shows they are an arbiter of rights and that their legislative intent (or allowing the state police discretion to define it) they will take the most authoritarian stand that they can.

fabsroman said:

I don't think this will have any bearing on the Court case whatsoever. I'll admit that I have not been following Woollard very closely. However, this almost seems like it would create an out for the Court because the issue is now moot without any threat to Woollard anymore if the Court was going to try and lay some rules in place for what is and is not G&S.

Now, if the Court wants to decide the issue of whether Shall Issue or G&S is the law of the land, then they would still take the case and find a reason to take it.

We shall see what happens. I'd be torn about CCW if Shall Issue becomes the law of the land. I'm not even going to try to screw around with G&S and all the limitations and worries that are included with it.

Click to expand...

So this is the discussion I had with the Balt Sun yesterday. There is a general misconception about what the lawsuit asks for.

In a nut shell, Woollard is not arguing over whether the state was correct in their adjudication of his G&S cause regarding his attacker - even though it obvious they were quite wrong. His argument is that he should not have to prove a cause to exercise a right.

This requires, in essence, two key findings from the court:

- The right to bear arms (carry) exists in public;

- That the right is worthy of enough protection that the government cannot willfully infringe or restrict it without substantial and specific good cause

This flip the equation from the citizen having to prove cause, to the government having to prove cause. This is how every other fundamental right is protected. The state has already stated their cause as one where public safety is harmed when lawful people carry arms. Problem is this has not been the case in the 40+ states where the public carry is generally allowed.

I told the Sun that this doesn't change the technical issues in the case one whit, but it surely colors the position of the state in a bad way. It highlights clearly that the state argument - that they are capable of determining risk to a specific individual - is suspect at best and erroneous at worst. That the state actually makes that claim is folly.

I also pointed out that the attacker should never have had his gun. I basically asked how it was possible...this should not have been a problem because all those big words on little pieces of paper say we're safe from guys like this. The irony was not lost.

The reporter was cool about it, and I think learned a few things. I appreciate her willingness to hear us out.


Also, my condolences to the Woollard family. They've been through a lot and need some space. Glad to see the reporter respect that.

fightinbluhen51 said:

The challenge to G&S was that of a facial challenge (that as applied to Mr. Woollard, or any other individual, it would fall).

All this does, is show that the state is at best, a very poor judge of whom may or may not have apprehended danger and deserves a permit. At worst, it shows they are an arbiter of rights and that their legislative intent (or allowing the state police discretion to define it) they will take the most authoritarian stand that they can.

Click to expand...

Well said.

This will probably get 'noticed' as part of the cert petition and will be a talking point for sure in the arguments if it is accepted. It blows some of the state's arguments up.

I never understood why they would rely on a felon to hold his end of the deal and not become violent (again) in arguing to the federal courts that they made a solid call. It's like relying on my two year old to stay away from cookies. Not gonna happen.

Funny how the news doesn't relate him to the woolard case.

Patrick said:

Well said.

This will probably get 'noticed' as part of the cert petition and will be a talking point for sure in the arguments if it is accepted. It blows some of the state's arguments up.

I never understood why they would rely on a felon to hold his end of the deal and not become violent (again) in arguing to the federal courts that they made a solid call. It's like relying on my two year old to stay away from cookies. Not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

I hope the court will also 'notice' Maryland's leading position in the homicide stats among the states. Abbott is just the tip of the iceberg.

tsmith1499 said:

I wish he would have stayed alive. It would have given them a viable reason to issue a CCW to Mr. Woolard. They may still be able to use this to our advantage.

Click to expand...

It would seem to me MSP was dead wrong about apprehended danger, but they let guys out that are just pure criminals (not MSP, but the "justice" system) so in fact living anywhere in MD there is always a sense of apprehended danger from thugs that should never be on the street. We see this time and time again.

Patrick said:

Well said.

This will probably get 'noticed' as part of the cert petition and will be a talking point for sure in the arguments if it is accepted. It blows some of the state's arguments up.

I never understood why they would rely on a felon to hold his end of the deal and not become violent (again) in arguing to the federal courts that they made a solid call. It's like relying on my two year old to stay away from cookies. Not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Part of me feels sadness and relief for Mr. Woollard and his family (as well as the Abbots), but the cryptic part of me feels giddy that the state, through no circumstances of their own, will now have a hard time trying to reason with concrete facts.

fightinbluhen51 said:

Part of me feels sadness and relief for Mr. Woollard and his family (as well as the Abbots), but the cryptic part of me feels giddy that the state, through no circumstances of their own, will now have a hard time trying to reason with concrete facts.

Click to expand...

You make two erroneous assumptions:

1 - The state will use good reasoning
2 - They will rely on facts

Ab_Normal said:

You make two erroneous assumptions:

1 - The state will use good reasoning
2 - They will rely on facts

Click to expand...

True...every once in a while common sense overwhelms me and niavity creeps in.