Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 20th, 2019, 09:26 AM #251
fightinbluhen51's Avatar
fightinbluhen51 fightinbluhen51 is offline
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,740
fightinbluhen51 fightinbluhen51 is offline
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
fightinbluhen51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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?
I think you are missing the fact that DC copied our law in exact form and was told that discrimination of "palpable need" is interest balancing and discriminatory to individuals. You're also missing the fact that this case, is another vehicle to reach SCOTUS to settle this across all 50 states and territories.

I'd love nothing more than to go down to the islands on a Maryland permit for a week, American Soma the week after, and the Alaskan frontier the week after that. All while crossing bridges and shorelines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I confess that I am confused also. I reread the brief that was submitted.

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/j...brief-redacted

I see you present two questions; 1. Whether G&S violates the 2A; and 2. Whether an erroneous legal standard was used.

I get that this is a facial challenge and may affect others depending on the outcome.

What I don't see is the discussion about public safety and who provides it, which is the basis for what I have been talking about. I don't see any cases in the table of authorities that address the limits on the government's public safety interests. Reading your arguments I see you talking about self defense outside the home and how you address the two questions presented. I get the sense that the argument is just about an individual. I do not see where you relate self defense outside the home to public safety.

I am not sure why you need to defeat the G&S reason. Simply supply the most proved example; public safety. There are numerous cases where the court has concluded that public safety is not only a good reason but a substantial reason. The government would not be able to meet intermediate scrutiny without it being a substantial reason. It is also related to the text, history, and tradition. According the MSP website it is part of the common law and we all have an obligation to respond to the "hue and cry". We need to be able to use the firearms that our government feels necessary for that type of response.

I haven't seen a case yet, where statistics influenced or swayed honest, or dishonest judges.

Insistence upon the exercise of the right is all that anyone should need.
__________________

“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, who keep on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men”-SAMUEL ADAMS, 1776
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
fightinbluhen51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2019, 12:16 PM #252
Kaffakid's Avatar
Kaffakid Kaffakid is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: DC
Posts: 90
Kaffakid Kaffakid is offline
Junior Member
Kaffakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: DC
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I am not sure why you need to defeat the G&S reason.
If G&S is unconstitutional then all states are shall issue. Why the heck wouldn't you raise this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Simply supply the most proved example; public safety.
Dude. This argument basically advocates that Marylanders relegate themselves to the notion that their fundamental right to carry outside the home is subject to a level of Constitutional scrutiny. That's contrary all indicators in the holdings (and dicta) in Heller. You're basically saying that Marylanders should play within the confines of the right as the General Assembly has so graciously bestowed upon us. I reject that -- we all should.

Maryland applies intermediate scrutiny to strike down G&S challenges. Maryland argues that the G&S reason standard is "substantially related to the important governmental goal of 'public safety'" (whatever that means). No Marylander (or Californian, etc.) should accept that; it serves as a de facto band on the average working man's right to carry.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ freakin' ΛΑΒΕ

Last edited by Kaffakid; September 20th, 2019 at 03:19 PM.
Kaffakid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2019, 11:19 PM #253
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
The Second Amendment as a Normal Right - Harvard Law Review Apr. 2014

For those who think Second Amendment litigation is being improperly postured below is a link to an article by Alan Gura which ought to be read. Peruta was later reversed (2016) by the 9th Circuit sitting en banc , surprise, surprise!

Regards
Jack

Scroll up:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04...l-right/#_ftn9
The courts certainly are not making it easy to win 2A cases. The lawyers are making it easy for the courts however. They keep making the same arguments over and over and wonder why they lose. Gura wants you to believe it's the courts so you will hire him. He presents a one sided view of things. The courts decisions to date are not without some basis, which is why SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the situation.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2019, 11:33 PM #254
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightinbluhen51 View Post
I think you are missing the fact that DC copied our law in exact form and was told that discrimination of "palpable need" is interest balancing and discriminatory to individuals. You're also missing the fact that this case, is another vehicle to reach SCOTUS to settle this across all 50 states and territories.

I'd love nothing more than to go down to the islands on a Maryland permit for a week, American Soma the week after, and the Alaskan frontier the week after that. All while crossing bridges and shorelines.




I haven't seen a case yet, where statistics influenced or swayed honest, or dishonest judges.



Insistence upon the exercise of the right is all that anyone should need.
I am not missing the facts. I have not claimed that the courts always find the law is consistent with Heller, There are a very few courts that have found inconsistencies. Wren is one example.

You seem to be missing the fact that there are few differences between this case and Woollard. SCOTUS passed on Woollard, why are they going to take this case? They are already seem to be holding similar cases. The reasons they passed on essentially every other 2A case is concerning. It suggests to me that the arguments need to address certain issues and all the cases to date do not present any different arguments.

I am not sure why you think that you need statistics to demonstrate public safety. It is a legal argument based on case law, common law, and text history and tradition. Read the MSP website. https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Pages/Hist...forcement.aspx
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2019, 11:54 PM #255
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaffakid View Post
If G&S is unconstitutional then all states are shall issue. Why the heck wouldn't you raise this argument?



Dude. This argument basically advocates that Marylanders relegate themselves to the notion that their fundamental right to carry outside the home is subject to a level of Constitutional scrutiny. That's contrary all indicators in the holdings (and dicta) in Heller. You're basically saying that Marylanders should play within the confines of the right as the General Assembly has so graciously bestowed upon us. I reject that -- we all should.

Maryland applies intermediate scrutiny to strike down G&S challenges. Maryland argues that the G&S reason standard is "substantially related to the important governmental goal of 'public safety'" (whatever that means). No Marylander (or Californian, etc.) should accept that; it serves as a de facto band on the average working man's right to carry.
Dude! There are no absolute rights as interpreted by SCOTUS. Every right is subject to some level of scrutiny. Heller certainly did acknowledge that the DC law "Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition would fail constitutional muster. "

Just because a Court says it is meeting a certain level of scrutiny does not mean that it actually is meeting that level. It is the lawyers job to argue why it is not. All the 2A lawyers seem to just make the statement that it is rational basis without supplying any explanation. It is no wonder the SCOTUS does not take the case. You have not really defeated the lower courts argument, you are just hoping and praying that SCOTUS will magically make one up.

It is interesting that you don't know what public safety means. Apparently both sides agree that it is a substantial interest that is capable of sustaining laws under intermediate scrutiny. Given the case law, I would not be so agreeable. Every example the government cites about the dangers of gun is also an example of areas where the government is not responsible. In other words the government cite examples of individuals involved in crime yet they continually say that they don't protect individuals. How is it a substantial interest if they have no responsibility to provide it?
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2019, 11:34 AM #256
Mark75H's Avatar
Mark75H Mark75H is offline
HVAC Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Outside the Gates
Posts: 11,271
Mark75H Mark75H is offline
HVAC Expert
Mark75H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Outside the Gates
Posts: 11,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Dude! There are no absolute rights as interpreted by SCOTUS. Every right is subject to some level of scrutiny. Heller certainly did acknowledge that the DC law "Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition would fail constitutional muster. "

Just because a Court says it is meeting a certain level of scrutiny does not mean that it actually is meeting that level. It is the lawyers job to argue why it is not. All the 2A lawyers seem to just make the statement that it is rational basis without supplying any explanation. It is no wonder the SCOTUS does not take the case. You have not really defeated the lower courts argument, you are just hoping and praying that SCOTUS will magically make one up.

It is interesting that you don't know what public safety means. Apparently both sides agree that it is a substantial interest that is capable of sustaining laws under intermediate scrutiny. Given the case law, I would not be so agreeable. Every example the government cites about the dangers of gun is also an example of areas where the government is not responsible. In other words the government cite examples of individuals involved in crime yet they continually say that they don't protect individuals. How is it a substantial interest if they have no responsibility to provide it?
The best words you have ever typed
__________________
2A ... Federal Preemption

Thus, the only inquiry that this Court should conduct is to determine whether the firearms prohibited by the Act are protected by the Second Amendment. Because they are, the Act is simply unconstitutional.
Mark75H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2019, 11:42 AM #257
Biggfoot44 Biggfoot44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,928
Biggfoot44 Biggfoot44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,928
Durn tooting this case is similar to Woolard , what's different is Wren happened inbetween .

If District Court or the 4th rules for the plantiff, I'm sure he'll do his Happy Dance , but undoubtedly the big picture is to the Supremes for a Circuit split , if the matter wasn't already settled before then .
Biggfoot44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2019, 08:01 AM #258
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,358
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I am not missing the facts. I have not claimed that the courts always find the law is consistent with Heller, There are a very few courts that have found inconsistencies. Wren is one example.

You seem to be missing the fact that there are few differences between this case and Woollard. SCOTUS passed on Woollard, why are they going to take this case? They are already seem to be holding similar cases. The reasons they passed on essentially every other 2A case is concerning. It suggests to me that the arguments need to address certain issues and all the cases to date do not present any different arguments.

I am not sure why you think that you need statistics to demonstrate public safety. It is a legal argument based on case law, common law, and text history and tradition. Read the MSP website. https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Pages/Hist...forcement.aspx
The argument why Scotus passed on previous cases misses the fact that an overwhelming majority of cert grants are due to lower court splits. At the time of Woollard we didn't have one.
Also, how do you make a public safety argument with no stats? IMO the fact that the other side can produce ZERO cases pre Heller (with an individual rights interpretation) of an all out public carry ban should be the end of it. No, the problem is the courts have decided that the exception in Heller swallows the rule and will continue until slapped down by SCOTUS.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2019, 12:54 PM #259
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The argument why Scotus passed on previous cases misses the fact that an overwhelming majority of cert grants are due to lower court splits. At the time of Woollard we didn't have one.
Also, how do you make a public safety argument with no stats? IMO the fact that the other side can produce ZERO cases pre Heller (with an individual rights interpretation) of an all out public carry ban should be the end of it. No, the problem is the courts have decided that the exception in Heller swallows the rule and will continue until slapped down by SCOTUS.
You have given an example of confirmation bias. SCOTUS certainly does grant the majority of cases due to lower court splits, but does it always take cases where there are splits? It turns out that SCOTUS rejects a significant amount of splits also. The fact that there is a split does not mean that they will take the case.

They certainly do not provide the reasoning why they grant or reject case so we are left to speculate. I suspect it has to do with how to resolve the split and whether it can be resolved in a way a majority can support. When they can't see a majority, they let the split continue. They receive lots of cases so they can be patient waiting for the correct one.

With respect to the 2A, they certainly said to used text history and tradition in Heller, but they did not really rule out scrutiny either. The lower courts have felt that scrutiny analysis is certainly easier because they use it with other rights. I believe the reason that they a waiting is because none has really been able to explain why the scrutiny analysis is wrong.

You don't need stats to make a public safety argument. What stats do you need to figure out what the role the government plays in public safety? What stats do you need to show that the government does not protect everyone. What stats do you need to figure out that there is a common law/history/tradition of the people providing public safety because there were no police?

The correct answer is that you do not need stats because the answers are legal answers which the court is well suited to answer. The lawyers give the case away because they agree that public safety is an important government interest even though they do not protect individual citizens. The stats that the government provides to demonstrate guns harm public safety are examples of harm to individual citizens and are not part of the government interest.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2019, 10:13 AM #260
Kaffakid's Avatar
Kaffakid Kaffakid is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: DC
Posts: 90
Kaffakid Kaffakid is offline
Junior Member
Kaffakid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: DC
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Every right is subject to some level of scrutiny. Heller certainly did acknowledge that the DC law "Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition would fail constitutional muster. "
Many 2A attys agree that this indicates the placement of the 2A above the level(s) of scrutiny applied to the freedom to speak, associate, worship, travel, vote, etc. Ask around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
All the 2A lawyers seem to just make the statement that it is rational basis without supplying any explanation.
Can you provide a citation for this one? I'd be very interested (genuinely -- no sarcasm).
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ freakin' ΛΑΒΕ
Kaffakid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service