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 May 6th, 2019, 01:06 PM #1
Meho1277 Meho1277 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 26
Meho1277 Meho1277 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 26
Malpasso vs Pallozzi 18-2377

I see something happened on 4/29/2019,just not sure what. Did the court affirm no need for oral areguments, because they already have enough imformation to decide, or it says we affirm the district courts dismissal of the complaint.
What does this mean?
Meho1277 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2019, 01:32 PM #2
HUMONGO's Avatar
HUMONGO HUMONGO is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Havre de Grace
Posts: 80
HUMONGO HUMONGO is offline
Junior Member
HUMONGO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Havre de Grace
Posts: 80
4/25 it was dismissed as they can't overturn Woolard. Oral arguments were dispensed with.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...019-04-29.html
HUMONGO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2019, 02:17 PM #3
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,513
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,513
If i remember right we expected this to happen and want to take this before 4ca and might end up En Banc as well.
motorcoachdoug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2019, 02:18 PM #4
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 26,234
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 26,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
If i remember right we expected this to happen and want to take this before 4ca and might end up En Banc as well.
Yes. This was the goal. Then appeal.
__________________
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
MSRPA BOD
I touched Heller.....
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2019, 06:21 PM #5
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,271
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,271
I think they'll just appeal with SCOTUS. We may have a LOT of cases on hold for NYSRPA. What's one more?
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2019, 05:24 AM #6
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,513
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I think they'll just appeal with SCOTUS. We may have a LOT of cases on hold for NYSRPA. What's one more?
Thought they had to go thru 4ca first before they file a cert with SCOTUS?
motorcoachdoug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2019, 06:53 AM #7
Meho1277 Meho1277 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 26
Meho1277 Meho1277 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 26
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2377 BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI, in his official capacity as Maryland Secretary of State Police, Defendant - Appellee. ------------------------------------------ GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; MARYLAND CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION; EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY, Amici Supporting Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01064-ELH) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Mark H. Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that § 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Maryland Code of Public Safety is an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Malpasso and the Association seek a declaratory judgment declaring that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is unconstitutional and an injunction precluding future enforcement of the statute and requiring the State to issue handgun carry licenses to Malpasso and the Association’s members. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint after Malpasso and the Association conceded that our ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), controlled.* On appeal, Malpasso and the Association acknowledge that this panel cannot overturn Woollard. “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We dispense with oral argument *In Woollard, we held that assuming, without deciding, that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)’s “good-and-substantial-reason” requirement implicated Second Amendment protections, the provision did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights granted by the Second Amendment, as applied to the statute’s challenger. 712 F.3d at 882.
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
This is what it says, does this mean it was dismissed in the 4ca as well and is going to the scotus?
And if you could do this in layman's terms and not terms in latin, that would be great
It also says that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent this circuit.

Last edited by Meho1277; May 7th, 2019 at 08:17 AM.
Meho1277 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2019, 08:18 AM #8
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,513
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meho1277 View Post
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2377 BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI, in his official capacity as Maryland Secretary of State Police, Defendant - Appellee. ------------------------------------------ GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; MARYLAND CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION; EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY, Amici Supporting Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01064-ELH) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Mark H. Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that § 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Maryland Code of Public Safety is an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Malpasso and the Association seek a declaratory judgment declaring that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is unconstitutional and an injunction precluding future enforcement of the statute and requiring the State to issue handgun carry licenses to Malpasso and the Association’s members. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint after Malpasso and the Association conceded that our ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), controlled.* On appeal, Malpasso and the Association acknowledge that this panel cannot overturn Woollard. “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We dispense with oral argument *In Woollard, we held that assuming, without deciding, that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)’s “good-and-substantial-reason” requirement implicated Second Amendment protections, the provision did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights granted by the Second Amendment, as applied to the statute’s challenger. 712 F.3d at 882.
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
This is what it says, does this mean it was dismissed in the 4ca as well and is going to the scotus?
And if you could do this in layman's terms and not terms in latin, that would be great
It also says that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent this circuit.
Thx. On ward to SCOTUS now.....
motorcoachdoug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 01:08 PM #9
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,271
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
Thought they had to go thru 4ca first before they file a cert with SCOTUS?
They just did. The only question was whether they want to petition the entire 4th circuit to hear en banc.
That's a waste of time IMO.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 10:09 PM #10
echo6mike's Avatar
echo6mike echo6mike is offline
Damn' 13er
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: wrong side of 270
Posts: 1,200
echo6mike echo6mike is offline
Damn' 13er
echo6mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: wrong side of 270
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
Thought they had to go thru 4ca first before they file a cert with SCOTUS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
They just did. The only question was whether they want to petition the entire 4th circuit to hear en banc.
That's a waste of time IMO.
For us non-lawyers out here, is there a summary of what this case says, who the involved parties are, what's happened with it so far and what the time frame is for whatever next steps follow?

I think I have a decent idea, except for the "what happens next and when" part, but it's legalese. I don't speak legalese, I just try to decipher it...

It looks like the objective of this case is just to remove the G&S clause from the rules covering WCP issuance, very specifically. Have I got that much right?

History of which court did what and when, that I dunno. Hoping someone will post updates here periodically.

Thanks!
__________________
e6m actual, Andy M
echo6mike 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 06:07 AM.


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