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

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!

    • Register Log in
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    krucam

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 5, 2008
    8,929
    3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
    press1280 said:
    Just started working. They're just looking for some technicalities to get off the hook. Almost zero mention of why this case was brought in the first place.

    When's the next deadline(more briefs,exc.)?
    Click to expand...

    I want to say this is now in the hands of the Judge assigned, whether to accept the Motion to Dismiss based on the MTD, the Response to the MTD and today the Reply to the Response.

    I feel SAF's Response was well seated and the Defendant's response brought up nothing new from their initial MTD. They brought up arguments against SAF's response, but I think that SAF's initial response brought up great arguments.

    The SAF definitely has standing. The equal protection claim (from MD in resp to SAF) is weak. Equal protection is a valid claim on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Younger Abstention argument has me a little lost unfortunately....
     
    Dead Eye

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    Let me see if I understand...

    Point 1, It sounds like AG Gansler is still trying to work the "Younger" abstention by saying that no matter how much Atty Gura wants to bring this before the Federal Court, that he screwed up by not dragging it through the state courts first. Of Course, Atty Gura is stating because of the Second Amendment issue, he is allowed to bypass the state and go straight to federal court. AG Gansler counters by saying that the Second Amendment hasn't been yet established at the state level, therefore, Atty Gura's point is moot, and so we are back to the "chicken and egg" issue, where the court will have to decide.

    Point 2, AG Gansler is saying that SAF doesn't have "a dog in the fight". They claim that SAF's injury is not tangible, and so is without merit. They further claim that Mr. Woollard's claim of being an SAF member doesn't hold water, because it wasn't initially disclosed that he was an SAF member. Sounds like grasping at straws to me.

    Point 3, AG Gansler is saying that he doesn't understand what has been wronged under the 14th Amendment, because Atty Gura hasn't specified such, yet. Atty Gura is contending it is a violation of Mr. Woollard's civil right, but again, AG Gansler fails to recognize this, becaue he fails to recognize that the 2A is an individual right.

    At what point does the court step in and say, "let's get on with it"?
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Dead Eye said:
    Let me see if I understand...

    Point 1, It sounds like AG Gansler is still trying to work the "Younger" abstention by saying that no matter how much Atty Gura wants to bring this before the Federal Court, that he screwed up by not dragging it through the state courts first. Of Course, Atty Gura is stating because of the Second Amendment issue, he is allowed to bypass the state and go straight to federal court. AG Gansler counters by saying that the Second Amendment hasn't been yet established at the state level, therefore, Atty Gura's point is moot, and so we are back to the "chicken and egg" issue, where the court will have to decide.

    Point 2, AG Gansler is saying that SAF doesn't have "a dog in the fight". They claim that SAF's injury is not tangible, and so is without merit. They further claim that Mr. Woollard's claim of being an SAF member doesn't hold water, because it wasn't initially disclosed that he was an SAF member. Sounds like grasping at straws to me.

    Point 3, AG Gansler is saying that he doesn't understand what has been wronged under the 14th Amendment, because Atty Gura hasn't specified such, yet. Atty Gura is contending it is a violation of Mr. Woollard's civil right, but again, AG Gansler fails to recognize this, becaue he fails to recognize that the 2A is an individual right.

    At what point does the court step in and say, "let's get on with it"?
    Click to expand...

    Excellent summary.

    This is up to the court to decide. The standing issues will probably be ruled on within a short time frame. Then it can move onto the larger questions over 2A.

    I'll say that so far Gansler has not impressed me much with his arguments. I understand he wants to delay the fight as best he can, but his parenthetical approach to the core question so far suggests he's still looking for an approach.

    Something that occurred to me last night regarding these cases and liberal municipalities that choose to fight them - I don't think "liberals" are equipped to defend against civil rights cases that have some merit to them. They have been on the offensive side for so long over race, sex, abortion and the like, that when a truly meritorious claim against the state pops forward they have no idea what to do. In the past, when a claim was alleged - and if it had merit - they would roll over and do the right thing. Here...they want to fight it, but just don't know how.

    Maybe this explains why NC did such a good job in their response brief to the SAF (it was good). Maybe the 'southern boys' know a thing or two about fighting against civil rights cases?
     
    fightinbluhen51

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    krucam said:
    Sorry for putting this thread back on topic....all 58 pages of it! :innocent0

    So far the events have been:
    2010-07-29 Plaintiffs file Complaint.
    2010-09-20 Defendants respond with Motion to Dismiss (Remember standing and Younger Abstention?)
    2010-10-07 Plaintiffs respond to the MTD. Dismissed Younger. Argued for Standing. Defendant reply to Plaintiff response due 10/25.

    Which brings us to today...remember for the last 2-3 weeks we've been talking about MD not addressing the initial complaint yet? It was in this thread amongst Delegate Smigiel, Williams Case, Juries, etc....



    Item 10, Defendants REPLY to Plaintiffs RESPONSE to Defendants MTD which was to be in RESPONSE to the Plaintiff's CLAIM: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.10.0.pdf

    All I can say is that you won't be surprised by todays filing from the State, a very quick 10 page read...:innocent0

    Full Woollard Docket is HERE
    Click to expand...
    Are you kidding me?

    I read the 1st Sentence and just want to send this

    failboat.jpg


    Gansler.

    "all of which must fail."

    NO SIR YOU FAIL! AND YOU SUCK AT LIFE!
     
    Dead Eye

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    Patrick said:
    Excellent summary.

    This is up to the court to decide. The standing issues will probably be ruled on within a short time frame. Then it can move onto the larger questions over 2A.

    I'll say that so far Gansler has not impressed me much with his arguments. I understand he wants to delay the fight as best he can, but his parenthetical approach to the core question so far suggests he's still looking for an approach.

    Something that occurred to me last night regarding these cases and liberal municipalities that choose to fight them - I don't think "liberals" are equipped to defend against civil rights cases that have some merit to them. They have been on the offensive side for so long over race, sex, abortion and the like, that when a truly meritorious claim against the state pops forward they have no idea what to do. In the past, when a claim was alleged - and if it had merit - they would roll over and do the right thing. Here...they want to fight it, but just don't know how.

    Maybe this explains why NC did such a good job in their response brief to the SAF (it was good). Maybe the 'southern boys' know a thing or two about fighting against civil rights cases?
    Click to expand...

    Thanks, Patrick. Yes, it appears that no matter how you slice it, AG Gansler is trying to nitpick, while Atty Gura is giving him the "talk ot the hand" treatment. It's as if Atty Gura is taunting AG Gansler to step up his game, and quit squabbling over procedural drivel and address the REAL issue. Hopefully, the court will see to it that the crux of the issue far outweighs the procedural nit picking, and let's this move forward in a timely fashion.

    Yes, it further appears that AG Gansler only has a position of procedural drivel for which to argue from, which is always weak. To address the meat of the issue is to go back on the time honored liberal mantra of fighting for ALL human rights. Fortunately for us, some of us happen to be human, so Atty Gura has a leg to stand on! :lol2:

    As for the Southern Boys, they are not real. These are transplants, Yankee "carpet baggers", if you will, in disguise. Any good Southern Boy wouldn't even argue the point. It would be like arguing against the right to breathe free air. :sad20:
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
    A1 Security Firearms Training Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,323
    Messages
    7,277,224
    Members
    33,436
    Latest member
    DominicM

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom