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

Patrick · Feb 17, 2011

rglrguy said:
Anything new on this? I believe the state is overdue on their response?

Schedule appears in limbo right now and the SAF is fighting some other stuff right now. We should see something within a few weeks. Either a status conference to reset deadlines, a plaintiff MSJ or something along those lines.

krucam · Feb 18, 2011

Revised Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement

I was waiting for the slam dunk in NJ, nothing on Pacer. Waiting for Chicago's Response in Ezell, also due today, also not on Pacer, Gray tells me there's an update in his case...what to do?

WTF...punched up Woollard...

Plaintiffs SAF filed a revised MSJ today, earlier one was filed 11/15/10. The big difference I noted was in their Table of Authorities at the beginning, and I usually skip over:
United States v. Chester,
628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 7, 13, 18
Chester is used 4 times in this one...

Pg 1

Meanwhile, on December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit published United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010), explaining that the “core” Second Amendment right is “the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense.”
Chester, 628 F.3d at __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508 at *26. Chester further explained that where applicable, the means-ends standard of review in Second Amendment cases is either strict or intermediate scrutiny, depending on the nature of the claim asserted. Id. And Chester further instructed, “[g]iven Heller’s focus on ‘core’ Second Amendment conduct and the Court’s frequent references to First Amendment doctrine, we agree with those who advocate looking to the First Amendment as a guide in developing a standard of review for the Second Amendment.”
Chester, 628 F.3d at __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508 at *24 (citations omitted).

Then, on Pg 2

Although Defendants never responded to the outstanding motion for summary judgment as apparently contemplated by the November 22 memorandum, Plaintiffs believe the intervening decision in Chester—a significant Fourth Circuit precedent providing guidance as to the Second Amendment’s application—nonetheless warrants the re-submission of their motion, so that the Court and the parties may address the issues more efficiently, and so that Defendants are afforded a clear opportunity to fully respond.

We see that they felt Chester so important (it is) to the case, they're updating their existing MSJ with Chester content. Oh...and so the Court and 'parties' may address the issues more efficiently and the Defendants can now respond it they want and it isn't too much problem....

I think it's a great move given that a Defendant response to the Plaintiff MSJ was the only item left standing, lets reinforce our MSJ before they do so with relevant and helpful material.

Pg 13

The law of prior restraint, well-developed in the First Amendment context, supplies useful guidance here. we agree with those who advocate looking to the First Amendment as a guide in developing a standard of review for the Second Amendment.” Chester, 628 F.3d at __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508 at *24 (citing United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 89 n.4 (3d Cir. 2010) (“the structure of First Amendment doctrine should inform our analysis of the Second Amendment”) (other citation omitted); see also Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 399 (D.C. Cir. 2007), aff’d sub nom Heller (“The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”) (citation omitted).

Putting 2A analysis on par with prior 1A analysis and prohibitions on 1A Prior Restraint....I like where this is leading...

Bring it on...

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.22.0.pdf

Edit: Patrick is friggin eerie sometimes....look at the post above mine, from yesterday.

a plaintiff MSJ or something along those lines.

kronusthebonus · Feb 18, 2011

^^ Oh snapeth !

krucam · Feb 18, 2011

Oh and BTW, this one too:

02/18/2011 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Raymond Woollard. Responses due by 3/7/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

The thumbscrews have definitely been cranked down on Gansler & Co....some semblance of a schedule.

2-3 months? 2-3 years?

kronusthebonus · Feb 18, 2011

I hope this doesn't ruin Ganslers nice 3 day weekend....

frozencesium · Feb 18, 2011

kronusthebonus said:
I hope this doesn't ruin Ganslers nice 3 day weekend....

It won't because you know he couldn't care less about this case (as noted by his last "response") and is only fighting out of libtard principle, but I'm sure some staffer is annoyed.

krucam · Feb 18, 2011

Tea Party in WI has more attention than the updated Woollard MSJ.

A Karma for $100 SAF gift certificate Karma gets EIGHT entrants last Nov. Ones for pocket knives have hundreds.

MDS Member Gray Peterson's 2A efforts seem to garner so little interest. He is a vital soldier in the 2A battle we're fighting nation wide. Why the silence?

My update on D'Cruz v BATFE changing Plaintiff to a nice young TX girl who happens to shoot...crickets. Same topic on Calguns has 30+ posts already. WTF is wrong here on MDS?

I sometimes wonder where peoples priorities are. I guess I should post a picture of my M&P in the Official M&P picture thread.... :sad20:

Fringe folks, you're not helping. I'll just leave it there.

Sorry I'm ill tempered tonight...

Inigoes · Feb 18, 2011

krucam said:
Sorry I'm ill tempered tonight...

Hang in there, and have to beer to help relax.

Since I'm one of them fringe folks, I've been remaining silent. lol

Seriously, Your posts today have been enlightening, especially since things have been happening at a furious pace lately.

randyho · Feb 18, 2011

Inigoes said:
Seriously, Your posts today have been enlightening, especially since things have been happening at a furious pace lately.

Concur. Don't confuse a lack of replies with a lack of impact. As much as I enjoy pronouncements that the 10mm short is a limp-wristed round (I do, and it is), the real value of this site, for me, is the tracking and analysis of shit that's real. Your shit, sir, is real... and deeply appreciated. I hope you continue to share your insight with those of us who are still relatively new to the cause.

Kharn · Feb 18, 2011

After reading the same press releases on four or more gun boards, I usually decide to not comment on any of them.

rglrguy · Feb 18, 2011

Krucam, FWIW, this is the first thread I look at everytime I pull up MDS because its the most important one on the sight. I then look at the rest of the MD legislation followed by the national stuff. I don't have much insight to add to this discussion but I truly enjoy listening to you and Patrick explain things far above my level of comprehension :thumbsup:

Oreo · Feb 18, 2011

I agree with the above sentiments. Truth is the MD & National 2A section of MDShooters is the only reason I come here. I'm here every day round the clock anxiously awaiting the latest news. I lurk a lot just because after Krucam, Patrick, Gray Peterson, Norton, and a few others have had their say there just isn't anything more for me to add. You guys are just that good.

AvidRider · Feb 18, 2011

Krucam - M&P? Good choice. Got my 40 compact and love it. :party29:

J.Brown · Feb 18, 2011

While I am just a dumb fireman, I also typically can't add to the intelligent plain English posts that the couple of you post that understand this stuff.

Having said that, 3 weeks for gansler's reply, then I'm guessing it's up to the judge on how long he takes to decide whether to rule or have it out?

Say he rules, having used Chester in the msj, will MD be able to/ stupid enough to appeal to the circuit knowing there just gonna refer to Chester?

hvymax · Feb 18, 2011

randyho said:
Concur. Don't confuse a lack of replies with a lack of impact. As much as I enjoy pronouncements that the 10mm short is a limp-wristed round (I do, and it is), the real value of this site, for me, is the tracking and analysis of shit that's real. Your shit, sir, is real... and deeply appreciated. I hope you continue to share your insight with those of us who are still relatively new to the cause.

I like to think most of us choose not to pollute it with our blatherings.

Dead Eye · Feb 18, 2011

rglrguy said:
Krucam, FWIW, this is the first thread I look at everytime I pull up MDS because its the most important one on the sight. I then look at the rest of the MD legislation followed by the national stuff. I don't have much insight to add to this discussion but I truly enjoy listening to you and Patrick explain things far above my level of comprehension

What he said. :thumbsup:

Atlasarmory · Feb 18, 2011

hvymax said:
I like to think most of us choose not to pollute it with our blatherings.

+1

Integrity · Feb 18, 2011

hvymax said:
I like to think most of us choose not to pollute it with our blatherings.

+2

I can't really add to the thread, but make no mistake, I definitely read it everyday. I also appreciate those of you who take the time to explain everything in layman's terms.

carpentermatt · Feb 18, 2011

This is the first place I check on when I log in. :party29:

Goose Guy · Feb 18, 2011

Another lurker here. I honestly can't think of anything worthwhile to post 95% of the time that hasn't been said yet. Big thanks for translating the legalese into plain english :thumbsup:

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Jackwagon

Ultimate Member

Jackwagon

BBQ Czar

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Banned

Active Member

Active Member

Banned

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Skooma lord

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics