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

Atlasarmory said:

+1

Click to expand...

+3

Oreo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Same here. The info I get here helps me in my efforts to educate others, and keeps me up to speed on action items. I may not post here often, but I am active. I hope many others are doing the same.

You guys are amazing. Your efforts are greatly appreciated!

krucam said:

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....

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

Sorry I'm ill tempered tonight...

Click to expand...

Like many have said here. I keep to myself at the most so not to clutter the thread.

But look, this thread has almost 100k views.

That should tell you, you guys are doing a superb job, please keep it up.

Most lawyer speak makes my head turn, you guys make it easier to digest.

Once again thank you all.

For those of you intimidated by the lawyer-speak, I can say that the briefs Krucam & Patrick post for reading are in language anyone can understand for it's facial value. Often Alan Gura's stuff is very entertaining to read. Where these guys really show their smarts is in stuff like interpreting the defendant & courts responses / intentions, and in helping us understand how each piece fits together in the puzzle of the big picture nation-wide.

krucam said:

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.

Click to expand...

Awesome news. Cannot wait to dig into this today.

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

Click to expand...

There, now my wife would agree with you!

Oreo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hello Krucam,

You would be surprised how often I am in the MD and National 2A section on this site and I live in Illinois. I don't often post, because usually any updates posted already have a pretty thorough explanation and analysis given. Yes, really you guys are that good.

BTW, thank you for what you do.

All,

I truly want to apologize for 1)Jacking up this thread and 2)For unloading last night. I honestly was in rare form (cats were even hissing at me). I usually lean towards the optimistic side of things, when I go the other way it isnt' pretty.

Thanks for the nice words, lets move on with our typical swipes against the NRA and Gansler.

I had a bad day, the forum will persevere. Peace out...

ETA: I see you've posted since I had begun writing this Mark, but I don't see anything changing I've written below.

krucam said:

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....

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

Sorry I'm ill tempered tonight...

Click to expand...

I almost never enter "karma" giveaways and seldom look at picture threads either. Maybe if you had an SAF pocketknife....

Mark, I'll echo the statements made since your quoted post and say that I depend heavily on your help in tracking these cases, and especially your ability to see past the legal gibberish.

What I personally find exceptionally valuable is the insight granted by the explanations of strategy, cause and effects of the the "what ifs" and the4 background explanations. Without you and Patrick keeping us current and making this more clear, I don't think I could follow the case, and certainly would lack the depth of understanding made possible by your comments and great explanations.

Thank you.

As for a lack of replies, like most laymen here, I really don't have anything sensible to contribute to this thread, yet I read it eagerly every time it comes to the top. I skim over the one liners and attaboys and look for your posts.

The questions I have are usually already asked by some of the more astute readers, and/or already answered in posts by you and Patrick.

Rather than judge the worth of this thread, your work or the enthusiasm of your readers by counting comments, I'd suggest looking at the number of views you're getting (45,594 this morning). That is a VERY large number of hits, and to me signifies a VERY big interest.

PLEASE, keep up the good work here, and thank you again for your efforts.

Meantime, what do you mean by "fringe folks...helping here"? How can I/we actually help here when we typically cannot add to a largely technical conversation that we often struggle to understand? Almost anything posted by we, the clueless masses, seems to detract from the brevity of thread.

J.Brown said:

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?

Click to expand...

This is just my opinion and it may well be unpopular but, Gansler and MD will keep doing what it is doing and had done despite what the courts, up to and including the SCOTUS says until they are PERSONALLY threatened with repercussion from said courts. MOM and company do not care about anything but thier own will and way and NOTHING will change that short of the threat of jail for contempt of court.

It truely sucks but that is the way it has been in this political sh**hole of a state for ever. Geographically it is one of the most perfect states, we have it all but as far as Annapolis....welll you know.

If I were not to old to start over and to young to retire I would be out of here. I am gone in 12-15 years to somehere out west but for now I am here along with the rest of you.

It is my honest opinion that we are still 7-10 years from practicle Shall issue, I say practicle due to the fact that even if the SCOTUS said today they have to issuse permits in a SHALL issue way, MD will still do thing illegal and wait for us to sue them again and again.

Hopeing for the best, prepared for the worst

NOBODY

PS thanks to all who translate this legal mumbo-jumbo int everyday speak and this is the first thread I look for though I try to keep my mouth shut.

NOBODY

practicle shall issue...it's our density

krucam said:

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

Click to expand...

I'd be most grateful if our legal eagle minds would elaborate more on this point. I don't understand these levels of scrutiny and their implications. How also, would this jive with "shall not be infringed?"

lastly, Mark, I think you have more than enough in the bank here to cover years of bad days. You're among friends, and I am grateful to all of you who are supremely useful posters!

1A analysis has, for the most part, been strict...to the point where many people even find it distasteful. It is regarded as so important, its execution can't be restricted even if "normal people" find it offensive.

Porn Shops/theatres, Nazi marches in Jewish neighborhoods, Baptists protesting at veteran burials, Crosses on mountains, organizations getting treated like individuals for the purposes of political contributions (Citizens United), we must have warrants and cause before we can get cell/internet records. The list goes on....

There is no amendment that is near and dear to everyone as the 1st. We would be in fantastic company if the 2nd gets the same (or even somewhat comparable) treatment as the 1st.

Papi4baby said:

But look, this thread has almost 100k views.

Click to expand...

Oooopps, sorry. Thats just me checking in 10 to 20 times a day just to see if anything new has been posted by our very own "Legal Crew" (TM) .

Thanks to the Crew for keeping us not only informed, but educated.

-Boxcab

drwalther said:

I'd be most grateful if our legal eagle minds would elaborate more on this point. I don't understand these levels of scrutiny and their implications. How also, would this jive with "shall not be infringed?"

lastly, Mark, I think you have more than enough in the bank here to cover years of bad days. You're among friends, and I am grateful to all of you who are supremely useful posters!

Click to expand...

To add to Mark's posting...the 1st and 2nd amendments are the only amendments that protect the activity of persons in the original Bill of Rights.

Obama had it right (mostly) when he famously described the Constitution as the "Document of No", or something to that effect. His point was that the Bill of Rights spends most of its time talking about liberties in the framework of what the government cannot do.

Except the 1st and the 2nd.

There are special considerations for the 1st built around the fact it is a protection for positive action by people. Unlike the 4th and 5th - which protect people only when the government acts against you - the 1st and 2nd tell the government that there are things US persons will do...and the government cannot stop them.

Now...scrutiny is a long topic but I'll summarize as best I can in short order:

"Scrutiny" refers to a thing called "standards analysis", or "means-end analysis" and a few others terms. Conceptually, it is used by courts to apply a general set of rules - guided by previous jurisprudence (precedent setting cases) - to determine the outcome of a regulatory/legal challenge. Using common analysis and a set of predetermined rules helps make speedy determinations and also creates stronger results less likely to be overturned - assuming the court does a good job in applying both.

Means-End Analysis involves two high-level steps: first determine the scope of the right and whether/where the regulated activity (carrying guns in public) falls within it; and then use that determination to apply the correct analytical standard - the 'scrutiny' - required to evaluate the law or regulation on the activity in question (a ban on carrying guns in public).

I skipped some details and merged some steps, but this is the big picture.


There are three effective levels of scrutiny (again, I am Clif's Noting this):

- Rational Basis: If a legislature can dream it, all they need to do is demonstrate they thought about the problem and whatever they say afterward is legal. It is essentially carte-blanche to do as they please. Rational Basis only applies on the periphery of a right...the things that may be annoying but which do not affect the core of a right or that do not stop someone from exercising their rights. It is also heavily used when there is no right at all. It is where most laws in the US fall.

- Strict Scrutiny: This literally means that any law or regulation proposed by the government is considered unconstitutional from the moment it is conceived. It is up to the government to prove that the law is absolutely required for the good of the republic. Then they need to prove the law is as narrowly crafted as possible and that no other method exists to fix the problem. It is the gold standard of rights evaluation in the free world. It is applied to rights deemed "fundamental" to our way of life - meaning that the right exists apart and separate from all government. These are sometimes called "natural rights" or "God given rights". There are only a few and the Second Amendment is now one of them (as of June 2010).

- Intermediate Scrutiny: This applies in cases where there is some 'suspicion' that a fundamental right is at play...but we're not quite at the core of it. It is the slippery slope of rights analysis. Governments must still prove that the laws are required, but the standard is generally lower. It is the "almost strict" standard (but frequently anything but).


Why does this all matter?

Because the courts like the system. This whole concept of analysis is an invention of the 20th Century and it really came into vogue in the civil rights era. Don't get me wrong: it is helpful for many issues. The problem is that to perform an accurate analysis you need some basic rules: what is core to the right; where the edge cases exist; etc. We have little of that for 2A.

The Supreme Court decided both Heller and McDonald using an older approach: they mixed historical analysis with an originalist view. They literally asked the question: "What would Jefferson do?" or more accurately: "What did Jefferson do?"

But Heller did not establish any 'standards' of analysis other than to say "rational basis was out". McDonald went much further by saying that the Second Amendment was 'fundamental'. That means strict scrutiny.

The problem today is that neither fully defined what is protected. We know for sure the protection applies "in the home" because Heller answered that question directly (it was the question under review). Heller also gave insight that some of the right exists outside the home - but the extent and conditions applied to that right are still not answered in a direct way. The Supreme Court was pretty good at defining some regulations government could probably impose...but gave little in the way of hard standards anywhere else.

So everyone is reading between the lines.

But don't fret. The Supreme Court has dropped some pretty big bread crumbs for everyone to follow. Ironically it was the dissenters in the two big cases who made clear what this all means: prohibitions on public carry were going to fall. It was the end of the world (for them). All the debate in the world does not change the fact that the text of the Second Amendment says nothing about 'in the home' or 'for sporting purposes only'.

So all of today's fights are about filling in the blanks and defining the borders of the right. If we include public carry into the fold of "fundamental right" then it gets strict scrutiny. Re-read the above definition (and Krucam's point regarding the sanctity of the 1st) to see where that leaves your right to bear arms (hint: we want this).

This is why the fights are important.


To help you score from home, note that our opposition has used but one successful strategy which it seems even they know is doomed in the higher courts. Rather than trying to avoid adding public carry to the realm of protected rights, they are now trying to set up an alternate universe for it that has no parallels with the 1st Amendment. They want to put the 2nd into a special box, for the children. Comparisons to the 1st Amendment scare the hell out of them.

They will keep fighting against proper classification of our rights. But it is notable to me that they are now devoting significant time and energy to containment. They know what is going to happen - so they are trying to build barriers to keep the right from spilling all over the place when we win.

In short: they are losing and they know it.

You've made my day and assuming Gansler has read this, spoiled his.

Great job!!!!!

Glad to hear Chester now has mention in the MSJ.
Glad to hear the 3-7-11 date has been set. Not too far away, not at all.

At this point, am I correct in saying that there should be a reply from the defendants by 3-7-11? Something? Even if it's incoherent?

Then looking forward, it's reasonable and expected that the Honorable Judge Motz could take 2 to 3 months to issue his decision? June-ish?

Patrick - great writeup.

I can only imagine the MSP and Gansler reading your post and their blood is boiling.

Their blood should be running cold, because they know they're in a really bad place. Being mad won't help their situation. But then again, being scared sh**less won't help them out either.

Nice! MD got smacked with a bonus MSJ. Great read.
After Gansler gets his butt kicked here, I'm betting he folds up his tent and goes home beat. Why would he ask for a higher court inevitable butt-kicking in Richmond?
O'Malley will, more than likely, call a special legislative session to deal with The-Guns-Everywhere-Emergency.

ezliving said:

Nice! MD got smacked with a bonus MSJ. Great read.
After Gansler gets his butt kicked here, I'm betting he folds up his tent and goes home beat. Why would he ask for a higher court inevitable butt-kicking in Richmond?
O'Malley will, more than likely, call a special legislative session to deal with The-Guns-Everywhere-Emergency.

Click to expand...

I am normally an optimist. Big BUT, here. Does anyone think
this could be a repeat of what Chicago is doing?