krucam
Ultimate Member
No good & substantial reason means for all lawful purposes, including self defense. Those with a restricted license will need a new card...
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!
Member Benefits:
- Status
No good & substantial reason means for all lawful purposes, including self defense. Those with a restricted license will need a new card...
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
New members should have to pass a right of initiation and read all 100 or so pages of this thread. Twice.
Welcome to the forum and thanks for playing.
Opinions vary, but I think the easy bet from most here is 2 more years before we see effective shall-issue in Maryland. There is some possibility it could occur this year, though many agree it to be a long shot.
The predicted path (right now): we lose at the District Court level in late Spring/early Summer; appeal immediately; possibly win at the Appellate Level in early/mid 2012; end up in the Supreme Court by Fall 2012 with a decision in June 2013.
We are predicting a win. If we are wrong, there will be no shall-issue in Maryland.
The Maryland case mirrors several nationwide, most managed by the exact same set of legal experts. These are the folks who won the two big Supreme Court cases we have right now: Heller and McDonald. If one or more of these other cases jump ahead and get into the Supreme Court before us (likely), our case will either piggy back on theirs - or more likely - just be rendered moot by whatever decision is reached.
This is a national campaign being fought in parallel battles on many fronts. It is the siege. But all we need is one of those battles to get the big win, and we all win everywhere.
Please join in the best way you can - donate the money you would spend on that next case of ammo to the folks running this war: The Second Amendment Foundation. They are not the NRA, so don't think your NRA checks are going to these battles. They are a separate group that do not have the resources of our friends in Virginia - many of us have redirected our NRA funds to the SAF for the time being. The NRA will persevere.
Likewise, our state grassroots group, Maryland Shall Issue.
I'll show you how easy it is. I just sent them both some ammo money. Unfortunately the SAF donation screen is not so cool. But MSI gives instant feedback:
Attachments
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I'll pick on this comment, but am directing my thoughts more to the general direction of the last few comments. Some of the things mentioned are not going to happen. The state could try them, but they will be shut down by a restraining order faster than you can say "42 USC 1983 Violation".
The state will have no compelling interest in denying you a fundamental right in a restaurant. Or in a grocery store. Or while driving by the capital in your pajamas.
They could put up some training requirement, even though they have not done so today. But they could not deprive you of your fundamental right by delaying your permit for a long period of time, or by increasing the costs for that permit to the point most could not afford one. Also, any crazy terms of the permit (renewal every month) would fail.
Fighting such onerous provisions in the future will be fast. Once the right is recognized, the Federal Courts will have no choice but to enforce them. The denial of a fundamental right by a state actor gets automatic priority in the federal court system. We're talking 2-3 weeks, not months.
Right now the right is not recognized. So the fight is slow. Once we have it, we are on a glide path. Also, under Federal Law we can sue for punitive damages against anyone who knowingly violates our rights. This applies not only to the government agencies, but also any agent of the government who enables the violation. This includes county clerks, police chiefs and law enforcement officers as individuals.
There is no such thing as "Qualified Immunity" for civil rights violations. That was done away with long ago. Individuals will not be able to claim "I was following orders." They will lose their personal assets following those orders. How many agents of the government are willing to put their house on the line to defend civil rights violations ginned up by a politician?
SkunkWerX
Ultimate Member
Knowing Maryland, they will issue new permits that say something like:
"Not UnDisRestricted"
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Knowing Maryland, they will issue new permits that say something like:
"Not UnDisRestricted"
Nobody
Ultimate Member
- Jan 15, 2009
- 2,840
You love to keep repeating that, don't you?
.
I acctually hate saying that, I just know that the wheels of justice turn very slowly. Altough I do have some hope for a quicker resolve after reading Patricks post from Yesterday at 8:40AM, if the court cases work as fast at he says they do we may only be looking at 3-5 years.
I hope I am wrong but only time will tell.
NOBODY
Sorry to step away from bear for a moment, but I have a question about this. We do have "in the home" as recognized and fundamental (I think), so why isn't Chicago getting slapped down quickly with their high fees, live fire but no firing ranges allowed, etc.. BS.
Is it that it takes a while for the right to "settle in", or the outstanding questions on level of scrutiny ??
yellowfin
Pro 2A Gastronome
We have suits against them for it, but it takes a while to move up through the courts. If the lower courts were on our side, we wouldn't have these laws in place to begin with and it wouldn't have taken from 1879 to 2008 to get the 2nd Amendment to have any meaning at all then another year or two after that to apply to states again even on the most cursory level. For 130 years the 2nd Amendment meant NOTHING, and for 70 years it meant LESS THAN NOTHING. It has been said by many knowledgeable on the subject that the courts moving slowly was the only thing defending us from things being much, much worse--it previously stalled the anti gun people from mopping the floor with us before there was an effective organized pro-2A legal team; if they'd have been able to move faster, they would have done more of they wanted. We've got 130 years of catching up to do that we've just barely started doing in the last half decade.
If you read the State court decisions you will begin to understand the slant against 2A rights in Illinois. Illinois has been controlled for a long time by the Democrats who are entrenched in Chicago. Although most of the State is pro 2A, most of the people live in Cook County.
Citizens of Illinois receiving any relief from a State court is less than slim. Being in the 7th Circuit doesn't help matters much either.
so, what I'm hearing is that once high fees (for example) are slapped down once, we'll get very quick action if someone else tries high fees. But, we're going to have to pretty much get case law on each little detail under our belts before the slap-downs in the hard-core anti places like Chicago and DC.
Makes some sense. I'd just like to still be alive to see it!
Makes some sense. I'd just like to still be alive to see it!
yellowsled
Retired C&R Addict
the link I have does not work anymore anyone have a good one?
http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html
http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html
krucam
Ultimate Member
Odd...it was working last night. I'll be able to look into it later, around 6-7pm ish...need to get at home onto a FireFox browser...
yellowsled
Retired C&R Addict
the 3rd character in the url changed from 7 to 6. wierd
Yeah that is weird.. Maybe they want traffic to come through them so they periodically update the urls??
Anyway, I just re-read the MSJ and man when I read that I think we'll by carrying by summer!! Especially since the MD response so far seems to be "oh yeah, well you forgot a comma on page 12"
This roller coaster is making me manic/depressive...
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
JonnyL hit it nicely. Once you win a point, knocking down the next violation of that point is simple.
And you hit it, too: there are questions of scrutiny involved. The issues today have to do with ancillary/related items to the "core" of 2A. Are ranges protected as strictly as the core right in the home? That kind of thing.
Likewise, the ability to engage in commerce related to the right. Nordyke in California is covering that angle and it is already in the 9th Circuit (for the third time).
If Chicago passed a law banning guns in the home, it would be snuffed immediately. But for now many of the leftover questions are those of "first impression". As we answer more of them, the field of opposition narrows. Even new questions of first impression will fall faster, as a set of jurisprudence is put in place to aid in decision making.
Eventually it hits a tipping point. That is when courts finally start making the assumption that challenged regulations are wrong, and the government has to prove constitutionality. Also, that is when egregious attempts to game the system away from our free exercise will start costing governments (first) and then individuals.
We are already seeing some awards and some municipalities settling to avoid the precedent-setting fight (and civil rights award).
Once the civil damages lawyers get involved...the opposition is toast.
Mr H
Banana'd
Knowing Maryland, they will issue new permits that say something like:
"Not UnDisRestricted"
OK... now my brain hurts...
EarthLover
Active Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 157
like your thoughts, but how much more beating can this one SAF
suit take? The Federal Courts will likely rule against MD, and MD will
appeal and continue to drag their feet. Generally, Fed Courts will not thumb their noses at Supreme Court precedent. State Court's are an entirely different animal.
That is why Gura sought to bring this case to the Fed Level.
The MD District Ct judges are federal appointees and have little
sympathy or allegiance to State interests. When faced with a SCOTUS precedent their job is to insure uniformity of federal law, not rule against landmark precedent.
Simple fact is, MD does not even have a 2A in its State Constitution. MD does not recognize 2A as the SCOTUS holds it to be.
Further, MD appellate courts have previously ruled on Heller and McDonald, stating, it changes nothing in Maryland, and specifically, that MD reads both heller/mcdonald as saying "2a exists in your home for self-defense, but exists outside the home with reasonable restrictions." According to MD, all the sections governing anti-gun in public are in "compliance" with Heller and McDonald.
What no Court has stated is what constitutes "reasonable restriction" outside the home. As such, MD will continue its anti-2A campaign.
Oh, btw, decriminalizing weed is fine here in MD, but 2a does not exist.
NICE!
suit take? The Federal Courts will likely rule against MD, and MD will
appeal and continue to drag their feet. Generally, Fed Courts will not thumb their noses at Supreme Court precedent. State Court's are an entirely different animal.
That is why Gura sought to bring this case to the Fed Level.
The MD District Ct judges are federal appointees and have little
sympathy or allegiance to State interests. When faced with a SCOTUS precedent their job is to insure uniformity of federal law, not rule against landmark precedent.
Simple fact is, MD does not even have a 2A in its State Constitution. MD does not recognize 2A as the SCOTUS holds it to be.
Further, MD appellate courts have previously ruled on Heller and McDonald, stating, it changes nothing in Maryland, and specifically, that MD reads both heller/mcdonald as saying "2a exists in your home for self-defense, but exists outside the home with reasonable restrictions." According to MD, all the sections governing anti-gun in public are in "compliance" with Heller and McDonald.
What no Court has stated is what constitutes "reasonable restriction" outside the home. As such, MD will continue its anti-2A campaign.
Oh, btw, decriminalizing weed is fine here in MD, but 2a does not exist.
NICE!
Hopalong
Man of Many Nicknames
Exactly. Most lower courts won't set that kind of precedent and SCOTUS sets precedents like that in small chunks, not sweeping decisions. This is why SAF has been taking a seemingly piecemail approach to the issue; lots of little decisions add up over time.
Right2Carry
Active Member
1) Contact your Delegates and let them know how you feel about your 2A rights being restricted in Maryland.
2) Speak to all of your friends and relatives on how Maryland is restricting your 2A rights, and plead for them to also contact their Delegates.
3) Donate to Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.
2) Speak to all of your friends and relatives on how Maryland is restricting your 2A rights, and plead for them to also contact their Delegates.
3) Donate to Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (1 Viewer)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
-
