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

jzarrabi said:

3 days.... perhaps we should expect another stall tactic?

Click to expand...

I'd put money on it...the State is incapable of arguing this on the merits of a Civil Rights case. MD is not alone...look at the NY, CA, DC & Chicago cases for guidance.

They instead jump through the predictable hoops of legal stalling. That is all they can do. When they do finally decide to argue the case on the merits, anticipate them saying "Keep and Bear is only protected in the home". That is it...they will be soundly squashed with that assumption.

This WILL go our way eventually and they know it. I find it entertaining although mundane right now with these motions, but the Judge(s) will tire of them eventually and eventually rule on these cases...unless of course you're the Judge in "Palmer v. DC: or "Sykes v. McGinness"

This WILL go our way eventually and they know it. I find it entertaining although mundane right now with these motions, but the Judge(s) will tire of them eventually and eventually rule on these cases...unless of course you're the Judge in "Palmer v. DC: or "Sykes v. McGinness"

Click to expand...

Don't forget the entire Ninth Circuit in Nordyke. That was originally filed in 1999. As forward movement goes, it is slated for post-McDonald orals on the 19th of October in San Francisco.

To the current question: I agree that MD will stall again. And again. They will continue to stall ala Chicago until a judge tells them "enough" and makes them answer the question. It took Chicago about three months to get there on just the range question (and the SAF is still not guaranteed a response).

MD will delay and delay actually answering the complaint. Because once they do, a set of actions are set in motion. Yes, those action can also be delayed...but a critical hurdle will have been passed.

As for their arguments: presumed weak, as Krucam points out.

So why wait?

In strategy terms the only reason to hold out is to hope that some other court of note, somewhere, rules against 2A in some regard that will give them some ammo to fight the SAF and us.

But that it a double-edged sword. The grabbers were using a case in the Seventh which held that restricting guns to felons only required Intermediate Scrutiny. The grabbers were overjoyed - "Yea! See...not Strict!", until the SAF threw it back with the note that Heller and McDonald presumed that restrictions on felons were valid. So following that logic: if felons require Intermediate Scrutiny for something the Supreme Court says is "presumptively valid"...how can non-felons expect the same or less? There is only one way to go...more strict!

That shut the grabbers up quick.

MD runs the risk of waiting until they lose before the fight is made. Maybe that's the goal. Calguns, the NRA and the SAF are all asking the Ninth for a Standards-based review of Nordyke. It's a little risky, but everyone is betting it could pay off handsomely.

The SAF is not asking for a standards-based review of the NY/MD/CA/DC cases - they prefer an approach that performs a historical analysis of the core right against the text of the amendment. That is what worked in Heller and McDonald.

The concern with even "Strict Scrutiny" is that it opens the door to a modern interpretation of the right. It says "evaluate this restriction against the core of the Right, strictly". That leaves courts to define the "core" of the right on their own. A historical approach per Heller is the equivalent of saying "evaluate this restriction against the core of the right, as it was understood to exist in 1787 and 1868." (Ratification and 14th Amendment, respectively)

So "strict" is critical and important for the evaluation of restrictions. But the SAF two-prong approach is to first define the "core" of the right using the historical analysis, and then make sure Courts understand that all regs are evaluated against that defined core in strict fashion. Nordyke is a vehicle to get one part of this equation, MD/NY/DC/CA are the other part. That one/two punch will knock out the majority of the most egregious laws that restrict our rights today.

We can expect MD to avoid playing its part as best it can.

Patrick said:

Don't forget the entire Ninth Circuit in Nordyke. That was originally filed in 1999. As forward movement goes, it is slated for post-McDonald orals on the 19th of October in San Francisco.

To the current question: I agree that MD will stall again. And again. They will continue to stall ala Chicago until a judge tells them "enough" and makes them answer the question. It took Chicago about three months to get there on just the range question (and the SAF is still not guaranteed a response).

MD will delay and delay actually answering the complaint. Because once they do, a set of actions are set in motion. Yes, those action can also be delayed...but a critical hurdle will have been passed.

As for their arguments: presumed weak, as Krucam points out.

So why wait?

In strategy terms the only reason to hold out is to hope that some other court of note, somewhere, rules against 2A in some regard that will give them some ammo to fight the SAF and us.

But that it a double-edged sword. The grabbers were using a case in the Seventh which held that restricting guns to felons only required Intermediate Scrutiny. The grabbers were overjoyed - "Yea! See...not Strict!", until the SAF threw it back with the note that Heller and McDonald presumed that restrictions on felons were valid. So following that logic: if felons require Intermediate Scrutiny for something the Supreme Court says is "presumptively valid"...how can non-felons expect the same or less? There is only one way to go...more strict!

That shut the grabbers up quick.

MD runs the risk of waiting until they lose before the fight is made. Maybe that's the goal. Calguns, the NRA and the SAF are all asking the Ninth for a Standards-based review of Nordyke. It's a little risky, but everyone is betting it could pay off handsomely.

The SAF is not asking for a standards-based review of the NY/MD/CA/DC cases - they prefer an approach that performs a historical analysis of the core right against the text of the amendment. That is what worked in Heller and McDonald.

The concern with even "Strict Scrutiny" is that it opens the door to a modern interpretation of the right. It says "evaluate this restriction against the core of the Right, strictly". That leaves courts to define the "core" of the right on their own. A historical approach per Heller is the equivalent of saying "evaluate this restriction against the core of the right, as it was understood to exist in 1787 and 1868." (Ratification and 14th Amendment, respectively)

So "strict" is critical and important for the evaluation of restrictions. But the SAF two-prong approach is to first define the "core" of the right using the historical analysis, and then make sure Courts understand that all regs are evaluated against that defined core in strict fashion. Nordyke is a vehicle to get one part of this equation, MD/NY/DC/CA are the other part. That one/two punch will knock out the majority of the most egregious laws that restrict our rights today.

We can expect MD to avoid playing its part as best it can.

Click to expand...

Incredibly, I understood your post. Awesome as usual.

Patrick said:

Don't forget the entire Ninth Circuit in Nordyke. That was originally filed in 1999. As forward movement goes, it is slated for post-McDonald orals on the 19th of October in San Francisco.

To the current question: I agree that MD will stall again. And again. They will continue to stall ala Chicago until a judge tells them "enough" and makes them answer the question. It took Chicago about three months to get there on just the range question (and the SAF is still not guaranteed a response).

MD will delay and delay actually answering the complaint. Because once they do, a set of actions are set in motion. Yes, those action can also be delayed...but a critical hurdle will have been passed.

As for their arguments: presumed weak, as Krucam points out.

So why wait?

In strategy terms the only reason to hold out is to hope that some other court of note, somewhere, rules against 2A in some regard that will give them some ammo to fight the SAF and us.

But that it a double-edged sword. The grabbers were using a case in the Seventh which held that restricting guns to felons only required Intermediate Scrutiny. The grabbers were overjoyed - "Yea! See...not Strict!", until the SAF threw it back with the note that Heller and McDonald presumed that restrictions on felons were valid. So following that logic: if felons require Intermediate Scrutiny for something the Supreme Court says is "presumptively valid"...how can non-felons expect the same or less? There is only one way to go...more strict!

That shut the grabbers up quick.

MD runs the risk of waiting until they lose before the fight is made. Maybe that's the goal. Calguns, the NRA and the SAF are all asking the Ninth for a Standards-based review of Nordyke. It's a little risky, but everyone is betting it could pay off handsomely.

The SAF is not asking for a standards-based review of the NY/MD/CA/DC cases - they prefer an approach that performs a historical analysis of the core right against the text of the amendment. That is what worked in Heller and McDonald.

The concern with even "Strict Scrutiny" is that it opens the door to a modern interpretation of the right. It says "evaluate this restriction against the core of the Right, strictly". That leaves courts to define the "core" of the right on their own. A historical approach per Heller is the equivalent of saying "evaluate this restriction against the core of the right, as it was understood to exist in 1787 and 1868." (Ratification and 14th Amendment, respectively)

So "strict" is critical and important for the evaluation of restrictions. But the SAF two-prong approach is to first define the "core" of the right using the historical analysis, and then make sure Courts understand that all regs are evaluated against that defined core in strict fashion. Nordyke is a vehicle to get one part of this equation, MD/NY/DC/CA are the other part. That one/two punch will knock out the majority of the most egregious laws that restrict our rights today.

We can expect MD to avoid playing its part as best it can.

Click to expand...

Is the judge looking to be in our favor on this case? or do you think we can expect him to allow the stalling to continue on for a much longer time?

and sorry to sound lame but when you say MD runs the risk of losing before the fight is made, how would that happen/is that actually likely?

jzarrabi said:

Is the judge looking to be in our favor on this case? or do you think we can expect him to allow the stalling to continue on for a much longer time?

and sorry to sound lame but when you say MD runs the risk of losing before the fight is made, how would that happen/is that actually likely?

Click to expand...

I think he was saying that Maryland will run out of evasive tactics and lose the case and not actually ever FIGHT it.

X-Factor said:

I think he was saying that Maryland will run out of evasive tactics and lose the case and not actually ever FIGHT it.

Click to expand...

And once they run out of evasive tactics, and when they lose, then they will likely appeal to the 4th Circuit where they can start their evasive tactics anew...

I could be surprised and they actually address the issues in this Civil Suit. They have very few arguments to make and I'm certainly not going to telegraph anything to them here.

Any legitimate challenges I can see them bringing up would not hold a lot of water in court, particularly against the SAF legal team who is well-versed in answering these challenges.

krucam said:

And once they run out of evasive tactics, and when they lose, then they will likely appeal to the 4th Circuit where they can start their evasive tactics anew...

I could be surprised and they actually address the issues in this Civil Suit. They have very few arguments to make and I'm certainly not going to telegraph anything to them here.

Any legitimate challenges I can see them bringing up would not hold a lot of water in court, particularly against the SAF legal team who is well-versed in answering these challenges.

Click to expand...

In essence, prolonging the inevitable all the while wasting our tax dollars in legal fees.

jzarrabi said:

Is the judge looking to be in our favor on this case? or do you think we can expect him to allow the stalling to continue on for a much longer time?

Click to expand...

I looked into the judge but didn't see much there. So much of the landscape has changed in the last two years that even a judge who ruled against 2A rights in the past could be called "conservative" in the sense that they were just following the law as it existed at the time. The perfect judge does just that - and the law in MD clearly stated we had no 2A rights, and the federal view was that 2A also did not apply to the states. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until pieces were incorporated - and we just got this in June. So there are judges out there who just followed the law; making a pro-2A decision would have been the epitome of "activist judge".

There are exceptional cases. Some judges on both sides really could care less about the law. I don't think we're looking at one of them here.

That's why this case/these cases are so key - they will establish the law that judges will use to evaluate future issues. It's also why things are going so slow - good judges don't want to rush into something and potentially set a bad precedent that will need to be undone later on (as well as the legion of cases that lean on its rulings). Think of Heller/McDonald as the cases that cleaned the slate. It's now time to redraw the lines.

We all gripe (me too) about the time it is taking for some courts to rule (Palmer/Nordyke/Sykes,etc.) but the truth is that they are taking time for a reason. It's not everyday that you get to rule on an issue that will likely draw lines on a newly-recognized fundamental right. And they all know that their rulings are highly likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court at some point. They'd prefer to get it right.

But MD/Chicago and the like...just plain delay tactics. Its not about getting the law right - it's about causing disruption. They need the smackdown.

and sorry to sound lame but when you say MD runs the risk of losing before the fight is made, how would that happen/is that actually likely?

Click to expand...

Sorry to have been obtuse in my earlier post.

What I meant was a combination of what was already mentioned by others, plus an observation that this issue (may-issue) has been challenged elsewhere - in some cases, years earlier. So there are cases much further along than MD and they should see a ruling sooner than we do.

The first winners/losers get to lead the fight up the pole to the Supreme Court. That is a ton of work. Not only that, being anti-2A could turn out to be politically dangerous some day in the future. As it stands, this is a civil right. Granted, many in MD do not see it that way today (and some would likely take umbrage at the term being applied to 2A itself), but facts is facts. Once you tell the people they have the "right to do something", history suggests that you are treading on thin ice opposing their right (even if it is not their will).

So going slow in MD means that there is likely to be some case law from another case that addresses this issue soon. Why make a big fight now when you can let another court make the decision and then just pull a "what they said" response?

That could even work in our favor, provided the AG decides to accept a pro-2A decision "as a matter of law". The whole issue of 2A "rights" is a potential hot potato politically. MD is not about to turn to guns overnight - it could take a few years for residents to embrace the right, but history says they eventually will. How long? Probably about the same number of years it would take an enthusiastic AG to make a run for governor...

Patrick said:

MD is not about to turn to guns overnight - it could take a few years for residents to embrace the right, but history says they eventually will.

Click to expand...

Once there's a ruling in our favor, residents can embrace the concept as quickly or slowly as they wish. We know where those who post here stand.

MD was one of the last to de-segregate and to recognize inter-racial marriage. Likewise various rights for women. As enlightened as this state likes to think it is, it is often stubbornly on the wrong side of civil rights.

Civil rights issues were not popular in the 60's but the eventually took hold even among those for whom they were not designed (white men). Now they are sacrosanct.

I haven't done an exhaustive study of MD history, but if you accept national historical trends and apply them to MD, our residents are no different than the rest of the nation: everybody wants "their" rights and are loath to give them up. People won't give up the right to religion, even if they don't go to church. The right to protest: nobody will oppose it even if they could care less about standing around shouting political slogans.

The notes from the SAF Gun Policy Conference in San Francisco all point to this reality. The goal is to talk about "the People's rights", not "my guns". The stark truth is that the nuance of civil-right/gun-right/gun-law is missing from much of the discussion. I have yet to see a mainstream broadcast spend any time on these newly recognized rights or to define them as such. In other words: people just don't know.

When this changes, it will change the dynamic of the law.

The tricky part is the education. We cannot count on the MSM. What are the chances that the WashPo is about to acknowledge that McDonald even recognized a "civil right" to arms for self defense? The ACLU still denies it after two hugely decisive cases at the Supreme Court.

And the term "civil right" is a loaded term we should not throw around callously. There are many who will take umbrage to its use (no matter how technically correct it is). We would be wise to educate carefully and respectfully. There are many rights we have, and none "trump" the others. Likewise, we need to be respectful of other fights for recognition of other rights. Some will say "You didn't have to stand at the back of the bus" and they are correct. We need to avoid contests over which right is the "bigger" right. We don't need to make comparisons. The correct answer here is "There is no contest, others fought the good fight and won. Nothing here diminishes that good work and we do not compare the two issues. We're just trying to get the whole Bill Of Rights recognized for all."

Patrick said:

MD was one of the last to de-segregate and to recognize inter-racial marriage. Likewise various rights for women. As enlightened as this state likes to think it is, it is often stubbornly on the wrong side of civil rights.

Civil rights issues were not popular in the 60's but the eventually took hold even among those for whom they were not designed (white men). Now they are sacrosanct.

I haven't done an exhaustive study of MD history, but if you accept national historical trends and apply them to MD, our residents are no different than the rest of the nation: everybody wants "their" rights and are loath to give them up. People won't give up the right to religion, even if they don't go to church. The right to protest: nobody will oppose it even if they could care less about standing around shouting political slogans.

The notes from the SAF Gun Policy Conference in San Francisco all point to this reality. The goal is to talk about "the People's rights", not "my guns". The stark truth is that the nuance of civil-right/gun-right/gun-law is missing from much of the discussion. I have yet to see a mainstream broadcast spend any time on these newly recognized rights or to define them as such. In other words: people just don't know.

When this changes, it will change the dynamic of the law.

The tricky part is the education. We cannot count on the MSM. What are the chances that the WashPo is about to acknowledge that McDonald even recognized a "civil right" to arms for self defense? The ACLU still denies it after two hugely decisive cases at the Supreme Court.

And the term "civil right" is a loaded term we should not throw around callously. There are many who will take umbrage to its use (no matter how technically correct it is). We would be wise to educate carefully and respectfully. There are many rights we have, and none "trump" the others. Likewise, we need to be respectful of other fights for recognition of other rights. Some will say "You didn't have to stand at the back of the bus" and they are correct. We need to avoid contests over which right is the "bigger" right. We don't need to make comparisons. The correct answer here is "There is no contest, others fought the good fight and won. Nothing here diminishes that good work and we do not compare the two issues. We're just trying to get the whole Bill Of Rights recognized for all."

Click to expand...

"Constitutional Right"?

Dead Eye said:

"Constitutional Right"?

Click to expand...

Some have issues with that as well as it implies that it's the Constitution that gives us these rights (and I'd say if it weren't for the Constitution, we'd have indeed lost them). Natural rights, perhaps?

Both of those suggestions make sense to me. The SAF also says "gun right" and "civil right" in the same breath. They say the operative word is "right". I'd also say we should step back from words like "Second Amendment" because of the knee-jerk reaction you get. Maybe "Right of Self Defense"?

I don't know. I'd personally like to figure out the term that delivers the message without evoking defensive reactions from those who fought the "the true civil rights" battles (to see how easy it is to get thrown by that, watch this thread devolve into comparisons...).

It's a topic for another thread (sorry - did not mean to thread-jack). I just brought it up here as a side-comment on the fact the MD AG might be playing with political fire if: people realize they have this right; and resent those who want to remove any right from them (even one they themselves do not exercise). Suspect he knows it, too. But this all assumes education takes place first.

Bikebreath said:

I am expecting that once 2A is returned that the anti's ranks will grow, due to fear. This means not going back to the beer and TV. I'm in this for the long haul. It's a right that I mean to maintain.

...and another thank you for all the helpful opinions and discussion.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Fear is chipped away marginally.

Take my wife for instance. She's not anti, just doesn't like 'em, period. She's fearful of firearms, but only to the point that she doesn't understand them. It's 1000% irrational, but she tolerates my ownership. She is not appreciative of me carrying (yet). She think it is dangerous, perhaps arrogant, and unnecessary. Needless to say, we disagree at how safe the world is.

I got the chance to CC for the first time yesterday in VA. It was liberating and nerve racking all at once, but, it was completely 100000% uneventful. As I read earlier today, 99% of the time (or even more so, the limit of 100%) you will never need to use it, but it is always better to be prepared when trouble finds you. Perhaps she sees this as me looking for trouble, I'm not sure.

At any rate, considering we were out in my dad's car, and she did not watch me arm myself, she had no clue. Sweatshirt over it, no printing, no clue. None. She was not fearful of something she didn't even know was within such close proximity. In time, she will become numb to it, as it will be proven that it is 100% safe, and provides for security of me, her, and our family. The fact that my dad now plans to get his Virginia Non-Res permit, will only reinforce this notion. The normal people that you would assume are antis out there, will become numb to what they don't see (out of sight out of mind). Of course, they will reap the benefits of reduced crime, which will certainly be claimed by those in power as their sole doing.

fightinbluhen51 said:

I got the chance to CC for the first time yesterday in VA. It was liberating and nerve racking all at once, but, it was completely 100000% uneventful. As I read earlier today, 99% of the time (or even more so, the limit of 100%) you will never need to use it, but it is always better to be prepared when trouble finds you.

Click to expand...

I have been CC'ing on my non resident permit frequently in VA for about a year. Yeah, the first couple of times you do it you think everyone is looking at you. Then you figure out that most people are so involved in their own little world and never even look at you. Half the time if you did print, folks will think it's a Blackberry or a phone anyway.

It is a good feeling to know the wolves can be dealt with.

Be safe

rambling_one said:

Once there's a ruling in our favor, residents can embrace the concept as quickly or slowly as they wish. We know where those who post here stand.

Click to expand...

LOL, I'm watching this closely, and will probably have my application ready to go for the day that this stuff will go our way.

Then Boxcab can setup a full holster rally.

We should invite Brian Frosh

swinokur said:

Then Boxcab can setup a full holster rally.

We should invite Brian Frosh

Click to expand...

Brian Frosh would poop in his tighty whities if some common serf openly carried a gun near him.

Well we can send him a new pair with the MSI logo on it.



This may be more of a reality than we think

fightinbluhen51 said:

I completely disagree. Fear is chipped away marginally.

Take my wife for instance. She's not anti, just doesn't like 'em, period. She's fearful of firearms, but only to the point that she doesn't understand them. It's 1000% irrational, but she tolerates my ownership. She is not appreciative of me carrying (yet). She think it is dangerous, perhaps arrogant, and unnecessary. Needless to say, we disagree at how safe the world is.

I got the chance to CC for the first time yesterday in VA. It was liberating and nerve racking all at once, but, it was completely 100000% uneventful. As I read earlier today, 99% of the time (or even more so, the limit of 100%) you will never need to use it, but it is always better to be prepared when trouble finds you. Perhaps she sees this as me looking for trouble, I'm not sure.

At any rate, considering we were out in my dad's car, and she did not watch me arm myself, she had no clue. Sweatshirt over it, no printing, no clue. None. She was not fearful of something she didn't even know was within such close proximity. In time, she will become numb to it, as it will be proven that it is 100% safe, and provides for security of me, her, and our family. The fact that my dad now plans to get his Virginia Non-Res permit, will only reinforce this notion. The normal people that you would assume are antis out there, will become numb to what they don't see (out of sight out of mind). Of course, they will reap the benefits of reduced crime, which will certainly be claimed by those in power as their sole doing.

Click to expand...

Damn good synopsis!