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

Afield said:

So...we would expect the response will be an explanation of why the MTD is wrong, and will include a MSJ?.

Click to expand...

For the legally iliterate.... MTD?....MSJ?

Dead Eye said:

For the legally illiterate.... MTD?....MSJ?

Click to expand...

MTD- Motion to Dismiss
MSJ-Motion for Summary Judgement.

I'll let the legal eagles here explain it.

So what's the status? Any verdict yet? I need an excuse to start holster shopping!

downforthecause said:

So what's the status? Any verdict yet? I need an excuse to start holster shopping!

Click to expand...

2 more weeks...

Bah!!... alright then..

swinokur said:

MTD- Motion to Dismiss
MSJ-Motion for Summary Judgement.

I'll let the legal eagles here explain it.

Click to expand...

Let me take a wild poke. It helps me digest it, and it may help others, like me, understand.

Motion to Dismiss - Is what Attorney General Gansler wrote, citing that due to three (3) nit-picky procedural issues the case should be thrown out. As Patrick previosuly explained, Attorney Gura will counter with, "I'm not even going to consider that which you ask that I beg for, since God Almighty has already granted it". In other words, why should I even acknowledge your request of me complying to this trivial garbage, when you shouldn't have taken our inalienable, God given, right from Mr. Woollard to start with.

Motion for Summary Judgment - This is where Attorney Gura politely asks the Judge to consider the facts as being so overwhelming, that any third grader can see that regardless of AG Gansler's nit-picky claims, that the Second Amendment clearly affords us our rights to keep and bear arms. As such, Attorney Gura respectfully requests that the Judge bang the gavel, and rule in Mr. Woollard's favor, without even taking this puppy to trial, because it is too ridiculous to even consider, because the 2nd Amendment still rocks!

Close?

I'm no lawyer, but Dead Eye is pretty close to my understanding. Both motions have about the same chance of being granted, I believe.

Boondock Saint said:

I'm no lawyer, but Dead Eye is pretty close to my understanding. Both motions have about the same chance of being granted, I believe.

Click to expand...

The MTD is very common where a defendant will throw out and cite cases that justify the way "Things have always been". I anxiously await the plaintiff's reply and the Judge's ruling on this MTD. It will be so good, I just may frame it over my bed. My wife might need to be included on this call...

MSJ's have been ruled favorably in a number of cases. It will greatly depend on Gura/Hansel's response to the MTD, and where they then take it with this potential MSJ.

As has been mentioned, this will more than likely be appealed regardless of who wins at District level, to the 4th Circuit in Richmond. There are multiple cases in MD/NY/CA/DC that will likely result in a Circuit Split which almost guarantees another visit to the SCOTUS....I'm sure that is part of SAF/Gura's overall plan.

Fun times...

rambling_one said:

Is this what you're looking for?

Click to expand...

thanks.

This part of Snowden stings.

The appellant suggests that the phrase "reasonable precaution against apprehended[413 A.2d 298] danger" is the sole criterion for defining "good and substantial reason." He urges that "apprehended danger" is to be viewed from the subjective standpoint of the applicant. Relying on that premise as true, he then states that since a reasonable mind "could not reasonably conclude that Mr. Snowden is not apprehensive of danger," the Board lacked substantial evidence to deny a permit. If we accept Snowden's reasoning there would never be a time when a lawful person, fearful of his safety, would be denied a permit to carry a gun. Any vague threat would be sufficient to cause apprehension and, thus, the right to have a permit to carry a handgun. We think the phrase "good and substantial reason," as used in Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 36E(a)(6), means something more than personal anxiety over having one's name connected publicly with anti-drug and anti-crime activities. It means, we believe, something more than the concern the individual may have because he has been told by another, that she heard some unidentified men threatening to harm the applicant if he journeys to Meade Village. The statute makes clear that it is the Board not the applicant, that decides whether there is "apprehended danger" to the applicant. If the Act were read as Mr. Snowden would have the court read it, there would be no necessity for a review by the Board. Each person could decide for himself or herself that he or she was in danger. The State Police would become a "rubber stamp" agency for the purpose of handing out handgun permits. The carefully considered legislation would be rendered absolutely meaningless insofar as the control of handguns is concerned.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what needs to be overturned in Woollard.

Boondock Saint said:

I'm no lawyer, but Dead Eye is pretty close to my understanding. Both motions have about the same chance of being granted, I believe.

Click to expand...

And those chances are..... "slim to none"? It sounds like both are stiff arming one another, with the Judge ultimately saying, "AG Gansler, get a grip. I'm not going to throw this out on a technicality." And "Attorney Gura, not so fast, I have to at least make it appear as though I am imparting fairness and equity, after all, he is a State's Attorney General. Besides, like krucam, I'm dying to see how he is going to dance around this one!"

krucam said:

2 more weeks...

Click to expand...

Do they have to wait the entire time to submit their reply? Couldn't they just as easily respond tomorrow?

Just wondering.

ezliving said:

thanks.

This part of Snowden stings.

This is exactly what needs to be overturned in Woollard.

Click to expand...

MDSP's definition is that you must have someone personalize it for YOU. The person must also be one who has a history of violence, or so it seems in my case. Neither the MDSP or the Board were interested in the countless times a drunk got up in my face and said, "I'm going to kick your @$$". They dismissed them as merely idle threats, even though they have been repetitive in nature. Two cases did interest them. One, an individual threatened to "go home, get his gun, and come back and kill me and my whole f'ing family". The second, an individual called me on the phone, threatened me, and then when I wasn't home, came and trashed my property. In the first case, they dismissed it, because even though the individual had gone to jail for baseball batting a kid into a coma, and did seven years, and then got out being part of the reason for my application, in the year it took for them to prolong the processing, the chucklehead got picked back up and thrown in jail, for get this.... ARMED robbery! The second chucklehead they came up with some legal mumbo jumbo, murmered under their breaths, threw out some legal terminology among themselves, and then ultimately dismissed EVERYTHING because I couldn't get a written police report to cooberate any of my testimony.

THAT is what needs to be thrown out. The fact that I have to go through this horse poop at all. I KNOW real threat, from perceived threat, from implied threat. All in all, only for "personal protection" reasoning under MD law does one have to have a life threatening event ALREADY occur to them. All other permits, the threat is IMPLIED.

Patrick, krucam, Dead Eye, et al - as always, thank you for your valuable and excellent insight and explanations.

My fear is, being this is Maryland, the State will stop at nothing to ignore our rights and continue on in true 'nanny state' fashion. I believe it was posted the next stop in court is in Richmond, and I wouldn't doubt eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

I hope I am wrong and that Maryland will see the light and stop refusing us rights granted by a higher authority than man.

Notable to me is the lack of even a token defense by Maryland. Technically it is not required (now) if they deny that the fight is even valid, but even they must understand that such common tactics are only meant to delay. In the case of DC and Chicago (at least in McDonald), the government made similar arguments: on the one hand they said "the suit should no go forward because standing has not been met", but on the other they also said, "but even if the plaintiffs did have standing, this is why we are right and they are wrong."

Maryland made no such claim.

The SAF frames all of these cases as a "matter of law" - meaning there is a simple question that can be asked and adjudicated by a Court without the need for a trial. Trials are used to determine facts. The SAF is careful to avoid creating situations where a determination of facts is required. That's another reason we do not want to challenge the law on "discriminatory permitting" - it would add a fact-finding stage.

MD and lately Chicago are using discovery to interject issues that require "determination". Because the SAF challenges existing law chapter and verse (and nothing more), the only place the government can create contention is with the people and organizations making the complaint. Expect more of this.

Let me take a wild poke. It helps me digest it, and it may help others, like me, understand.

Motion to Dismiss - Is what Attorney General Gansler wrote, citing that due to three (3) nit-picky procedural issues the case should be thrown out. As Patrick previosuly explained, Attorney Gura will counter with, "I'm not even going to consider that which you ask that I beg for, since God Almighty has already granted it". In other words, why should I even acknowledge your request of me complying to this trivial garbage, when you shouldn't have taken our inalienable, God given, right from Mr. Woollard to start with.

Click to expand...

Technicalities count. The question over the MTD is not about the Second Amendment or even a civil right, the MTD is strictly a procedural matter of determining if someone can challenge. It's part "Hail Mary" and part delaying tactic. I've done a little digging around and would be surprised if it went anywhere.

I do think MD will be given room for some limited discovery, though. It's pretty common at this stage and the SAF's pattern is to not object to it this early in the game. Though if the discovery is only an attempt to delay or challenge standing, the SAF will obviously object. We'll see what the AG wants to do. The good news for us is that MD politicos are a bit soft, so the rough tactics we've seen in Chicago used against litigants is not likely to work well here.

Borrowed from ezliving's post on Snowden:

The statute makes clear that it is the Board not the applicant, that decides whether there is "apprehended danger" to the applicant. If the Act were read as Mr. Snowden would have the court read it, there would be no necessity for a review by the Board. Each person could decide for himself or herself that he or she was in danger. The State Police would become a "rubber stamp" agency for the purpose of handing out handgun permits. The carefully considered legislation would be rendered absolutely meaningless insofar as the control of handguns is concerned.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty damning in a post-McDonald world where RKBA is afforded strict scrutiny. We're not there yet. But jurisprudence like this is going to put some deep nails into the coffin lid, considering MD has used it time and time again to deny us our rights. The logic in Snowden, Onderdunk and the like will be overturned, and ironically - used as proof that MD's laws are unconstitutional.

Trapper said:

This leaves my simple argument as "the State cannot prove a compelling interest to issue permits, because permits do not prohibit someone from carrying a gun". All the permit does is provide another restriction "you can't carry without a permit", but they don't actually stop anyone from doing it.

Click to expand...

Your logic makes sense to me, but I think the Courts will also see fit to allow the government to get involved here. And I think it gets better (worser?)...this is almost surely going to become a federal domain issue. Congress will step in here and mandate the system, just because they can. On the plus side, state reciprocity is no longer an issue. On the minus...politicians are involved and some states (like AZ) might find themselves issuing permits when they would prefer none. It all depends on how intrusive Congress wants to get with the regulation.

krucam said:

2 more weeks...

Click to expand...

Everyone...he's talking about the SAF reply to the MTD. NOT the entire case. Mark's loking forward to the witty response we expect from Gura. His stuff is actually pretty funny, at times (for those of us with a low bar on our humor scale).

The schedule is tough to call, but assume at least some limited discovery (30-45 days); responses to that discovery (21 days); more MD requests to delay perform additional discovery (denied); SAF objection to the discovery plus another MSJ (14 days); and a whole lot of time for the court to sit and ponder life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (??? days). Don't forget to add in Oktoberfest, at least one drunken "discovery trip" to Vegas and the likelihood Gansler will claim he is "too busy" to respond at least two or three times.

So we're in for the long haul here. Some of the other guys here probably could make a better guess as they've been neck-deep in the historical timelines of similar cases nationwide. Although they'd probably agree we're talking months at a minimum. The chance remains we could see a positive ruling this year (remote, but possible).

krucam said:

As has been mentioned, this will more than likely be appealed regardless of who wins at District level, to the 4th Circuit in Richmond. There are multiple cases in MD/NY/CA/DC that will likely result in a Circuit Split which almost guarantees another visit to the SCOTUS....I'm sure that is part of SAF/Gura's overall plan.

Click to expand...

And Krucam brings in the wildcard.

I figure there is about a 50% chance that this case doesn't see a ruling for two years, for the simple reason that some other Circuit will weigh in first and force the issue to the Supreme Court. This case (and all others like it) are either joined - or, for the later-filed cases - simply put on hold ala Nordyke in CA (which sat forever waiting on McDonald and has still not been decided). Would not be surprised if this is the plan of Gansler - delay this thing so long he can punt it to another Court without having to defend it himself. It's actually a smart move and saves MD some money. Our result is the same (though somewhat delayed).

Such a deep-freeze would take the fun out of things, for sure.

The Joker, could be an amended law covering the LCTF stating that "Self Defense" is a valid reason from the MD politicos in the next session. Bringing MD in compliance with the new constitutional right.

Inigoes said:

The Joker, could be an amended law covering the LCTF stating that "Self Defense" is a valid reason from the MD politicos in the next session. Bringing MD in compliance with the new constitutional right.

Click to expand...

Wasn't it Delegate Riley who always submitted the "Repeal of Finding" bill? Since he lost in the Primary , who will step up to do this?

Smigiel, Dwyer?

krucam said:

Wasn't it Delegate Riley who always submitted the "Repeal of Finding" bill? Since he lost in the Primary , who will step up to do this?

Smigiel, Dwyer?

Click to expand...

We'll see after the dust settles in November.

krucam said:

Wasn't it Delegate Riley who always submitted the "Repeal of Finding" bill? Since he lost in the Primary , who will step up to do this?

Smigiel, Dwyer?

Click to expand...

I'm seeing Del. Dwyer tonight at his fundraiser. Will ask if the chance some up.

Patrick said:

I'm seeing Del. Dwyer tonight at his fundraiser. Will ask if the chance some up.

Click to expand...

However and on second thought...a Legislative relief on this issue won't have nearly the teeth and permanence of Judicial relief (Woollard).

Do we really want this bill now, which if passed could negatively impact us in Woollard? The General Assy had their chance.

They'd mess it up. Just like the federal issue (when it comes up)...everyone needs to know the lines before they start making laws around them.

I think 2012 might be the year...