So...we would expect the response will be an explanation of why the MTD is wrong, and will include a MSJ?.
For the legally iliterate.... MTD?....MSJ?
So...we would expect the response will be an explanation of why the MTD is wrong, and will include a MSJ?.
For the legally illiterate.... MTD?....MSJ?
So what's the status? Any verdict yet? I need an excuse to start holster shopping!
MTD- Motion to Dismiss
MSJ-Motion for Summary Judgement.
I'll let the legal eagles here explain it.
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.
thanks.Is this what you're looking for?
This is exactly what needs to be overturned in Woollard.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.
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.
2 more weeks...
thanks.
This part of Snowden stings.
This is exactly what needs to be overturned in Woollard.
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.
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.
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.
krucam said:2 more weeks...
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.
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.
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?
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?
I'm seeing Del. Dwyer tonight at his fundraiser. Will ask if the chance some up.