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

gruntz03 · Sep 19, 2010

I just posted this in another thread but thought it applied here as well. The Sheriff for St Marys County said, in reponse to the shootings at 2 LEO's houses last weekend in Calvert Couinty:

"If someone will attack a police officer's home, what will they do to a regular person, as there is no regard for the welfare or life of anyone," Cameron said. "They're not fearful, obviously, of being punished."

Should we send this to SAF?

Dead Eye · Sep 19, 2010

gruntz03 said:
I just posted this in another thread but thought it applied here as well. The Sheriff for St Marys County said, in reponse to the shootings at 2 LEO's houses last weekend in Calvert Couinty:

"If someone will attack a police officer's home, what will they do to a regular person, as there is no regard for the welfare or life of anyone," Cameron said. "They're not fearful, obviously, of being punished."

Should we send this to SAF?

Interesting in that when I tried to get my permit, one of the local LEO's told me, "If it were up to me, knowing where you live, and the calls we've answered in that area alone, I'd have no problem in issuing you one". Unfortunately, I never got his name.

jonnyl · Sep 19, 2010

I'd be interested on the state's statistics that show that retired LEOs, judges, etc.. are targeted for crime at a higher rate than the general public.

I disagree with their argument that it's a good reason, but I'd at least like to know if their illogical laws have at least a basis in some kind of facts...

Dead Eye · Sep 19, 2010

jonnyl said:
I'd be interested on the state's statistics that show that retired LEOs, judges, etc.. are targeted for crime at a higher rate than the general public.

I disagree with their argument that it's a good reason, but I'd at least like to know if their illogical laws have at least a basis in some kind of facts...

Agreed. They should be held to the same standard, if it is to be applied fairly. In other words someone would have to stand up in the courtroom and clearly state, "Your Honor, I'm going to blow your f'ing head off", or something to that effect. Then the Judge would have to make application, get a written police statement witnessing the event, and then only be allowed to carry the weapon in the court room, while THAT defendant is on trial. If the defendant is put away, the Judge should then forfeit his permit, because after all the threat has been minimized because they are incarcerated.

press1280 · Sep 19, 2010

Jim Sr said:
Contact the Second Amendment Foundation

Call 1-425-454-7012 and speak with the Second Amendment Foundation staff directly.

Call 1-800-426-4302 to contact the Second Amendment Foundation if in need of pro-gun rights attorney.

FAX: (425) 451-3959

Email: AdminForWeb@saf.org

Yes indeed contact the SAF. Multiple plantiffs are good just in case something happens to the original plantiff and the case gets crashed.

press1280 · Sep 19, 2010

jonnyl said:
I'd be interested on the state's statistics that show that retired LEOs, judges, etc.. are targeted for crime at a higher rate than the general public.

I disagree with their argument that it's a good reason, but I'd at least like to know if their illogical laws have at least a basis in some kind of facts...

Doubt they'd give that up without a fight. But here's a question: Does MD SPECIFICALLY keep the CCW permit information(good cause letters,exc.) by statute from the public? There was a case in CA (CBS v. Block) in which the state didn't have such a statute and CCWs were said to be public information. It would be a handy weapon to have in court.

Trapper · Sep 20, 2010

D-Day!!! The State must respond.... I'm looking forward to this!!

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

Before I knew of MSI, before I knew of MDS, before I knew of McDonald vs. Chicago, I knew of me wanting a gun permit to protect me and my family. In essence, I started this independently of all of that. My fear is that if I drop it, should something later come about, what then? Would I be grandfathered? Yes, I would much rather have my case rolled into a much bigger one, and watch it from the sidelines. I would much rather not have to pay any more than I already did, that I didn't have the funding for to start with. I would much rather turn it over and let someone else do the lifting, but I am too much my Father's son. Besides, I haven't had anyone knocking at my door saying, "Hey man, I've got this." If I continue, if nothing else It puts the fight on multiple fronts, and maybe, just maybe with enough cases, one of two things will happen. 1. Someone will say, "Dang, why are all of these Marylanders so concerned about their freedoms and liberties being taken away from them?" 2. The State will want all of them rolled into one, so it doesn't have to fight all of them independently, for which I will gladly step aside and cheer from the sidelines.

Go for it and good luck. Just make sure you get good counsel. I looked into it and backed off once the SAF stepped in. But as you note, that's just a personal call and not a value judgment.

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

Patrick said:
Go for it and good luck. Just make sure you get good counsel. I looked into it and backed off once the SAF stepped in. But as you note, that's just a personal call and not a value judgment.

"I am my counsel, Sir".

...and Thank You.

Bikebreath · Sep 20, 2010

"He who is his own lawyer..."

Inigoes · Sep 20, 2010

Dead Eye said:
"I am my counsel, Sir".

...and Thank You.

What's the old saying?

You might want to get some help with this battle to better augment the current initiatives.

He who is always his own counseller will often have a fool for his client.
[1809 Port Folio (Philadelphia) Aug. 132]

jonnyl · Sep 20, 2010

press1280 said:
Doubt they'd give that up without a fight. But here's a question: Does MD SPECIFICALLY keep the CCW permit information(good cause letters,exc.) by statute from the public? There was a case in CA (CBS v. Block) in which the state didn't have such a statute and CCWs were said to be public information. It would be a handy weapon to have in court.

Yep, and just to be clear I wasn't suggesting retired LEO's and Judges shouldn't have permits. But wondered whether the states assumption that they are at a higher risk than the general public can be backed up by statistics.

I want all of us to be able to get permits!

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

Inigoes said:
What's the old saying?

You might want to get some help with this battle to better augment the current initiatives.

I invite all of the (free) assistance I can get.

As for the "fool" comment, wasn't that written by a "Philadelphia Lawyer"? Again, my pockets aren't that deep.

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

Dead Eye said:
"I am my counsel, Sir".

...and Thank You.

Respectfully, you need to reconsider. You will lose. And then your case will be used to do damage to others, at least and until someone else can successfully appeal it higher. So you will cause - at a minimum - increased cost, frustration and delayed recognition of rights for the rest of us.

I get it: you are pissed, frustrated and annoyed. You want "your day in court". You have this image of yourself as the lone man able to stand against the government. This is a wrong view. This is an area of deep legal intricacies. And despite what the good people here like to believe, the Second Amendment has not been read to protect your right to bear arms in public places. Your proposed 2A protection is a theory, not a fact.

So you would be arguing your belief, without any legal basis (because this has yet to be invented/incorporated), without any legal training and without any real chance of success. It's one thing to take this path and risk only yourself. It's quite another when you walk the path and risk the rest of us.

Once the SAF and its people have done the extreme lifting required (and this work is both extremely difficult and novel), we could very well be in a good place to make individual fights on our own and have those fights affect only ourselves. But today you do not have a right to bear arms in public. At all. None. Nada. Zip. You playing with fire will just get the rest of us burned.

Porsche · Sep 20, 2010

anyone else anxious to hear what happens today?

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

Patrick said:
Respectfully, you need to reconsider. You will lose. And then your case will be used to do damage to others, at least and until someone else can successfully appeal it higher. So you will cause - at a minimum - increased cost, frustration and delayed recognition of rights for the rest of us.

I get it: you are pissed, frustrated and annoyed. You want "your day in court". You have this image of yourself as the lone man able to stand against the government. This is a wrong view. This is an area of deep legal intricacies. And despite what the good people here like to believe, the Second Amendment has not been read to protect your right to bear arms in public places. Your proposed 2A protection is a theory, not a fact.

So you would be arguing your belief, without any legal basis (because this has yet to be invented/incorporated), without any legal training and without any real chance of success. It's one thing to take this path and risk only yourself. It's quite another when you walk the path and risk the rest of us.

Once the SAF and its people have done the extreme lifting required (and this work is both extremely difficult and novel), we could very well be in a good place to make individual fights on our own and have those fights affect only ourselves. But today you do not have a right to bear arms in public. At all. None. Nada. Zip. You playing with fire will just get the rest of us burned.

A little presumptuous, aren't we?

Patrick · Sep 20, 2010

Yes, but it'll likely take some time for us to get something worth reading.

I will laugh out loud and raise a glass of my best Scotch if they actually make any arguments that involve "local experimentation" like Chicago did. At that point, we won if only because the Supreme Court slapped it down twice already and in McDonald actually appeared exasperated by its mention in contravention of its ruling in Heller.

Anyone else want to make bets on what is going to be in that thing? My queses are somewhere in this thread ahead of this post.

Spot77 · Sep 20, 2010

jzarrabi said:
anyone else anxious to hear what happens today?

That's the only reason I'm reading this thread anymore.

Inigoes · Sep 20, 2010

Dead Eye said:
I invite all of the (free) assistance I can get.

As for the "fool" comment, wasn't that written by a "Philadelphia Lawyer"? Again, my pockets aren't that deep.

All the more reason to linkup with the SAF.

Dead Eye · Sep 20, 2010

Inigoes said:
All the more reason to linkup with the SAF.

Duly noted.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I'm a member too.

MSI Executive Member

Banned

R.I.P.

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Banned

MSI Executive Member

Around...

Banned

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics