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

MDFF2008 · Jul 20, 2011

I bet that's because Williams hasn't had any rulings on it yet. Actually I wonder if Williams would hurt? Since the judge might just pass the ball and say "let's wait and see how Williams works out."

Minuteman · Jul 20, 2011

Tremendous thread; inspired this video.
Simple morale call.

SkunkWerX · Jul 20, 2011

Inigoes said:
Has anyone else seen the interesting omission?

Judge Legg wants to discuss Masciandaro, and Ezell. Notice, Williams isn't part of the discussion...

Perhaps the two cases are mirror images of each other, Woollard within the system cannot get his permit renewed, where Williams deals with it from a "without permit" situation.

it is rather interesting how both of the "W" cases are leading to the same place, via different routes.

It does seem, at some point in the argument Williams can say, "See Woollard!"

knownalien · Jul 20, 2011

SkunkWerX said:
Thoughts:

-"In the Home" is becoming as draconian a saying as "you'll shoot your eye out!"

.

yeah, you know because free speech ends at my door step. :sad20:

Afield · Jul 20, 2011

Let's remember there's nobody better to be standing in front of the judge tomorrow making the points and connecting the logic. McDonald lost at both district and circuit, and won where it counts. Bottom line, we need a ruling, period, and keep the ball rolling.

Jim Sr · Jul 20, 2011

Atlasarmory said:
So tomorrow is the big day

For me "YES", it's my birthday!

Guess what I want for a gift? :secret:

SamW · Jul 21, 2011

Jim I hope it turns out to be the best birthday gift you've ever gotten.

Inigoes · Jul 21, 2011

Whoever is going to the trial today, try and give us lay by plays.

Patrick · Jul 21, 2011

Inigoes said:
Whoever is going to the trial today, try and give us lay by plays.

I'm heading up this morning, barring unforeseen issues. Hopefully I can get in. These rooms are usually pretty small.

The inclusion of social science data is nothing but a win-win for us. Gansler has staked his case largely on a social policy argument revolving around junk science and the "weapons effect" - that the gun pulls the trigger.

It does not matter if the judge buys it. If he does, the Supreme Court (and even the Fourth Circuit) will pounce and obliterate. Even the Ninth refused to use it. Of course, if this judge also sees it as not appropriate in the context of this question, then much of Gansler's argument is washed away.

It looks to me like the judge is leaning towards intermediate. What I am listening for today is what the hell that means. Does 'heightened scrutiny' require a showing from the state that denying permits to everybody is really (empirically) creating a safer public space?

At this point these things tend to go with the judge finding the right outside the core, then applying some form of interest-balancing rational basis that they actually call 'intermediate' to the regulations, all to make the state win. We call it the "2A Two Step".

I want to see how they handle Chester. It clearly said that heightened scrutiny (intermediate) required a showing by the government. Proof, not just abject blather about social policy.

So if the judge is going heightened, Maryland will need to demonstrate more than a legislative bias. They will need to prove that denying permits lowers crime. Of course, this is impossible given that nowhere in the USA has violent crime from permitted holder ever gone up.

But yeah, this is looking like it is heading for the Two-Step. As much as I like the preview letter form the judge, it does tell Gansler that he won the first argument (non-core holding) and informs what to focus on in his arguments.

Weak_Hand_Only · Jul 21, 2011

Patrick, I'll be heading up as well. Hopefully I'll get to shake the hand of the person that has broken this whole thing down so my feeble mind can comprehend it.

Patrick · Jul 21, 2011

I'll be the one wearing the orange jumpsuit, surrounded by US Marshalls, and looking real mean. Just come on up and smack me hard to get my attention. :lol2:

Warpspasm · Jul 21, 2011

Just joined SAF for an annual membership. Had I not gone to the dentist last night and found out I need $800 worth of dental work it may have been more.

Inigoes · Jul 21, 2011

When is the game supposed to kick off?

krucam · Jul 21, 2011

Inigoes said:
When is the game supposed to kick off?

10am, 39 minutes, but who's counting?

2ndCharter · Jul 21, 2011

Patrick said:
Proof, not just abject blather about social policy.
...
They will need to prove that denying permits lowers crime. Of course, this is impossible given that nowhere in the USA has violent crime from permitted holder ever gone up.

I pose this from the non-lawyer POV and wonder if this satisfies our side's argument.

Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 4-202
The General Assembly finds that:

(1) the number of violent crimes committed in the State has increased alarmingly in recent years;

(2) a high percentage of violent crimes committed in the State involves the use of handguns;

(3) the result is a substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries largely traceable to the carrying of handguns in public places by criminals;

(4) current law has not been effective in curbing the more frequent use of handguns in committing crime; and

(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.

Not knowing the history of this, it appears to me that what the body was after was getting to a reason to support #5 as their intent, to institute further laws and regulations. I wonder though, is this not a legislated admission that gun laws don't curb violent crime?

shawn · Jul 21, 2011

Al Norris said:
Just read the two briefs...

The Judge isn't going to be bothered with Ezell, Inigoes. The whole thing hinges on the first point of the Judges Memo: The “core” of the Second Amendment protection as articulated in Heller and McDonald encompasses the right of law-abiding individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense.

I know......This is the thing that pisses me off the most.

Heller didnt say "in the home"

It said "most notably in the home"

These are two very different ideas. And supposedly these great legal minds of lawyers and judges cant quote heller correctly.

Npow I understand its porbably part of a strategy to ignore what you dont like but come on it is so transparent.

If I was an anti judge or lawyer I would argue that most notably in the home means that the core of the right is strongest in the home but could be applied to limited places outside the home.

They are being intellectually dishonest by saying "in the home"

Inigoes · Jul 21, 2011

Do we have any members on the inside?

Plinkey · Jul 21, 2011

shawn said:
I know......This is the thing that pisses me off the most.

Heller didnt say "in the home"

It said "most notably in the home"

These are two very different ideas. And supposedly these great legal minds of lawyers and judges cant quote heller correctly.

Npow I understand its porbably part of a strategy to ignore what you dont like but come on it is so transparent.

If I was an anti judge or lawyer I would argue that most notably in the home means that the core of the right is strongest in the home but could be applied to limited places outside the home.

They are being intellectually dishonest by saying "in the home"

Well, SCOTUS said two (somewhat) different things in the opinion.

SCOTUS On Heller said:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Is possession outside of the home for self-defense not a 'traditional lawful purpose' of owning/carrying a firearm?

I assume that SCOTUS skirted the non-home issues on the last page of the decision on purpose.

SCOTUS Pg 64 on Heller said:
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

BenL · Jul 21, 2011

Either way, at least we're moving forward. The stall is over.

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 21, 2011

Patrick said:
We're down on the first two counts:

The “core” of the Second Amendment protection as articulated in Heller and McDonald encompasses the right of law-abiding individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense.

When considering legislation regulating conduct outside this core area, but still within the scope of the Second Amendment right, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate.

The big take-away here is that the judge appears to have decided public RKBA is not "core". Gura will argue that this was not an agreed matter. His point is that public RKBA is "core", but the judge seems to have swung to the other side. He seems to want to avoid deciding something the 4th avoided (he even says so). This is not a total loss, because the issue will ultimately hold over for appeal.

The real question in the hearing is going to be what "intermediate" means. Looking at the other question regarding social science data, it appears the judge is evaluating the line between rational basis and intermediate. Social Science data won't fit heightened scrutiny.

Heller specifically admonished the use of social policy to make these decisions. The judge may or may not be leaning there. Maryland made it a huge part of their argument, so it requires evaluation.

Honestly, that's all I am willing to put out there right now. Let's see what tomorrow brings. FWIW, I like the fact the judge put this out there. Classy move showing he takes this seriously.

Yeah, I kinda read that into it as well.

The likes

• To what extent is First Amendment doctrine properly applied in the Second Amendment context? Is it merely instructive in determining the level of scrutiny applicable to the circumstances, or do concepts such as prior restraint and overbreadth apply as well?

The moderate like

• What is the appropriate role of social science data in determining whether the state’s carry law passes constitutional muster?

The dislike

• Do the regulations here at issue satisfy intermediate scrutiny?
o What is the nature and extent of the state’s interest in the regulations?
o How are these regulations tailored to advance the state’s interest?

The question that has truly been asked of which the judge has telegraphed his punt on.

• If the challenged regulations would not satisfy intermediate scrutiny, does the Second Amendment right extend outside the home at all? The majority in Masciandaro expressly reserved this question, and suggested that it should not be decided unless absolutely necessary.

Looks like the 2A 2Steap has successfully been argued by Gansler, at least at this level.

It is nice to see though, the judge is referencing a case which has been petitioned for cert as basis for the potential ruling in this one. Maybe Gura will work his magic, but I think it is look like the "lose, and lose quickly" and appeal is going to rue the day.

Just my $.02.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

R.I.P.

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

MSI Executive Member

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Based dude w/ lovin' hands

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

John Galt Speaking.

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics