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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,366
    SoMD / West PA
    Woollard is arguing for elimination of Good & Substantial in the statute. The statute referenced is for the permit, but the statute does not state Open v Concealed.

    Woollard (and SAF/Gura) only have to 1) Get the State to argue the complaint, 2) Stick to their guns that the 2A is incorporated fully, which contains the language 'keep and bear', 3) Resist/fight the "in the home" challenges that will come when they decide to fight vs duck/cover.

    Woollard will not change the law.

    The case is about the MSP recognizing "Self Defense" as a good and substantial reason.
     

    Ethan83

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 8, 2009
    3,111
    Baltimoreish
    Woollard will not change the law.

    The case is about the MSP recognizing "Self Defense" as a good and substantial reason.

    Which makes me wonder - Once they have to issue for the purpose of self defense, the next step should be pretty easy to get rid of their onerous process, i.e. the references, interviews, etc, correct?
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,366
    SoMD / West PA
    Which makes me wonder - Once they have to issue for the purpose of self defense, the next step should be pretty easy to get rid of their onerous process, i.e. the references, interviews, etc, correct?

    That would be logical, but we're talking about the Maryland bureaucratic process.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Woollard will not change the law.

    The case is about the MSP recognizing "Self Defense" as a good and substantial reason.

    Negative, Sir...albeit you're partially correct, and I'm only half correct!

    The Complaint states:
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
    1. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii);
    2. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from denying a permit to carry firearms on grounds that the applicant does not face a level of danger higher than that which an average person would reasonably expect to encounter.
    3. An order commanding Defendants to renew Plaintiff Woollard’s permit to carry a handgun;

    Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306:
    § 5-306.
    (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a
    person who the Secretary finds:
    (1) is an adult;
    (2) (i) has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor for which a sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year has been imposed; or
    (ii) if convicted of a crime described in item (i) of this item, has been pardoned or has been granted relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c);
    (3) has not been convicted of a crime involving the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance;
    (4) is not presently an alcoholic, addict, or habitual user of a controlled dangerous substance unless the habitual use of the controlled dangerous substance is under legitimate medical direction; and
    (5) based on an investigation:
    (i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and
    (ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

    5-306(a)(5)(ii), highlighted, would disappear and probably the preceding 'and'...
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,366
    SoMD / West PA
    Unless Gura works his magic, I don't see that portion of the law, going away. The next step perhaps...

    When you look at the parties of the suit; Notice it's not Woollard V. Maryland, it's Woollard V. TERRENCE SHERIDAN & thw MSP review board.


    Negative, Sir...albeit you're partially correct, and I'm only half correct!

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
    1. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii);

    2. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from denying a permit to carry firearms on grounds that the applicant does not face a level of danger higher than that which an average person would reasonably expect to encounter.

    3. An order commanding Defendants to renew Plaintiff Woollard’s permit to carry a handgun;

    The Complaint states:
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Unless Gura works his magic, I don't see that portion of the law, going away. The next step perhaps...

    When you look at the parties of the suit; Notice it's not Woollard V. Maryland, it's Woollard V. TERRENCE SHERIDAN & thw MSP review board.

    A Judicial decision can definitely make a Legislative clause, sentence, paragraph go away.

    Regarding the specified Defendants being the Handgun Review Board, I'm assuming that their being MDSP employees was the rationale as the issuance authority here in MD. It really doesn't matter if the Defendant is the members of the review board, AG Gansler or the Governor. If the Judge sides with us and the Prayer for Relief, it's a done deal. I really don't think the Judge is paying a whole lot of attention as to who the named Defendants are...and, the Defendants themselves have not sought dismissal in any of their briefs thus far. We're OK on that respect.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Isn't Gansler is defending the Defendents?

    That is his job as AG...although not the Defendant per se, his job is to represent the State in legal actions, and recommend legality of proposed legislation by our Delegates/Senators.

    EDIT: Gansler in MD is the equivalent to the Solicitor General in DC. A small epiphany came to me and I was wondering if AG Gansler is remotely sound, would his experience in the Courts impact his recommendations to the General Assy in January regarding 2A issues...hmmm....
     

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    That would be logical, but we're talking about the Maryland bureaucratic process.

    Seems remarkably like something else... just substitute "Maryland Law" for "Life, the Universe, and Everything"...

    "If anyone ever actually found out the ultimate question to the ultimate answer of Life, the Universe, and Everything, it would be instantly destroyed and replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

    There are some who say this has already happened."
    :innocent0
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,366
    SoMD / West PA
    EDIT: Gansler in MD is the equivalent to the Solicitor General in DC. A small epiphany came to me and I was wondering if AG Gansler is remotely sound, would his experience in the Courts impact his recommendations to the General Assy in January regarding 2A issues...hmmm....

    That's why we need to hit the ballot boxes, and put as many Pro-2A pols in place, next week.

    GET OUT AND VOTE!
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    A Judicial decision can definitely make a Legislative clause, sentence, paragraph go away.

    Absolutely. We have 60+ years of precedent in civil rights law behind us on that one. They can change names, places...the end effect is the same.

    About the only option left for Maryland is to pull permits from everyone and avoid the whole issue. But of course, that ignores Palmer in DC that goes even further than our case in that it forces the city to issue permits on self defense grounds, even in the case it gives permits to no person at all.

    Still waiting to see what Gansler can come up with. Looking nationwide, it doesn't seem anybody really has much to throw at these cases other than lower court rulings that don't quite fit. In most of those cases, the judges have even gone so far as to note they didn't want to even get close to that big question. They outright said it in a case in the 7th, if I remember the circuit correctly.

    So it's tought to rely on precedent that openly says it is not precedent. The way you defend these has to come from legal scholarship...and it's clear none exists.

    This Supreme Court's originalist stance apparently has a good number of people thinking the big question is forgone. Maybe that is why they are fighting to push the fringe cases into the realm of Everyman? To make every condition of the right a matter of interest balancing due to some compelling reason?
     

    Afield

    Active Member
    Jul 3, 2010
    183
    Rockville, MD
    A Judicial decision can definitely make a Legislative clause, sentence, paragraph go away.

    Regarding the specified Defendants being the Handgun Review Board, I'm assuming that their being MDSP employees was the rationale as the issuance authority here in MD. It really doesn't matter if the Defendant is the members of the review board, AG Gansler or the Governor. If the Judge sides with us and the Prayer for Relief, it's a done deal. I really don't think the Judge is paying a whole lot of attention as to who the named Defendants are...and, the Defendants themselves have not sought dismissal in any of their briefs thus far. We're OK on that respect.

    -I think the situation is such that under 42 USC 1983 persons can be sued personally and in their capacity as an actor for the State for Civil Rights violations. Its a way of suing the State by specifically suing those who act to enforce an Unconstitutional act of law. Same outcome. One hopes.
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    Is it not true that one cannot sue the "State", per se, but only a duly appointed representative thereof? Albeit the "State" can bring charges against you. As such, any duly appointed representative, or as in this case, Sheridan, et al, in essence IS the state. Suing the state is akin to suing "air", for there is no one to hang the damages or punishment on. Where the state is the plaintiff, it's kind of like a class action suit whereby you, the defendent, have wronged EVERYONE collectively in the state, by violating the law, therefore you must answer to all for your aggregious act.

    I think...
     

    Tom43491

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2009
    146
    Timonium
    Years ago, my father got drug into an issue involving illegalities being conducted by the Mob, through the Teamster's Union. At that time, DE, the state we lived in, was more like Marylandistan is today. My Pop loaded his S&W, Police and Military Airweight, .38 Special, and put it in his pocket. Even at that age, in my early teens, I asked my Dad about the need for a gun permit. His reply was something like this: "Yes, son, I know I am breaking the law, however, the alternative is not acceptable. Some times a man must do what is necessary to protect their lives, and that of their family's".

    Just asking, but doesn't that speak ill of the law that has to take a good solid citizen and turn them into a common criminal?

    That's why we are here. The current laws are not only unconstitutional, but illogical. Taking the right to carry a gun, or any other weapon, for self defense does nothing to take it out of the hands of criminals, who are breaking the law anyway. The only people who buy into "gun control" are those who live in a make believe land of rainbows and fairies, where making something illegal makes the problem go away. They don't see reality, which clearly shows that such is not the case. How long have drugs been illegal now? Have they disappeared yet? Why people think guns are different is beyond me. Outlawing guns does nothing to take them out of criminal's hands. Even if it did, someone with murderous intent will commit their crime with whatever is at hand. Guess we will have to target knives and baseball bats next... Oh yeah, people get killed with cars too...

    It is hard to sit back and wait and see how these cases end up, but also extremely exciting that they EXIST. We are making progress! Hopefully the tide keeps turning, maybe with some more help after election day. Either way, my quest to wake up one mind at a time continues...
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    Woollard is arguing for elimination of Good & Substantial in the statute. The statute referenced is for the permit, but the statute does not state Open v Concealed.

    Woollard (and SAF/Gura) only have to 1) Get the State to argue the complaint, 2) Stick to their guns that the 2A is incorporated fully, which contains the language 'keep and bear', 3) Resist/fight the "in the home" challenges that will come when they decide to fight vs duck/cover.

    I meant no harm in mocking the possibility of the State arguing that 'bear' isn't core to the 2A. Patrick is right as that is the only legally defensible argument that is left, outside of this "in the home" shinola.

    I was putting myself in the position of the Plaintiffs and how I would outline my response to an absurd claim, and it may have come off as slamming Patrick...which was definitely not my intent...

    So we wait in this case with a possibility of the Judge granting a MTD, or not and saying move forward and we say goodbye to SAF Standing and Younger Abstentions. If the latter, we just may see them trying to argue that bearing arms isn't core/protected...
    No, I got ya. I totally understood what you were getting at. I'm also looking at it from NOT just the Woollard case, but Nordyke and the NY case, ect.

    Obviously, we had to argue over the individual meaning of the amendment first, then the applicability to the states, now we get to argue over the whole amendment, it's contextual meanings, it's historical references, and the protections afforded by a vast majority of states.

    We are talking about a civil right at this point, and thus it's easy to argue over the law rather than the discriminatory implementations and lack of due process on it. We've talked about that before in this and other threads. Arguing over the law isn't our only shot, and honestly, we will get our change no matter what is found to be "protected."

    Remember, the court could give us some alternate for "relief" that isn't what is asked for in the motions or even pleadings? Correct me if I am wrong in that statement.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I was putting myself in the position of the Plaintiffs and how I would outline my response to an absurd claim, and it may have come off as slamming Patrick...which was definitely not my intent...

    Heh? I see nothing but good stuff here in this thread and every post made so far. No slamming evident or taken. Especially by you.

    So we wait in this case with a possibility of the Judge granting a MTD, or not and saying move forward and we say goodbye to SAF Standing and Younger Abstentions. If the latter, we just may see them trying to argue that bearing arms isn't core/protected...

    Nationwide, they really only have two options: 'Compelling Interest Demands Interest Balancing"; and "Bear is not a right protected in the core of 2A'.

    The argument against "Bearing is core" is a long-shot but it would be complete and devastating. An anti-2A win there would pretty much end the legal fight over public carry forever. But the loss would likely define "bear" in equally complete and strong terms, just by virtue of the way the question would be asked. In essence, this is closest to a "Yes/No" question that either side could ask.

    I can come up with some decent anti-2A arguments for both theories. I won't do it here, but in short the most likely to succeed route is the one they have been taking - making the argument that the right is restricted to the home. It would open the door to a partial win/loss. The right to carry is protected, but the government will have some latitude in determine place/time restrictions.


    The fight itself is going to be interesting, especially given that when it comes to 2A, this Supreme Court is less enamored of precedent than they are of philosophy and history. And that philosophical issue really boils down to one simple question: "Does the fundamental right to self preservation using arms exist in the absence of a guarantee of safety, regardless of location?"

    That answer potentially answers everything. It is the question I would ask the Supreme Court. It covers public carry of arms and sensitive places all at the same time. The answer would potentially define sensitive places as those that can reasonably "guarantee safety" for the public (guarded courtrooms, schools, etc.). If the government cannot guarantee your safety, you must be allowed the tools to do it yourself.

    Of course, as simple a question as it sounds, it has nuanced complexities. Which is why Gura will not ask it. This is why he does what he does, and I do what I do.

    I think we're going to see a lot of posturing and fighting over little details in the lower courts (especially the District Courts). A lot of discussion over the meaning of various post-Heller cases will be had. One side will say "See! This Circuit said Heller does not protect this!" and the other will say, "Yeah, but that was before McDonald recognized this as fundamental, and since then no Circuit has wanted to touch this with a ten foot pole."

    And then we'll get to the Supreme Court, where they will ignore all the post Heller cases out there and rule based on a historical analysis that first identifies the core right to be protected, and then sets some ambiguous standards that pretty much open the door to national public carry. But there will still be enough wiggle room for municipalities to come back and argue for more interest-balancing regulations in some cases.

    This thread will never end.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Remember, the court could give us some alternate for "relief" that isn't what is asked for in the motions or even pleadings? Correct me if I am wrong in that statement.

    Yup. The Court could ask everyone to dress like Mary Poppins before they apply. It might not stand appeal, but they can do as they please.
     

    Hopalong

    Man of Many Nicknames
    Jun 28, 2010
    2,921
    Howard County
    This thread will never end.

    This is the thread that ne-ver ends...it just goes on and on my friends....

    Sorry. It was too easy. :lol2:

    There's lots of good analysis in this thread, along with healthy debate. If litigation were a spectator sport, we'd have lots of good TV commentators here. :)
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    Yup. The Court could ask everyone to dress like Mary Poppins before they apply. It might not stand appeal, but they can do as they please.
    Which leads to they may say, "Look MD, you can keep your onerous requirements for concealed carry, but at least open carry is protected. Either issue permits for both, or we'll strike out 'carry' and replace it with 'concealed' and then the legislature can deal with it."
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Which leads to they may say, "Look MD, you can keep your onerous requirements for concealed carry, but at least open carry is protected. Either issue permits for both, or we'll strike out 'carry' and replace it with 'concealed' and then the legislature can deal with it."

    Realistically the courts will hold themselves to the reliefs requested in the complaint. That relief is predicated on removing the 'good and substantial' requirement. It is up to MD to determine the condition of carry, and right now others here can tell us the expectations, but as I understand it those are 'concealed'.

    The words from other people here are that not concealing could result in a loss of the permit. But...if the permit is no longer the gift of the state, but rather a fundamental right - MD law is currently silent on the OC/CCW question. It's just assumed today with the MSP as the adjudication authority that you will tow their line. If the SAF wins their case, current law may not be adequate to tell people which way to go.

    For all those who love OC, don't get too excited. Expect the GA to respond to a win with an emergency session to 'fix' this 'problem' and a host of others they come up with. I think that is what happened in Ohio when public carry was introduced. All the scary OC'ers caused a ruckus and the law is now concealed only. Point is that nobody should expect the courts at any level to wade into that choice. It is purely a state matter.

    And FWIW, the SAF in other suits has acknowledged the state can determine the method of carry. Everyone who speaks cogently on the topic agrees. There is a lot of history in the USA going back to 1787 saying the state can regulate that choice. Ironically, that regulation was originally in favor of OC because there was a fear of men who would hide a gun. It was expected that honorable men would wear their arms in the open.

    Times change.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,938
    Messages
    7,259,652
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom