I'm guessing, MD will wait 1 minute before the courts close to file for an extension. 
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!
Member Benefits:
- Status
- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
breaking news
MD has realized that they are wrong and that normal civilians have a right to protect themselves just like people with money or government connections do. They forfeit.
Oh yeah, and they realized that their gun laws are idiotic and reversed the 20+ round mag "ban" as well as the assault weapons regulations.
Oh but you can only carry concealed if a heavy barrel.
MD has realized that they are wrong and that normal civilians have a right to protect themselves just like people with money or government connections do. They forfeit.
Oh yeah, and they realized that their gun laws are idiotic and reversed the 20+ round mag "ban" as well as the assault weapons regulations.
Oh but you can only carry concealed if a heavy barrel.
krucam
Ultimate Member
MD has realized that they are wrong and that normal civilians have a right to protect themselves just like people with money or government connections do. They forfeit.
Oh yeah, and they realized that their gun laws are idiotic and reversed the 20+ round mag "ban" as well as the assault weapons regulations.
Oh but you can only carry concealed if a heavy barrel.
Slow day in your mother's basement?
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
Oh no he did-n't.Back on topic, what is the point of them taking as long as possible?
Same as calling for pizza delivery and they take 5 hrs to deliver.
It pisses you off.
It pisses you off.
Agreed, but it is still "cat herding". Yes, you get a few, but a few scurry around behind you, and when you aren't looking others pop the cage door open and run... kinda like crackheads.
Oh, believe you me, they telegraphed that intent a MILE a friggin' away. Like I said, during the review the MDSP started to launch, as soon as the word "Second" rolled out of my lips, and the lawyer on the panel pointed and looked at him, without saying a word, with that parental STFU look.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
To draw out the clock in general. As far as strategy goes, these cases are all filed in parallel in multiple circuits. There are a lot of reasons to do that, but one thing it does do is limit the "distributed experimentation" that the defendants/government can perform. So while not in perfect sync, these cases make it hard for MD to revise their arguments based on arguments already assessed by another court. As far as a defense "theory", they are flying a little blind in terms of jurisprudence.
We, on the other hand, have our theory and are looking to test it. If it doesn't work we can try another. They are somewhat limited in their response.
A good trial lawyer can come along and point out other reasons they want to draw it out (more time means more arguments, an alternate court, or a favorable decision in another circuit to rely on), but in the end the words "just because" also come to mind for me.
We, on the other hand, have our theory and are looking to test it. If it doesn't work we can try another. They are somewhat limited in their response.
A good trial lawyer can come along and point out other reasons they want to draw it out (more time means more arguments, an alternate court, or a favorable decision in another circuit to rely on), but in the end the words "just because" also come to mind for me.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I think you just called cops "crackheads". That takes LEO-bashing to a new level here on the forum. You win.
MD does not recognize the Second Amendment. It simply does not exist in our state. At least, it did not prior to June 28. So all the laws they are using against you are codified with no rights in existence. You cannot argue 2A because it is invisible.
Acknowledging the 2A in your hearing gives rise to a new set of challenges. Once they start arguing the facets of the 2A, they acknowledge the right exists.
Of course, this is all theater. The right does exist in MD, but it is not codified or acknowledged (doesn't need to be under federal civil rights law). The real issue we have is that 2A is not defined in this case anywhere in the nation. There is simply no recognition of the right to bear arms in public, outside of a few state Constitutions.
MD is almost surely going to argue the right does not exist. That means they are not going to debate it with you in a venue subject to external interpretation.
My guesses.
BenL
John Galt Speaking.
Wouldn't that be throwing down the gauntlet in a major way? With all that's transpired on the national stage, are they really that naive?
I think you just called cops "crackheads". That takes LEO-bashing to a new level here on the forum. You win.
MD does not recognize the Second Amendment. It simply does not exist in our state. At least, it did not prior to June 28. So all the laws they are using against you are codified with no rights in existence. You cannot argue 2A because it is invisible.
Acknowledging the 2A in your hearing gives rise to a new set of challenges. Once they start arguing the facets of the 2A, they acknowledge the right exists.
Of course, this is all theater. The right does exist in MD, but it is not codified or acknowledged (doesn't need to be under federal civil rights law). The real issue we have is that 2A is not defined in this case anywhere in the nation. There is simply no recognition of the right to bear arms in public, outside of a few state Constitutions.
MD is almost surely going to argue the right does not exist. That means they are not going to debate it with you in a venue subject to external interpretation.
My guesses.
No, silly, I was comparing cats to crackheads. Hard to catch, as they scurry about. The cops have a hard time catching them, and when they do the courts let them out...
Anyway, whenever I made my closing remarks, I specifically stated that in previous cases, whereby permits were denied for "good and substantial" reasons, the case "Onderdonk vs. the Review Board has always been cited. In that case, the line that they always point to is where the State has clearly claimed that the 14th Amendment does not allow for the 2A to carry directly through to the State. I then read Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito's certiorari opinion whereby he clearly states that the 2A DOES transfer to the states.
In previous denials, the Review Board has addressed such ascertions, again, citing Onderdonk. This time, however, they just plain BYPASSED.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Besides Onderdonk, cases against the MD Handgun board:
Williams v MD
Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Bd 2005
Snowden v Handgun Permit Review Board 1980
Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 1979
Thanks to Kharn...
EDIT: Nothing on PACER as of 13:52.
Williams v MD
Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Bd 2005
Snowden v Handgun Permit Review Board 1980
Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 1979
Thanks to Kharn...
EDIT: Nothing on PACER as of 13:52.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
That's an interesting change. Almost like they are setting up for the time when Onderdunk is overturned so they can avoid an automatic granting of all that has come before. Maybe they saw the numbers here who said they would apply post-McDonald and don't want the deluge of automatic approvals that would come after. Or...they know it's wrong and don't want to extend the injustice - meaning they just invented a new form of injustice that we have not complained about yet.
And I agree, cops are like silly crackhead cats.
Yes, I think the Scherr case even points to Onderdonk? Anyway, they conveniently just left that whole thing alone. When the MDSP asked at the end, "So, we are not even going to address the 2A issue", the lawyer abruptly stated, "No, we are not", or something to that effect.
Yes, I got that sense that either they didn't want to give me any ammo, or they viewed me as some sort of 2A spy, "pinging" at their perimeter defense.
(Cops and crackheads) Your words, not mine.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Scherr points heavily to Onderdunk, Cruikshank and Presser. Interestingly it also addresses a future in which 2A is fundamentally recognized via substantive due process under the 14th. The critical fault in that judgment is that they never entertained the idea that the incorporation would define "self protection" as the core of the right theoretically incorporated. At the time Scherr was argued, the NRA ran the world and they were all about hunting. So the Court didn't address it.
Scherr argued that personal self-defense was enough, though he did so in the guise of specific threats against apprehended danger from certain circumstance and "society at large." He argued that self-defense was a fundamental right.
The MD Court of Appeals laughed at him for suggesting such a crazy idea in a one-liner that sums up why Heller was so important, "Appellant’s argument is non-meritorious."
Hoping we get the last laugh.
Scherr v Hangun Permit Review Board said:
Scherr argued that personal self-defense was enough, though he did so in the guise of specific threats against apprehended danger from certain circumstance and "society at large." He argued that self-defense was a fundamental right.
The MD Court of Appeals laughed at him for suggesting such a crazy idea in a one-liner that sums up why Heller was so important, "Appellant’s argument is non-meritorious."
Hoping we get the last laugh.
krucam
Ultimate Member
MOTION TO DISMISS
09/20/2010 8 MOTION to Dismiss by Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein, Terrence Sheridan, Charles M. Thomas, Jr. Responses due by 10/7/2010 (Attachments:
# 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss,
# 2 Exhibit A (November 12, 2009 Handgun Permit Review Board Decision),
# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fader, Matthew) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
I'll have all uploaded to the Internet Archive later...until then.
09/20/2010 8 MOTION to Dismiss by Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein, Terrence Sheridan, Charles M. Thomas, Jr. Responses due by 10/7/2010 (Attachments:
# 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss,
# 2 Exhibit A (November 12, 2009 Handgun Permit Review Board Decision),
# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fader, Matthew) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
I'll have all uploaded to the Internet Archive later...until then.
yellowsled
Retired C&R Addict
That really "Grinds my gears"!
Thanks krucam.
As usual, Maryland says F You to its citizens and MAYBE, if your beaten 7 times in front of the MDSP, and then killed, we MIGHT throw a permit in your coffin.
Azzholes, ALL!!!!!!!
As usual, Maryland says F You to its citizens and MAYBE, if your beaten 7 times in front of the MDSP, and then killed, we MIGHT throw a permit in your coffin.
Azzholes, ALL!!!!!!!
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
MDS Team Building. Intro to Pistol AND Rifle with Ninja. July 27&28 Clear Run, NC. (9 Viewers)
- Latest: 4g64loser
-
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Sign up on our online store and earn 1000 points- Started by J_Gunslinger
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
-