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

slog403 · Jul 10, 2012

Rossi357 said:
Because the good and substantial reason requirement is not reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, the Court finds this portion of the Maryland law to be unconstitutional. Woollard is entitled to summary judgment.

Gotta love it

Welcome to the party :thumbup:

Rossi357 · Jul 10, 2012

slog403 said:
Welcome to the party :thumbup:

California is watching.......

JavaDan · Jul 10, 2012

Rossi357 said:
California is watching.......

Well of course you are.

A lot more interesting than a 15 second fireworks show. :whack:

We're all hoping for the best. Lord knows we need some good news in Marylandstan.

Rossi357 · Jul 11, 2012

JavaDan said:
Well of course you are.

A lot more interesting than a 15 second fireworks show.

Some sort of a premature somthing or other.

Maestro Pistolero · Jul 11, 2012

Exactly, from all the posts here, all are "I want it now" people.
He is taking time to write a very well worded lift, so I think the 4th CA
really will have a very difficult time finding to re instate the stay again.
JMHO for what its worth.

I think we are long past that being a reasonable explanation for the delay. I wonder if he is waiting for a glimpse of how the appeal is likely to go. For example, if a defendants MSJ were granted, there would be little reason to lift his stay.

pcfixer · Jul 11, 2012

Maestro Pistolero said:
I think we are long past that being a reasonable explanation for the delay. I wonder if he is waiting for a glimpse of how the appeal is likely to go. For example, if a defendants MSJ were granted, there would be little reason to lift his stay.

You Did not read the Judge's rulling then, Did YOU?

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Maryland‘s requirement of a ―good and substantial reason‖ for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State‘s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court will, by separate Order of even date, GRANT Woollard‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012
/s/
_______________________________
Benson Everett Legg
United States District Judge

jkray · Jul 11, 2012

Maestro Pistolero said:
I think we are long past that being a reasonable explanation for the delay. I wonder if he is waiting for a glimpse of how the appeal is likely to go. For example, if a defendants MSJ were granted, there would be little reason to lift his stay.

I have to respectfully disagree. I conform to the notion that the reason he hasn't delivered a ruling on the stay yet is a combination of a couple things.

1. Alothough he is on senior status he still has a bunch of criminal cases before him that he is Constitutionally required to address first. And we can surmise from his Woollard ruling that he abides by the Constitution strictly.

2. He is researching on his own to try to get an unbiased feel for the questions he asked of the parties to the suit.

3. He is taking his time to choose his words carefully, so that he will not be called on abusing his power.

These things when put together - at least in my mind - perfectly explains why we do not have a ruling on the stay yet. I am as impatient as any one here and want the ruling now, but I think we just have to trust the system and wait for him to finish in due time.

Also remember how long it took him to deliver the initial ruling, he was doing the same thing then as he is doing now.

fightinbluhen51 · Jul 11, 2012

Rossi357 said:
Because the good and substantial reason requirement is not reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, the Court finds this portion of the Maryland law to be unconstitutional. Woollard is entitled to summary judgment.

Gotta love it

Preferably, I like that the "Right is the only good and substantial reason that one needs to exercise it..."

Loosely paraphrased, but close enough.

drblast33 · Jul 11, 2012

jkray said:
Also remember how long it took him to deliver the initial ruling, he was doing the same thing then as he is doing now.

Does someone know exactly how long it was from last brief to ruling initially? I would expect the same length of time plus a longer wait now that he is on Senior status.

krucam · Jul 11, 2012

Brief was 7/2011, ruling 3/2012...8 months +/-.

Using that basis, we can quit worrying about when the ruling on the stay will be released until approximately December... :innocent0

eyesinpines · Jul 11, 2012

krucam said:
Brief was 7/2011, ruling 3/2012...8 months +/-.

Using that basis, we can quit worrying about when the ruling on the stay will be released until approximately December...

How long do you think MSP will be willing to sit on those prestay apps that are 90 days +?

krucam · Jul 11, 2012

eyesinpines said:
How long do you think MSP will be willing to sit on those prestay apps that are 90 days +?

Approximately December....

jkray · Jul 11, 2012

I hope that it wont take him the same amount of time to rule on the stay. It seams to me that the stay issue is of less importance than the initial ruling therfore it will not take the same amount of time i.e. 8 months. Of course this is complete uneducated speculation, just going off what I have learned throughout keeping up with this case. I am hopefull that we have a stay ruling by Labor Day

dlmcbm · Jul 11, 2012

eyesinpines said:
How long do you think MSP will be willing to sit on those prestay apps that are 90 days +?

I have a feeling that if the stay is lifted then MSP will send our apps back and tell us we have to re-apply because of the amount of time it has been. Maybe at least make us go through the fingerprints again with no fee paid to MSP.

cantonglocker · Jul 11, 2012

dlmcbm said:
I have a feeling that if the stay is lifted then MSP will send our apps back and tell us we have to re-apply because of the amount of time it has been. Maybe at least make us go through the fingerprints again with no fee paid to MSP.

and they will be hit with a massive lawsuit

MDPrinter · Jul 11, 2012

dlmcbm said:
I have a feeling that if the stay is lifted then MSP will send our apps back and tell us we have to re-apply because of the amount of time it has been. Maybe at least make us go through the fingerprints again with no fee paid to MSP.

Yeah, because I know my fingerprints disappear after 90 days

dblas · Jul 11, 2012

jkray said:
I hope that it wont take him the same amount of time to rule on the stay. It seams to me that the stay issue is of less importance than the initial ruling therfore it will not take the same amount of time i.e. 8 months. Of course this is complete uneducated speculation, just going off what I have learned throughout keeping up with this case. I am hopefull that we have a stay ruling by Labor Day

The stay is of equal or more importance, not less, then the original ruling. Judge Legg has to craft a response that will withstand a claim of bias from whomever loses the the stay (State if it is Lifted, Gura if it is made permanent), not right or wrong like the original order. No judge want to be over-ruled on bias on a stay. (ESQ, Krucam, or Patrick will be by to correct me if I read this wrong earlier).

As for the timeframe, if you go back and research the rest of the stay requests Judge Legg has done, he has provided a ruling in everyone of them well before any orals at CA4.

So the question is, when will CA4 Orals be and work back from there.

DB

kjf45 · Jul 11, 2012

dblas said:
The stay is of equal or more importance, not less, then the original ruling. Judge Legg has to craft a response that will withstand a claim of bias from whomever loses the the stay (State if it is Lifted, Gura if it is made permanent), not right or wrong like the original order. No judge want to be over-ruled on bias on a stay. (ESQ, Krucam, or Patrick will be by to correct me if I read this wrong earlier).

DB

Pretty much how i see it. There are going to be some unhappy individuals no matter the ruling and he better have one hell of an explanation.

esqappellate · Jul 11, 2012

dblas said:
The stay is of equal or more importance, not less, then the original ruling. Judge Legg has to craft a response that will withstand a claim of bias from whomever loses the the stay (State if it is Lifted, Gura if it is made permanent), not right or wrong like the original order. No judge want to be over-ruled on bias on a stay. (ESQ, Krucam, or Patrick will be by to correct me if I read this wrong earlier).

As for the timeframe, if you go back and research the rest of the stay requests Judge Legg has done, he has provided a ruling in everyone of them well before any orals at CA4.

So the question is, when will CA4 Orals be and work back from there.

DB

There is no question of bias here and the State (or Gura) has not and would not argue that Judge Legg was biased in any way. Being wrong on the law is not the same thing as being biased. Weighing the 4 equitable factors associated with a stay calls for sound judgment within the law. No one would suggest a judge was biased because he weighed them differently than another judge. That's why the standard for review is "abuse of discretion" -- it is highly deferential.

I honestly don't think Judge Legg is "waiting" for anything or anyone. I do think it likely that he believes this stay question is a matter of considerable importance -- everything he has done on the stay is consistent with that point. That means he has to consider and weigh each of the 4 factors and come to a rational considered judgment on each. That takes time. Whatever he decides, it will impact the merits. If we lose the stay, it will hurt us. If we win the stay, and he finds that the potential harm of permits to the public is remote, that will give the CA4 a big comfort zone.

PS: If Judge Legg rules against us on the stay, I doubt that Gura will seek to have the stay vacated. Too steep of a hill to climb and it distracts from the merits. And the merits is the ball game.

Merlin · Jul 11, 2012

gprimr1 said:
Really? I couldn't disagree more.

If Judge Legg didn't care, he would have just rubber stamped MD's laws like the other judges did.

I did not say he does not care. I said their is more important things on his plate and it's my personal opinion and think that he will just let this stay ride during the appeal as he works on more pressing issues.

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

Active Member

Beer - Nectar of the Gods

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

[This Space for Sale ...]

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Active Member

Past President, MSI

Active Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics