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

Oreo · Oct 24, 2010

Tell that to your local jack-booted thugs who will have you arrested in front of your kids & family in the most obnoxious unnecessary manner, and throw you into prison to be tried later only for a judge to concur with the thugs that their actions were entirely appropriate.

teratos · Oct 24, 2010

Oreo said:
Tell that to your local jack-booted thugs who will have you arrested in front of your kids & family in the most obnoxious unnecessary manner, and throw you into prison to be tried later only for a judge to concur with the thugs that their actions were entirely appropriate.

Therein lies the problem....

Hyper-W · Oct 24, 2010

teratos said:
The Supreme Court has already said the people are under no obligation to follw an unconstitutional law.

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/no-one-is-bound-to-obey-an

Let me know how that works out for you.

X-Factor · Oct 24, 2010

Maybe it's been answered, but with MD playing the avoidance game couldn't the court see that tactic and close the case in favor of Gura? Would MD appeal?

Patrick · Oct 24, 2010

If a court thinks one side or the other is creating too burdensome a delay, they will simply tell that side to stop or face sanction. At some point nearly every piece of litigation gets to the point that the court rules one way or the other on each motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. At some point they run out of things to complain about, and as we saw in Chicago, the court eventually tells them they have xx days to reply to the plaintiff's complaint.

So here. This is how it'll go. Note that the SAF did something fairly interesting on this latest memo in opposition to the MD MTD - they used the blanket statement that 2A affords a right to carry outside the home as an argument against an MD argument. Now MD is nude more pressure to respond to the 2A claims, which they have assiduously avoided until now.

So the day will come. Just don't expect much this round when it does come.

fightinbluhen51 · Oct 25, 2010

Obviously, this is a play that requires educated audience, but...

If I were selected for a jury that had to hear a case about a person carrying a weapon without a permit, no other crime being committed, just dumb luck terry stop, no reasonable suspicion...I would acquit them based on jury nullification.

Obviously, the thing that we as civil duty servants forget is that we can effectively rule any law unconstitutional that we want, provided there is good cause that the law IS unconstitutional.

Patrick · Oct 25, 2010

Absolutely. That is almost a dream case for nullification.

ezliving · Oct 25, 2010

Not enough people understand jury nullification. http://fija.org/

Jim Sr · Oct 25, 2010

ezliving said:
Not enough people understand jury nullification. http://fija.org/

http://fija.org/2010/07/19/nullification-individual-and-collective-uses/
. . . Let the jurors act on individual motivation, and let bad laws fall before the conscientious, informed jurors who understand that they have the authority to judge the law as well as the facts, and that it must be their personal sense of justice which compels their individual verdict. Let there be no distinction of the right to nullify bad laws, whether at the state level or at the individual level, where one juror, acting independently in good conscience, has the same right to nullify as any government body. . .

krucam · Oct 25, 2010

Sorry for putting this thread back on topic....all 58 pages of it! :innocent0

So far the events have been:
2010-07-29 Plaintiffs file Complaint.
2010-09-20 Defendants respond with Motion to Dismiss (Remember standing and Younger Abstention?)
2010-10-07 Plaintiffs respond to the MTD. Dismissed Younger. Argued for Standing. Defendant reply to Plaintiff response due 10/25.

Which brings us to today...remember for the last 2-3 weeks we've been talking about MD not addressing the initial complaint yet? It was in this thread amongst Delegate Smigiel, Williams Case, Juries, etc....

10/25/2010 10[RECAP] REPLY to Response to Motion re 8[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss filed by Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein, Terrence Sheridan, Charles M. Thomas, Jr.. (Fader, Matthew) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

Item 10, Defendants REPLY to Plaintiffs RESPONSE to Defendants MTD which was to be in RESPONSE to the Plaintiff's CLAIM: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.10.0.pdf

All I can say is that you won't be surprised by todays filing from the State, a very quick 10 page read... :innocent0

Full Woollard Docket is HERE

Afield · Oct 25, 2010

So...

Where are people supposed to bring civil rights claims? To state courts where they will get no relief? How did Brown vs. Board get to SCOTUS? After Kansas state court?

If Woollard had filed in MD circuit court, would this just then proceed up the state courts chain? And would a loss at md court of appeals then let a federal case be filed?

krucam · Oct 25, 2010

Afield said:
Where are people supposed to bring civil rights claims? To state courts where they will get no relief? How did Brown vs. Board get to SCOTUS? After Kansas state court?

If Woollard had filed in MD circuit court, would this just then proceed up the state courts chain? And would a loss at md court of appeals then let a federal case be filed?

This is already a Federal case as are the majority (if not all) Civil Rights cases. We are at the MD District Court level now (Federal, not State) and a loss here while a loss, will then be appealed to the next level of Federal Court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond. As an fyi, MD is the only State under the 4th Ckt without Shall Issue...the ONLY one. The 4th Ckt includes VA, MD, NC, SC, WV.
http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx

We'll be taking this case to Richmond sooner, rather than later...

press1280 · Oct 25, 2010

krucam said:
Sorry for putting this thread back on topic....all 51 pages of it!

So far the events have been:
2010-07-29 Plaintiffs file Complaint.
2010-09-20 Defendants respond with Motion to Dismiss (Remember standing and Younger Abstention?)
2010-10-07 Plaintiffs respond to the MTD. Dismissed Younger. Argued for Standing. Defendant reply to Plaintiff response due 10/25.

Which brings us to today...remember for the last 2-3 weeks we've been talking about MD not addressing the initial complaint yet? It was in this thread amongst Delegate Smigiel, Williams Case, Juries, etc....

Item 10, Defendants REPLY to Plaintiffs RESPONSE to Defendants MTD which was to be in RESPONSE to the Plaintiff's CLAIM: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.10.0.pdf

All I can say is that you won't be surprised by todays filing from the State, a very quick 10 page read...

Full Woollard Docket is HERE

The links seem to be broken, even on the docket page(unless its me). I'll take a guess what the state's reply is: 1) SAF doesn't have standing 2) "Blood in the streets" 3) The 2A only means "in the home"
Sound about right?

krucam · Oct 25, 2010

press1280 said:
The links seem to be broken, even on the docket page(unless its me). I'll take a guess what the state's reply is: 1) SAF doesn't have standing 2) "Blood in the streets" 3) The 2A only means "in the home"
Sound about right?

Anyone else having a problem with links in post 1150?? They're working here in Firefox...

BTW...you're real close Press....

hairba111 · Oct 25, 2010

Worked for me in Funkytown.

Afield · Oct 25, 2010

Links worked for me.

So, just to be clear on the strategery...we want a dismissal now, and an appeal to the 4th. Cause the state sure would appeal. Of course a win at district level would give us the right right away...unless stayed pending appeal.

Patrick · Oct 25, 2010

Links worked fine on an iPad in a McD's parking lot in Solomon's. Unfortunately the wayport access point here timed-out and ate a super-incredible response I wrote a few minutes back. Too tired to start over in the car. Mebbe later.

Overall: Lousy response by MD. Addressing 2A (and the crux of this case AND a required element of the Younger Abstention response) in a footnote?

Really?

Meh.

Patrick · Oct 25, 2010

Afield said:
Links worked for me.

So, just to be clear on the strategery...we want a dismissal now, and an appeal to the 4th. Cause the state sure would appeal. Of course a win at district level would give us the right right away...unless stayed pending appeal.

An appeal now would be over the MTD and not the 2A issues. So if the MD District Court dismissed on Younger, the 4th would argue over Younger and then remand when/if MD lost. Then the District Court would resume where the fight left off.

If the district court is going to rule against us on the merits of the constitutional arguments, we want that to happen sooner than later. That escalates the fight. MD just today set a toe into the ring. We need them to get them in full defense mode first.

Sorry if one of my previous posts confused this process.

krucam · Oct 25, 2010

Patrick said:
Links worked fine on an iPad in a McD's parking lot in Solomon's. Unfortunately the wayport access point here timed-out and ate a super-incredible response I wrote a few minutes back. Too tired to start over in the car. Mebbe later.

Overall: Lousy response by MD. Addressing 2A (and the crux of this case AND a required element of the Younger Abstention response) in a footnote?

Really?

Meh.

McDonalds in Solomons? Crap...If I'd have known that I could have got my "2010 we'll be carrying" Dinner Bet out of the way...

press1280 · Oct 25, 2010

krucam said:
Anyone else having a problem with links in post 1150?? They're working here in Firefox...

BTW...you're real close Press....

Just started working. They're just looking for some technicalities to get off the hook. Almost zero mention of why this case was brought in the first place.

When's the next deadline(more briefs,exc.)?

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

I don't say please

MSI Executive Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

MSI Executive Member

Besieger

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

XGMG2

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics