MSI arguments for HQL challenge - live May 6!

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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    what do we know about Agee, Keenan, and Richardson?

    Agee was on the original 4th circuit panel for the Kolbe case that found the MD AWB unconstitutional and voted against the en banc panel decision. Likely to vote for MSI

    Keenan voted for the Kolbe en banc panel decision. Likely to vote against MSI.

    Richardson was not a Judge for Kolbe, but was appointed by Trump. Probably vote for MSI
     

    tallen702

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 3, 2012
    5,102
    In the boonies of MoCo
    Interesting note on the judges this morning:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Steven_Agee
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Milano_Keenan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_N._Richardson

    Agee and Richardson are both right leaning with Richardson being a member of the Federalist Society. Keenan is a gun grabber that wants to ban ARs.

    This could work against us. If there's a split decision on standing, the state could call for another en-banc. Time will tell I guess.
     

    GuitarmanNick

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 9, 2017
    2,221
    Laurel
    Excellent oral arguments by the MSI attorney. The state attorney was unimpressive, repetitive and as expected, without logic.
     
    Excellent oral arguments by the MSI attorney. The state attorney was unimpressive, repetitive and as expected, without logic.

    He doesn't have to be, there is already precedent on his side...MA, NY, IL and others have required a permission slip to buy a gun for years, in some cases decades...If the court has upheld those why does MSI think Maryland's challenge will change anything?

    Short answer, it won't...
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    He doesn't have to be, there is already precedent on his side...MA, NY, IL and others have required a permission slip to buy a gun for years, in some cases decades...If the court has upheld those why does MSI think Maryland's challenge will change anything?

    Today’s discussion wasn’t on the merits. The state was trying to shoot down the notion that any of the parties involved have standing. The state’s representation was having to essentially ignore the two thirds of the panel that saw right through the flimsy argument he was pitching to that end.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Today’s discussion wasn’t on the merits. The state was trying to shoot down the notion that any of the parties involved have standing. The state’s representation was having to essentially ignore the two thirds of the panel that saw right through the flimsy argument he was pitching to that end.

    Actually its a neat trick if the state could pull it off. One does not have standing unless one applies... then one does not have standing unless one is denied. Under their ever moving goalposts only people who are denied the HQL would have standing. Of course they are prohibited, so getting to the merits is no problem in that case.

    So, under the state's theory the HQL really can never be challenged. Neat trick, but I think that at least 2 judges saw through it.
     

    Deep Lurker

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 22, 2019
    2,356
    This case was so ably argued by today by Mark Pennak for MSI and John Parker Sweeney for Atlantic Guns.

    I was delighted to hear MD’s lawyer blunder into his revealing admission that the MD HQL amounts to jumping through “hoops.”

    Is there any thinking adult who does not regard the term “hoops” (and the concept of “jumping through hoops”) as the universal euphemism for intentional obstruction, frustration and delay created by government for no other reason then to attempt to justify its own existence, and to profit from its own power?

    Always alarming that our own government fights so hard to nullify the Constitution with such sophistry and contempt for our liberty.
     
    Today’s discussion wasn’t on the merits. The state was trying to shoot down the notion that any of the parties involved have standing. The state’s representation was having to essentially ignore the two thirds of the panel that saw right through the flimsy argument he was pitching to that end.

    OK, but if MSI argument is successful isn't the next step arguing against the constitutionality of the HQL once standing has been re-established?
     

    Deep Lurker

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 22, 2019
    2,356
    MD’s lawyer also said he was there representing MSP Supt. Pallozzi, who as we all know is no longer the MSP Superintendent.
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    MD’s lawyer also said he was there representing MSP Supt. Pallozzi, who as we all know is no longer the MSP Superintendent.
    IIRC, until one side or the other submits a notification of change of party, the name would remain (just like it does in my organization's case at SCOTUS).
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Actually its a neat trick if the state could pull it off. One does not have standing unless one applies... then one does not have standing unless one is denied. Under their ever moving goalposts only people who are denied the HQL would have standing. Of course they are prohibited, so getting to the merits is no problem in that case.

    So, under the state's theory the HQL really can never be challenged. Neat trick, but I think that at least 2 judges saw through it.

    It is what happened in Heller. The case was not originally called Heller because there were six plaintiffs in the case. Heller was the only one that actually applied. The other five were denied standing and Heller was the only one allowed to move forward with the merits because he was the only one to apply.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    OK, but if MSI argument is successful isn't the next step arguing against the constitutionality of the HQL once standing has been re-established?

    I believe it would be sent back to the district court so that the merits (constitutionality) can be determined.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I believe it would be sent back to the district court so that the merits (constitutionality) can be determined.

    If MSI (and the other plaintiffs) lose, wouldnt it just be dismissed for lack of standing?

    It is what happened in Heller. The case was not originally called Heller because there were six plaintiffs in the case. Heller was the only one that actually applied. The other five were denied standing and Heller was the only one allowed to move forward with the merits because he was the only one to apply.

    It is a neat trick, one that would not be countenanced with any other right, enumerated or otherwise (ie abortion).
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    OK, but if MSI argument is successful isn't the next step arguing against the constitutionality of the HQL once standing has been re-established?

    Yes. That's the whole point. And the states you mentioned earlier aren't part of the same circuit. If the court wants to look around the country for a sense of things, they'll see dozens of states that do not both test the transferee for prohibiting history AND then require people who are already vetted at the time of purchase to also pay what amounts to a time-and-money tax.

    Rather than assume that other circuits having not previously mopped up this mess means it will never go away, how about just looking at the merits (which are on our side) and considering the possibility that this circuit will look at the constitutionality of such a scheme in the same way that MOST OF THE COUNTRY DOES ... which is to say, no secondary tax/test of an enumerated right, on top of the normal criminal/mental vetting.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    The cost/time/difficulty issues drive this case toward denial of civil rights based on income. (Think Baltimore for that population).

    IIRC, civil rights cases can result in payout to the plaintiffs, as well as personal monetary penalties for the unsuccessful defendants. No hiding behind Nanny Government's financial petticoats.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,296
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom