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.

    X-Factor

    I don't say please
    Jun 2, 2009
    5,244
    Calvert County
    The argument states "it is enough to observe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is the right to carry them in public", as fact. It is now up to MD to argue against that claim. If they do not, they risk appearing that they stipulate to its validity.

    Even if MD fights this with "no court has found in favor of public carry as a fundamental right", it starts the argument. We had ideas of the Gansler arguments based on analysis, and yesterday verified by his arguments in Williams (see other thread). So there won't be any real bombshells in his arguments. But he has to make them before we can see things progress. And to keep pushing Younger, he'll need to open at least some of them to debate. And this argument underpins the primary complaint we have.

    BRILLIANT analysis....especially the bold part. :thumbsup:
     

    Straightshooter

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 28, 2010
    5,015
    Baltimore County
    I have not listened to the oral arguments but I do want to know what the LEO saw him doing "near the woods" and why he had places his gun in the "bushes." Assuming, of course, that article was accurate

    You've obviously mistaken this case for one in another thread concerning a case in the Maryland court.
     

    shawn

    Active Member
    Oct 23, 2007
    708
    Did anyone see this?

    [PROPOSED] ORDER
    This matter came before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
    Upon reviewing the pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a valid claim
    upon which relief may be granted, for which they have standing to pursue, and abstention is
    unavailable.
    Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
    Defendants are ordered to answer the Complaint within ten days of the date of this order.
    SO ORDERED.

    So MD cant use younger any more right?
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Did anyone see this?



    So MD cant use younger any more right?

    That is the PROPOSED ORDER that SAF kindly provided the Judge, just to help them save on some work. That is obviously what we want, but it is not an official edict from the Court...yet...

    What WAS in Doc 9 was this:
    10/07/2010 9 RESPONSE in Opposition re 8[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss filed by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Raymond Woollard. Replies due by 10/25/2010.

    We may get one more salvo from the State, but I think it more likely we will get a ruling from the Judge on the MTD.
     

    shawn

    Active Member
    Oct 23, 2007
    708
    That is the PROPOSED ORDER that SAF kindly provided the Judge, just to help them save on some work. That is obviously what we want, but it is not an official edict from the Court...yet...

    What WAS in Doc 9 was this:


    We may get one more salvo from the State, but I think it more likely we will get a ruling from the Judge on the MTD.

    Oh

    I thought it was what the court said. :sad20:

    Maybe they will actually say that eventually.
     

    ThumperIII

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2009
    455
    Maryland
    Well, this is a different case, not supreme court level yet (and you may agree with the action or not) but it is about a violation of constitutional rights. Talking about the Federal Judge striking down the military 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Just see how the words of the ruling could apply on Maryland firearms rights:

    In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. "Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," the judge wrote.

    No wiggle room for 'compelling interest' here. Something to keep in mind as a valid argument.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Well, this is a different case, not supreme court level yet (and you may agree with the action or not) but it is about a violation of constitutional rights. Talking about the Federal Judge striking down the military 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Just see how the words of the ruling could apply on Maryland firearms rights:

    In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. "Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," the judge wrote.

    No wiggle room for 'compelling interest' here. Something to keep in mind as a valid argument.

    You bring up a really good point - the government has history and a strong "compelling interest" argument in DADT and gay restrictions in the military*. But the fundamental rights of those service members overwhelm the government's argument.

    You cannot favor one fundamental right over another just because it is unpopular. That applies to both guns and gays. Ironically, each side of the political coin are making similar arguments over "their right", but fail to recognize the rights of the other side. I think the two are different sides of the same coin. Liberty means freedom to do as you wish. The Bill of Rights does not protect you from being offended.

    * Not editorializing on the issue of gays - my point is simply that the government's argument was strong enough to withstand previous challenges and has stood for enough years to be considered tested and valid law. My views on DADT aside, the government had a defense that worked in the past.
     

    Hopalong

    Man of Many Nicknames
    Jun 28, 2010
    2,921
    Howard County
    Liberty means freedom to do as you wish. The Bill of Rights does not protect you from being offended.


    Amen. This explains why you need somewhat thick skin to really stand "in the middle" of the current US political spectrum; you have to be willing to accept others' freedom to do whatever they want, even if you don't like what they're doing.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Amen. This explains why you need somewhat thick skin to really stand "in the middle" of the current US political spectrum; you have to be willing to accept others' freedom to do whatever they want, even if you don't like what they're doing.

    Gura is already tying the First and Second Amendments any way he can. In Chicago he's argued that teaching guns is a protected form of speech. That was already decided in a previous 4th Circuit case.

    In California, the Nordyke's and CalGuns have argued that gun shows are also a protected form of speech, much like the sale of adult material is protected.

    And I guess some could argue that guns are also part religion. At least around here. :lol2:

    But yeah, the middle is getting to be a lonely place. And frankly, for gun rights to take off without having to go to court every fifteen minutes, we need more people in the middle than not.
     

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    Then shooting ranges could be consedered churches and we would no longer be able to take guns there.

    Why not? Our Pastor brought in his Winschester Model 94, .30-30, into church as part of a sermon before. He drew the parallel between machines and people, as having a specific purpose and intended use. Take care of the weapon, use it for its intended purpose, and it will lead a long, useful, life allowing you to achieve positive results. If on the other hand, use it for the wrong reasons, don't take care of it, abuse it... Same can be said for people.
     

    boricuamaximus

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 27, 2008
    6,237
    Or the Church of Monday Night Football.

    If there is going to be a new church, it should be called "The Church of RKBA".

    I can see it now.

    The Church of Spot77.

    Spot: "Good Moooorning Ah! We. Today, at the Church of Spot77 will rise now to the sermon of John M. Browning. Preeeseented and Delivered by none other than the Founder of the International Church of Arms; Reverend DD214!


    Shotgun Joe leading the "12 Gauges of Mossberg Choir"

    Chad is in the backroom doing penance (polishing 1911 feedramps) because he wore his stilletos and cut off camo shorts to church again.

    K-31 being the mariage counselor. Which involves a trap door on the floor and his hand on the lever.

    Kiddie church activities include Magpul videos and reloading clinics.

    Community outreach will involve Joppaj and Rev. FPS showing proper shot placement on thugs.

    Reading will include the Psalms of Kalishnikov, The Revelations of Gene Stoner. The Book of Bill Wilson...


    Big statue in the front of Charlton Heston.

    _________________________________________________________________

    Seriously, it's a bad idea.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,125
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom