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.

    Fodder4Thought

    New Dad!!
    Jul 19, 2009
    3,035
    Inigoes said:
    If Woollard wins, someone is going to have to cough up some serious cabbage.

    Cabbage would be okay, I guess, but money would be great.

    Since this has moved into the realm of civil rights issues, how deep/far can punitive damages go?
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Since this has moved into the realm of civil rights issues, how deep/far can punitive damages go?

    If a judgment is against Sheridan, he will not be shielded by MD.

    The Costs are 3X what Woollard and Gura can substantiate. FYI, Gura isn't cheap. ;)

    DC is fighting the 3 million dollar tab, that is due to Gura and the SAF.
     

    Fodder4Thought

    New Dad!!
    Jul 19, 2009
    3,035
    Inigoes said:
    If a judgment is against Sheridan, he will not be shielded by MD.

    The Costs are 3X what Woollard and Gura can substantiate. FYI, Gura isn't cheap. ;)

    DC is fighting the 3 million dollar tab, that is due to Gura and the SAF.

    Hitting MD In the wallet is initially satisfying, but not a great deterrent in the short term, I think.

    What other punishments exist in the world of civil rights law? Termination? Incarceration? Rolling him up in a carpet and throwing him off a bridge? Sending him to work in the salt mines?

    I mean, what's the incentive to not **** us over if all it really costs him is our money?
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Just parsed this part.

    Will thus be true for every agent of the state from here on out?

    When 42 USC 1983 is invoked, the offender is not shielded by the dept/agency they work for.


    ...
    or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html
     

    rglrguy

    Active Member
    Dec 15, 2010
    526
    Harford
    DC is fighting the 3 million dollar tab, that is due to Gura and the SAF.

    I think this is the most angering part for me, also pointed out in the NJ article. MD/Gansler/MOM are spending OUR money to deny OUR rights. However, I would rather see 3 million in tax payer dollars go to improve our state in this way as opposed to some of the crap they come up with to spend money on.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Ok so late summer at best. IF we get a "win" will the state have recourse? Would the timeline for "change" be outlined in the decision or open ended with a "for serious" look? Basically, if the Judge rules entirely in our favor August 1st (just for argument), how would that affect ME on August 2nd?

    Things would change immediately.

    The complaint asks for the 'good and substantial cause requirement' to be wholly struck from Maryland law. Absent the 'good and substantial' cause requirement, your permit application must be approved provided you meet the other requirements of the law (not a felon, etc.).

    If we win this case, 'good and substantial' no longer exists and any attempt to re-instate it with new words to the same effect are also precluded. The state cannot create new conditions that circumvent the judicial order by creating other substantial requirements by way of the legislature or executive order. The lawsuit here is quite complete: all arbitrary decisions are off the table and "shall issue" is the law of the land.

    Also, based on a "complete win" the ruling would agree with our fundamental right complaint - meaning Maryland could not even get rid of all public carry permits out of spite. You could argue that doing so would simply be an elimination of the optional permitting process - the right would remain in place. The state cannot eliminate a fundamental right by eliminating the only method of its lawful exercise. We would essentially become Constitutional Carry.

    This is not fantasy or happy-talk. The significance of a win here should not be underestimated. Even slowing the process down for permit holders (absent proof they were overwhelmed) is going to be illegal. Any and all new requirements for a permit (including fees and application process) will be judged against the fundamental right. It is a totally new game.

    Could the ruling be stayed? Maybe. It depends on the judge and his determination of the impact of the ruling and likelihood an appeal could win on the merits. It's a coin toss. Same with the 4th Circuit.

    Since this has moved into the realm of civil rights issues, how deep/far can punitive damages go?

    In this particular case: nowhere.

    There are a few things to take into consideration:

    1. The case is of "first impression", so there is a legitimate argument over whether any civil right applies. You cannot seek 1983 damages unless you prove someone was knowingly violating a right. Because there is no recognized right, nobody is doing anything wrong. Yet.
    2. Establishing "blame" sounds easy to us but it proves hard. Look to the first impression issue: can you prove someone knowingly violated a civil right that was not recognized anywhere in federal jurisprudence?
    3. Establishing blame requires a finding. That means discovery and a trial. Messy. This case is kept simple by eliminating all of that morass.

    Eventually there is cause for damages when a person or entity knows (or should have known) that they are violating your rights when they restrict them outside of law. I highly doubt the AG will ever do anything to come close to that line. Unfortunately this price will be paid by the LEOs who follow guidance from their departments. There is no defense for following orders in 1983 cases. Anybody who takes part in the violation is complicit in the violation.

    There will be a short period of "free passes" for violations. Once that is over, the trial hounds will sharpen their sticks and start taking cash from the system.
     

    SkunkWerX

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 17, 2010
    1,577
    MoCo/HoCo border
    There will be a short period of "free passes" for violations. Once that is over, the trial hounds will sharpen their sticks and start taking cash from the system.

    So the ambulance chasers would have yet another avenue for revenue by being "gun" chasers.

    Officer Smith of XYZ Police dept. detains someone for CCWing, and nothing else, faces a civil suit. Ask Wisconsin how it turned out for them. Even if XYZ dept. told him to do so.

    XYZ dept. would also face penalties, should officer Smith produce an Email, memo, or have corroboration that the Chief held a meeting and told them to give CCWers extra attention. And that would also might fall under Harrassment laws, and maybe a Conspiracy to do so, as well as the Civil Rights no-no, so the charges could pile up quickly.....let's say especially if some officers came forward and raised the BS flag.

    I don't think most of us oppressed Marylanders with BGOS can comprehend just how "free" we may be should this go our way.

    But for a moment, let's say there is a Stay until the 4th Circuit can hear it, and let's suppose even it goes as far as SCOTUS? That would mean the Woollard Case would be talked about like Heller, it could be the single case that changes the national 2A landscape for generations.

    So, there is the greedy side of me that says, give me my Right, right now, and there is the principalled side of me that says, "I dare you (MD) to take it to the 4th Circuit!!!".

    So, anyway, when is the Roster Board going to approved the LC9??? ;)
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    That is the one thing I love about Maryland law. You only need to strike that one clause, you don't have to rewrite the whole law.
     

    kohburn

    Resident MacGyver
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2008
    6,796
    PAX NAS / CP MCAS
    so when do we start filling out paperwork to have at the ready to send in for permits?

    i want to have mine in the mail as soon as the win is finalized.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    The case will be appealed by either party, and to be sure everyone here is clear: we are still the underdogs at this level.

    A stay in the decision may or may not happen. We have to win first. In the case of Heller, the decision was stayed because it introduced guns into homes where none previously existed. If the decision had been overturned, people would have had to turn in their guns or move or be prosecuted. Much like the gay-marriage decisions that were stayed because you generally cannot undo a marriage by force; or even the decision against Don't Ask Don't Tell that would have made impossible for gay service member to "un-tell" their story after the fact.

    The big consideration in all of these cases: you cannot unring a bell. In each case, an overturn of the decision would cause harm to someone who relied upon it.

    In the case of permitted carry of firearms by lawful citizens in Maryland, the "inherent risk" of citizen carry would have been addressed by the judge in response to Maryland's defense. He cannot say "no risk" in the opinion and then stay the same opinion due to the risk inherent in it. And frankly, this is one bell that can be "un-wrung" quite easily: if Maryland eventually wins on the merits they can administratively rescind any and all permits issued without good cause. One day. Done. People still have their guns for home and the shooting range, which they already purchased before the permit was issued. In short, there is no harm to people if the ruling is later reversed on appeal.

    So my view is that a stay from the District judge based on public safety would be surprising. He - or the 4th Circuit - might issue one because this is a question of first impression with some societal impacts, though it'd be a stretch to say Maryland would fare worse doing just what every other member of the 4th Circuit (and 80%+ of the nation) already does.

    We're just thinking out loud at this point. We are still the underdogs.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    A watched pot never boils :lol2:
    And PACER never refreshes...

    Thanks for clearing that up Patrick. Although, I thought RKBA was mentioned in Heller or McDonald. While "in the home" was taken out of context...

    It was, but there is still a legitimate question about the extent of it. That's what we're fighting about. If the question on public RKBA had been definitively answered in Heller, this would have been a four week case.

    For example, had Maryland tried to require a 'good and substantial cause' for you to keep and bear arms in your home, it would have been short work to shut it down.
     

    rglrguy

    Active Member
    Dec 15, 2010
    526
    Harford
    For example, had Maryland tried to require a 'good and substantial cause' for you to keep and bear arms in your home, it would have been short work to shut it down.

    If this is the case, why is New York still able to have an arbitrary good and substantial clause for their permits to POSSESS handguns in the home? I have been following the case there and it appears to be taking a while to overturn NY's extremely unconstitutional gun laws
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    And PACER never refreshes...



    It was, but there is still a legitimate question about the extent of it. That's what we're fighting about. If the question on public RKBA had been definitively answered in Heller, this would have been a four week case.

    For example, had Maryland tried to require a 'good and substantial cause' for you to keep and bear arms in your home, it would have been short work to shut it down.

    If I put in a 2-day date window, only .08 per peek....nada...

    SAF in NJ (Muller case) had an excellent brief in breaking down "in the home" and the other canned arguments the other side is using. This is the way SAF will likely go in the future in breaking down their arguments. I think it will work.

    Item #29 on the Muller docket...something to look over while we await the news that "Historically" isn't available until the 2-5pm timeframe... :innocent0
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.29.0.pdf
    POINT II: HELLER HOLDS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS
    THE GENERAL RIGHT TO POSSESS AND CARRY A GUN – AND THE RULING IS NOT “LIMITED” TO THE HOME .......7
    A. The Holdings of a Decision are the Parts Necessary to the Result Reached by the Court – Not Just the Boundaries of Relief rdered .........8
    B. The Plaintiff in Heller Expressly Sought the Right to Possess and Carry a Handgun ..... 9
    C. Heller Holds that the Right to “Bear Arms” is the Right to Carry Guns ....... 12
    D. The Heller Court Did Not Limit its Ruling to the Home ....... 15
    E. The Dicta in Heller (and McDonald) Recognize a General Right to Carry Guns in Public ........ 18
    F. Caselaw Does Not Support the Claim that the Second Amendment Protects Only the Possession of Handguns within the Home ................... 24
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    If this is the case, why is New York still able to have an arbitrary good and substantial clause for their permits to POSSESS handguns in the home? I have been following the case there and it appears to be taking a while to overturn NY's extremely unconstitutional gun laws

    The NY Kachalsky case seeks carry permits. If there is a case challenging the license to possess in the home, I am not aware of it. That does not mean one does not exist.

    DC, Chicago and NY require permits to posses in the home. That said, the permits cannot require good cause above "self defense". If NY is denying permits to possess in the home to lawful persons, the case should be an instant win. The whole idea of permits in general will be due their day in court, but not yet.

    Are you aware of one or more NY cases where they are denying in-home possession post-McDonald? I'd love to find info it if you have a link, name or any details of the case. Chicago has an extremely limited view of "home" and that is under challenge, too. But again, it's a matter of first impression.
     

    rglrguy

    Active Member
    Dec 15, 2010
    526
    Harford
    The NY Kachalsky case seeks carry permits. If there is a case challenging the license to possess in the home, I am not aware of it. That does not mean one does not exist.

    DC, Chicago and NY require permits to posses in the home. That said, the permits cannot require good cause above "self defense". If NY is denying permits to possess in the home to lawful persons, the case should be an instant win. The whole idea of permits in general will be due their day in court, but not yet.

    Are you aware of one or more NY cases where they are denying in-home possession post-McDonald? I'd love to find info it if you have a link, name or any details of the case. Chicago has an extremely limited view of "home" and that is under challenge, too. But again, it's a matter of first impression.

    I only know a little about NY's archaic process due to my dad seeking his permit there. I guess I'm questioning permitting of an enumerated right, which I guess we'll have to wait for. Yellowfin may know of some more cases but I hadn't spotted any in my lurking at NYshooters.net... Thanks for the explanation Patrick :thumbsup:
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    My step-father has a carry permit in NY and my mother is getting one when she moves back up after the winter. They are far from NYC, obviously. Still, the process is pain. She needs four references from the county she lives in and a bunch of other stuff. And a long wait.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,345
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom