Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 13th, 2010, 07:32 PM #1521
Boondock Saint's Avatar
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is offline
Returnedish Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: White Marsh
Posts: 17,093
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is offline
Returnedish Member
Boondock Saint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: White Marsh
Posts: 17,093
I've offered to wager with these folks who say we're more than 3.5 years from relief, yet I have no takers.
Boondock Saint is offline  
Old December 13th, 2010, 08:01 PM #1522
glockefeller's Avatar
glockefeller glockefeller is offline
ALL PRO
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 240
glockefeller glockefeller is offline
ALL PRO
glockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 240
any updates on this case ??? i cant seem to find a thing on the web .
__________________
THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU !!
glockefeller is offline  
Old December 13th, 2010, 08:13 PM #1523
yellowsled's Avatar
yellowsled yellowsled is offline
Retired C&R Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westminster, MD
Posts: 8,961
Images: 26
yellowsled yellowsled is offline
Retired C&R Addict
yellowsled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westminster, MD
Posts: 8,961
Images: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by glockefeller View Post
any updates on this case ??? i cant seem to find a thing on the web .
http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/ite...72.docket.html

Nope, nada... Nothing new...
__________________
Stuff For Sale (click)


“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights.
The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
—Federal Judge Benson Everett Legg
yellowsled is offline  
Old December 14th, 2010, 06:07 AM #1524
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Our new motto for this case is "Hurry up and lose already!"

Next action will come after the judge rules on the state's MTD. We don't want to lose that on standing grounds. But losing on the merits is fine. The sooner the better, I say.
Patrick is offline  
Old December 14th, 2010, 08:39 AM #1525
frozencesium's Avatar
frozencesium frozencesium is offline
BBQ Czar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MD
Posts: 2,380
Images: 2
frozencesium frozencesium is offline
BBQ Czar
frozencesium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MD
Posts: 2,380
Images: 2
So, chances we'll see a decision on the MTD before new years?
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice." -Charles de Montesquieu

"You see officer...there was this tragic boating accident..."

"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished...The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." -Lao Tzu
frozencesium is offline  
Old December 14th, 2010, 09:38 AM #1526
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
The folks over at the CalGun forum have a canned response for questions like these: "Two Weeks!"

Meaning...unless the judge sets a deadline (like the one in Peruta did), everything else is just idle guesswork. Looking at the big picture, these cases take 2-3 years to get up to the big court. Most of these cases started this summer, and many of the ones pre-dating McDonald were in limbo until then anyway.

So count 3 years from July and you'll probably have your answer sometime around then. If it goes the way we want, changes will be fairly rapid after a strong decision in our favor.
Patrick is offline  
Old December 14th, 2010, 11:59 AM #1527
navycraig's Avatar
navycraig navycraig is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. Mary's
Posts: 1,321
navycraig navycraig is offline
Senior Member
navycraig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. Mary's
Posts: 1,321
I'll admit that I don't understand half of the legal wrangling that is taking place in these cases, but I certainly appreciate the fact that there are folks on here that do and take the time to put it into digestable terms for me. Thank you very much.

Another thing I don't understand is why the SCOUS does not see the writing on the wall and see all these cases coming their way and why they don't just make an over arching ruling that applies to all states that says...whatever it says. Seems to me the cases are similar enough in the issues (concealed carry for instance) that they would make a ruling that applies across the board and save the great number of cases coming their way that will all deal with the same thing. Seem it would free up their time for other issues. But again, I don't understand these things so I'm sure there is a reason.
navycraig is offline  
Old December 14th, 2010, 01:43 PM #1528
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
The court will generally only answer a question that it is asked. There are good reasons for this, one of which is the law of unintended consequences.

But the real reason is the constitution. Our three-legged stool of government uses checks and balances; the judiciary being the primary check of both legislative and executive excess. They do this by answering questions posed by one side or the other. They answer those questions as completely and accurately as they can and then go back to waiting for the next question.

So the strength of the judiciary is not that is "makes" laws or policy. The strength comes from its passive role as arbiter and judge of the work (or lack therein) of others. If the judiciary were to preemptively move to answer questions that have not yet been asked, they are moving in an active manner. In essence, they are now creating policy themselves.

In truth, all things come with balance. There have been times when the big court does step up to bat and aims for the bleachers when a single would suffice. They are human and frankly, it is often a good thing (segregation cases in the 1950's, for instance).

Some calls of "judicial activism" come from courts that answer more than the question asked. Others come from judges who seem to ignore law. But frankly, most just come from people who reactively use the term anytime their side of a social issue loses.


Edit: Keep in mind that Heller and McDonald each asked single, simple questions. There was no laundry list of complaints. The SAF, in particular, follows a "one question at a time" approach to lawsuits so as to not overwhelm the court, the teams or the issues. Kitchen-sick cases rarely do well.

But nothing stops multiple cases in multiple places asking a multitude of questions. One each. And now the questions are becoming a bit more bold and bit more broad because they can build off the previous answers. We went from "is 2A an individual right (in the home)?" to "do those individuals have a right to arms for defense in all non-sensitive places". That is a big upgrade, and would have probably failed if asked in 2007. But not now.
Patrick is offline  
Old December 14th, 2010, 02:13 PM #1529
Jim Sr's Avatar
Jim Sr Jim Sr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 6,760
Jim Sr Jim Sr is offline
Senior Member
Jim Sr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 6,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by navycraig View Post
I'll admit that I don't understand half of the legal wrangling that is taking place in these cases, but I certainly appreciate the fact that there are folks on here that do and take the time to put it into digestable terms for me. Thank you very much.

Another thing I don't understand is why the SCOUS does not see the writing on the wall and see all these cases coming their way and why they don't just make an over arching ruling that applies to all states that says...whatever it says. Seems to me the cases are similar enough in the issues (concealed carry for instance) that they would make a ruling that applies across the board and save the great number of cases coming their way that will all deal with the same thing. Seem it would free up their time for other issues. But again, I don't understand these things so I'm sure there is a reason.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
__________________
"When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it..."
Jim Sr
Jim Sr is offline  
Old December 16th, 2010, 11:53 AM #1530
Nobody's Avatar
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,015
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
I've offered to wager with these folks who say we're more than 3.5 years from relief, yet I have no takers.
He has offered me the wager and I have declined and here is why.


What I want to happen and what I think will happen are 2 very different things. As an anaolgy..

Ravens VS. Colts

Want Ravens to win, Think Colts will win but will not bet against Ravens.

Want Americans to win and win NOW, think by the time it gets to SCOTUS and ignored here and re-sued ect ect I see a LONG time away before we can actuallly carry concealed. Will not bet against us Americans.


Even IF the SCOTUS said today that MD MUST have shall issue, I still see MD stalling by hook or by crook, for a long time to prevent this. I know that the SCOTUS has said that we do not have to follow un-constitutional laws but ....will you be first to do it?

NOBODY
Nobody is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2010, 08:06 PM #1531
Rugbier's Avatar
Rugbier Rugbier is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 624
Rugbier Rugbier is offline
Member
Rugbier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
He has offered me the wager and I have declined and here is why.


What I want to happen and what I think will happen are 2 very different things. As an anaolgy..

Ravens VS. Colts

Want Ravens to win, Think Colts will win but will not bet against Ravens.

Want Americans to win and win NOW, think by the time it gets to SCOTUS and ignored here and re-sued ect ect I see a LONG time away before we can actuallly carry concealed. Will not bet against us Americans.


Even IF the SCOTUS said today that MD MUST have shall issue, I still see MD stalling by hook or by crook, for a long time to prevent this. I know that the SCOTUS has said that we do not have to follow un-constitutional laws but ....will you be first to do it?

NOBODY
Every Un-just approach in History has been won by example.
if every resident of MD that cares and agrees with that statement, decides to go out and carry, what will they do? Arrest millions of people? Remember it is " We the People ", but sadly, we sit back and often let others fight for us , while we sit and watch a game.

If Yankees had that approach, we will still be singing " God save the Queen " at school every morning.

JMO
__________________
" An armed society is a polite society "

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

Rugbier is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2010, 10:22 PM #1532
Nobody's Avatar
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,015
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugbier View Post
Every Un-just approach in History has been won by example.
if every resident of MD that cares and agrees with that statement, decides to go out and carry, what will they do? Arrest millions of people? Remember it is " We the People ", but sadly, we sit back and often let others fight for us , while we sit and watch a game.

If Yankees had that approach, we will still be singing " God save the Queen " at school every morning.

JMO
That is a very true statement , I however do not want to be the one testing the water as I have seen the inside of jails and they are not pretty. Never arrested or anything, I saw them thru work. When they, I say they as I have not yet attended an open holster rally due to my work schedual although I hope to attend in January, when they can not get 50 people to attend one of these very improtant and worth while events you are very far from millions. Hell IF the millions would just go vote things would change but alas...they are the same and will remain so for years to come and possibly forever.

I wish things were different but when you see the sun rise in the east everyday, what would you predict for tommorow?

I am thankful for the SAF and have made several donations for the fight but I am afraid it is like watching Little orphan Annie fight Mike Tyson and it does not look good for ole Annie.

I just finished "Faith of my Fathers" and John McCain said while he was A POW that the rule was NEVER let even one ray of hope give you the sense that you were about to be released because the let down was worse than being there. I WILL not be happy about ANY case that does not allow me the freedoms afforded by the 2ND Ammendemnt, not in theory but in practice.

Thanks again SAF and MDS.

NOBODY

Praying for the best but prepared for the worst.
Nobody is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2010, 06:09 AM #1533
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
...

I just finished "Faith of my Fathers" and John McCain said while he was A POW that the rule was NEVER let even one ray of hope give you the sense that you were about to be released because the let down was worse than being there.

...

Praying for the best but prepared for the worst.
Seriously, dude. You should write children's books. Uplifting stuff right there.


EDIT: Just want to be sure this post is taken in friendly jest...
Patrick is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2010, 05:39 PM #1534
INMY01TA's Avatar
INMY01TA INMY01TA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,618
INMY01TA INMY01TA is offline
Senior Member
INMY01TA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugbier View Post
if every resident of MD that cares and agrees with that statement, decides to go out and carry, what will they do? JMO
Don't they already do this in Baltimore? Ohh, you meant the good guys.
INMY01TA is offline  
Old December 25th, 2010, 03:02 PM #1535
Nobody's Avatar
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,015
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
Seriously, dude. You should write children's books. Uplifting stuff right there.


EDIT: Just want to be sure this post is taken in friendly jest...
I get the humor but let me ask you this in all seriousness.

If someone promised you all you can eat "insert your favorite food here" for free when you got to California, BUT you had to walk there from here and must pass MANY crazy herdles along the way. Would you be excited about the long journey as you started out? Many things could happen along the way and you may never even make your destination.

People on here and elsewhere were estacic over Palmer...yet in MD it is still the same.

People were estacic over McDonald and yet we are still the same.

People were estacic over Airizona going the way of Alaska and Vermont yet, alas, here in good ole Maryland, we are still the same.

Let one of the conservitive judges in SCOTUS die or retire and we are then screwed forever. Things are going to be the way they are for a long time to come, again my predicition is 7-10 years if not forever here.

I can, due to my business get a CCW here in MD but why? I can use it only restricted and while I wish we had AZ, AK or VT like carry I will take shall issue or O/C full time instead of a part time permit for the $$$.

Again I am thankful for SAF, MSI and all the others in the fight but I am a realist and time will tell.

NOBODY
Nobody is offline  
Old December 25th, 2010, 05:34 PM #1536
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
I get the humor but let me ask you this in all seriousness.

If someone promised you all you can eat "insert your favorite food here" for free when you got to California, BUT you had to walk there from here and must pass MANY crazy herdles along the way. Would you be excited about the long journey as you started out? Many things could happen along the way and you may never even make your destination.

People on here and elsewhere were estacic Jover Palmer...yet in MD it is still the same.

People were estacic over McDonald and yet we are still the same.

People were estacic over Airizona going the way of Alaska and Vermont yet, alas, here in good ole Maryland, we are still the same.

Let one of the conservitive judges in SCOTUS die or retire and we are then screwed forever. Things are going to be the way they are for a long time to come, again my predicition is 7-10 years if not forever here.

I can, due to my business get a CCW here in MD but why? I can use it only restricted and while I wish we had AZ, AK or VT like carry I will take shall issue or O/C full time instead of a part time permit for the $$$.

Again I am thankful for SAF, MSI and all the others in the fight but I am a realist and time will tell.

NOBODY
I hear you and your logic makes sense. I am more in the 3-5 year range myself, but all things are relative.

We have stiff opposition. My guess is it will fall after punitive damages are awarded, per the history of the orifginal civil rights lawsuits. But who knows?

Our community is willing to fight in court. A little different then previous fights. Also, we are not going to need to plumb the path ahead of us...the NAACP did that for us (ironically).

But it's all a crap shoot. I am with you in getting people to step back a bit and accept a tough fight. If you want to carry immediately, move elsewhere. It is three years from now, minimum.

And in all fairness to the people on the board, we are shopping in Florida and the wife and I are getting permits here soon. It has more to do with taxes, but still...
Patrick is offline  
Old December 29th, 2010, 02:07 PM #1537
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Exclamation

Motion to Dismiss DENIED

The case moves on. Will read and comment later. PDF of decision is in the above link.
Patrick is offline  
Old December 29th, 2010, 02:08 PM #1538
joppaj's Avatar
joppaj joppaj is offline


Sheepdog
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 31,095
joppaj joppaj is offline


Sheepdog
joppaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 31,095
Well, isn't that nice.
__________________
Winterseed Rifleman

If you must make a compromise to carry a concealed handgun, compromise on fashion, not the firearm.
joppaj is offline  
Old December 29th, 2010, 02:16 PM #1539
BenL's Avatar
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,249
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
BenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
Motion to Dismiss DENIED

The case moves on. Will read and comment later. PDF of decision is in the above link.
This is a good thing, right?

ETA: After reading just this one decision, it's enough to make any liberty-loving citizen want to grab his torch and pitchfork. What a complete clusterf*ck to liberty our "justice system" has become.
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

..........................................-Hanlon's Razor

"No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

..........................................-16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
BenL is offline  
Old December 29th, 2010, 02:22 PM #1540
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,679
Quote:
This is a good thing, right?
Absolutely.

Notes from the decision:

- MD's desire to perform discovery over SAF's standing is denied, based on the rationale that SAF standing is not an issue - Woollard has all the standing the suit requires. The organizational standing issue is simply not an issue (for now).

- Younger abstention denied for a host of reasons, key of which is the fact the adjudicative hearing that they claim Woollard should have used is not "coercive" - meaning the state is not forcing him to do it. This means the state cannot hide behind pseudo-judicial exemptions. If that means nothing to you, don't worry. It's not about 2A...and it's done. It was a Hail Mary pass by MD to begin with.

- The judge would not dismiss the suit due to weak 14th Amendment claims; but he did toss the 14th amendment claims while allowing the plaintiffs to amend. He wasn't impressed with the initial complaint made by the SAF on this one, but found enough in the SAF response to the MTD to hold the question open. In this case, the judge said the SAF response included an implication that the law impacted a fundamental right. Note this does not mean the judge agrees with the SAF position, just that under the rules for these things he must assume the implication exists. Don't read too much (i.e.: anything) into this.

So overall good news, as the case can move on. MD will now have to respond directly to the 2A complaints (unless some other shenanigans come up). And the SAF will need to strengthen their 14th Amendment complaint -- they are going to have to go all the way on it and clearly say that bearing of arms is a fundamental right. Big step, but one they are taking in other places, as well.

Again...this is less about 2A than about justice delayed. MD has barely even acknowledged the 2A arguments so far. Now they will need to dig in their heels and start tearing down our claims. Get ready for more "in the home" baloney. The SAF has gotten good at knocking those around...so this ought to be good.


Last edited by Patrick; January 1st, 2011 at 07:17 AM.
Patrick is offline  
Closed Thread

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Tags
woollard


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2016, Maryland Shooters, LLC