**FLASH TRAFFIC** WOOLARD REVERSED

[bbguns]

As if it was needed...yet another reason why the 'Free State' is such a BS nickname....

 

[6-Pack]

The courts really need to take a look at PA, DE, VA and WV.

How are there not massive violent riots, old west shoot outs over parking spaces, etc? Why does our state suck so much dick that we are held to a different standard?

Our state sucks so much dick because we are living in a liberal utopia.

That being said, we need to focus on SB 281/HB294 otherwise we will wait many more years to restore our rights

 

[USAFRavenR6]

Wow, Im speechless. I have been in a meeting all day and when I get back to my desk I read this topic. Unreal. Id be lieing if I said I was not floored by this decision. Have we gotten anything from MSI yet on this?

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Originally Posted by blackseven View Post
The court went on to state that they feel the public interest is served because those that concealed carry are targeted by criminals that want to steal their concealed firearms and use them to commit more crimes.

Is this more than a hypothetical threat? Criminals are rarely stupid enough to do that, since losing = getting shot.

Thieves veto ....

Concealed is concealed, I guess thieves must know who's carrying, right? Plus we all know a criminal is more likely to attack someone who is armed.... right? Ok, I'm on board now..

 

[Patrick]

Wow. Just got a chance to read through this. We didn't feel good about this panel, so not many surprises on the outcome. Timing is the only big thing here. The appeals court wants this to be part of the SCOTUS record.

That said, if you gotta lose and go to court, this is an awesome decision. Really.

Look to page 30. They note that the state "clearly demonstrated" that public safety is enhanced by keeping lawful people from carrying public. They don't recite any evidence, other than the depositions of politically appointed police officers. But even better yet, they lay out a laundry list of all the arguments used by gun control advocated nationwide:

• People cannot exercise their right because a thief might take their gun
• People cannot be trusted to exercise their right in Maryland, because they will just kill each other over donuts at Krispy Kreme. Or something.
• People cannot exercise their right because the police might shoot them by accident
• People cannot exercise their right because public safety is harmed when the police waste time chasing "Man With a Gun" calls that are only pesky lawful citizens that are doing nothing wrong.
• People cannot exercise their right because the police would have to figure out if a person carrying a firearm was truly a lawful person - it is far easier to just ban the exercise of a right simply to make it easier on the police. This way, every man with a gun is a criminal!

Loving this.



Look, going to the Supreme Court is something we all recognize needs to happen. One way or the other - win or lose - we know that this controversy needs a final answer. If you are going to go, go BIG.


This is a laundry list that will be entered into the record. Kachalsky, Woollard...whatever. The court will have all of it, and the parties will argue the merits of this decision ad nauseum. That means the court might actually address them, individually or in toto.


Look at the above findings. Assume we were to "win" shall-issue in SCOTUS next year. Now look at the list again. This is a list of the the top things likely to be used to try to restrict carry in unfriendly states, via Time, Place and Manner (TPM) restrictions.



I am of the opinion we go big or go home. There are times when you string out the question to not overwhelm, but frankly in this case we got a decision worthy of review. I am not usually called impatient, but these are questions worth asking and answering - even if we don't always like the outcome.


Anyways...if you gotta lose, you might as well "lose big". Remember - like Heller and McDonald, it is the final outcome we are seeking.

 

[Maryland Hunter]

This has only strengthened my resolve to beat OMalley on sb281. The idea of him and Gansler high fiving each other over this decision sickens me.

See you Saturday in Annapolis.:thumbup:

MH

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[P-12 Norm]

I think we should avoid discussing this until we get an opinion from the 4th Circuit.

Otherwise, it's idol time wasted we could be using to Stop SB281.

We need to focus only on SB281. The Woolard Decision is taken care of, and the court will little care about a crowd showing up to dance around with signs. They have lifetime appointments.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

fightinbluhen51 - it's legitimate. They unanimously reversed. PACER has the published opinion up.

Published opinion after argument: Reversed

Thanks...we're aware. When I posted this morning, there was no opinion, no text, just Dave Hardy's "blurb."

I am still in shock and will be reading it tonight (I am still in disbelief that there is absolutely no dissent. Kachalsky didn't have any dissent either IIRC and Moore had one dissent).

 

[HeatSeeker]

Sorry if I am late, but this is the link to the story on WBAL that I read:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51277913/ns/local_news-baltimore_md/

This SUCKS!

 

[foodpoison]

Just found out . Solo sad

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Wow. Just got a chance to read through this. We didn't feel good about this panel, so not many surprises on the outcome. Timing is the only big thing here. The appeals court wants this to be part of the SCOTUS record.

That said, if you gotta lose and go to court, this is an awesome decision. Really.

Look to page 30. They note that the state "clearly demonstrated" that public safety is enhanced by keeping lawful people from carrying public. They don't recite any evidence, other than the depositions of politically appointed police officers. But even better yet, they lay out a laundry list of all the arguments used by gun control advocated nationwide:

• People cannot exercise their right because a thief might take their gun
• People cannot be trusted to exercise their right in Maryland, because they will just kill each other over donuts at Krispy Kreme. Or something.
• People cannot exercise their right because the police might shoot them by accident
• People cannot exercise their right because public safety is harmed when the police waste time chasing "Man With a Gun" calls that are only pesky lawful citizens that are doing nothing wrong.
• People cannot exercise their right because the police would have to figure out if a person carrying a firearm was truly a lawful person - it is far easier to just ban the exercise of a right simply to make it easier on the police. This way, every man with a gun is a criminal!

Loving this.



Look, going to the Supreme Court is something we all recognize needs to happen. One way or the other - win or lose - we know that this controversy needs a final answer. If you are going to go, go BIG.


This is a laundry list that will be entered into the record. Kachalsky, Woollard...whatever. The court will have all of it, and the parties will argue the merits of this decision ad nauseum. That means the court might actually address them, individually or in toto.


Look at the above findings. Assume we were to "win" shall-issue in SCOTUS next year. Now look at the list again. This is a list of the the top things likely to be used to try to restrict carry in unfriendly states, via Time, Place and Manner (TPM) restrictions.



I am of the opinion we go big or go home. There are times when you string out the question to not overwhelm, but frankly in this case we got a decision worthy of review. I am not usually called impatient, but these are questions worth asking and answering - even if we don't always like the outcome.


Anyways...if you gotta lose, you might as well "lose big". Remember - like Heller and McDonald, it is the final outcome we are seeking.

Does the 4th look at these possibilities en banc and say "woah...you morons on the panel, what were you thinking?" and reverse the reversal?

Meaning, do they stem the bleeding for the state and NY via potential over rule?

Also, where in the timing pattern are we? Assume Kachalsky is granted cert, or it is re-listed to a later conference this term, 60 days from now is May 20th. That's roughly a month for the court to conference. Chances are Maryland will be granted an extension, so in reality, Woollard will not see conference until next fall. Of course, with Gura handling both Kachalsky and Woollard, they could grant Kachalsky this term, with a tentative scheduled briefing schedule for the summer / early fall and oral arguments sometime this fall and hold Woollard.

I guess the question is, does Gura ask for en banc or roll the dice and just petition SCOTUS at this point?

 

[AliasNeo07]

Blah. I'm terrified of this going to the SCOTUS even though we all knew it would, eventually.

The Supreme Court is far from a lock for constitutional issues these days and has the possibility of leaning hard left by the time this gets there.

 

[HeatSeeker]

All this waiting for 3 Jack Asses to over turn a legitimate ruling on the 2A. As far as these people are concerned the 2A and the Constitution is nothing more than a guideline to base their decisions on.

 

[annihilation-time]

This just goes to show that there's no promise we can beat anything in the courts. We need to harness our anger and fight harder than ever to defeat SB0281.

 

[USAFRavenR6]

Why not? We know what the constitution says, just like the rest of the country who is afforded the ability to carry. Why would we not want to go to the big show? Look at Illinois, they recently lost the case and are being forced to implement a program to issue carry permits. Granted, they may have a "G&S" provision in there but overall they lost. F it, lets get this over with and take it to the high court of the land.

 

[doneyd67]

Wow, Im speechless. I have been in a meeting all day and when I get back to my desk I read this topic. Unreal. Id be lieing if I said I was not floored by this decision. Have we gotten anything from MSI yet on this?

I sae Emily Miller post it on her facebook page that they killed it ...damn....

 

[JohnnyE]

While we didn't get the opinion we wanted, if we had, it might have helped rally the anti's against us on SB281. They would scream about everyone having a gun in their pocket, so there is a need to act now on common sense gun con... blah, blah, blah. At least our current task didn't get made more difficult.

 

[doneyd67]

saw....

 

[Marksman]

As if it was needed...yet another reason why the 'Free State' is such a BS nickname....

Maybe we can get a bill proposed to change it. Seriously, I'm sure one of our pro-2A legislators would sponsor that for the next legislative session!

Any suggestions on what we can change it to?

 

[Marksman]

Sorry if I am late, but this is the link to the story on WBAL that I read:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51277913/ns/local_news-baltimore_md/

This SUCKS!

I'm gonna go home and vomit now...