Life after Post Legg, CA4 decision

[Inigoes]

As one who applied for a MD handgun permit When Judge legg issued his opinion, and before it was struck down by the CA4.

We are currently in the processor (for a lack of better terms), going through informal reviews by the MSP and scheduling hearings with the permit review board.

Snowden v Handgun Permit Review Board

Scherr v. Handgun Review

One thing, I did not see based on MD case law, was just attacking the "Good and Substantial reason".

Would it be feasible to file a suit to have "Self-Defense" classified as a "Good and Substantial reason"? We would not change any laws.

Heller stated that "Self-Defense" is core to the right.

 

[press1280]

As one who applied for a MD handgun permit When Judge legg issued his opinion, and before it was struck down by the CA4.

We are currently in the processor (for a lack of better terms), going through informal reviews by the MSP and scheduling hearings with the permit review board.

Snowden v Handgun Permit Review Board

Scherr v. Handgun Review

One thing, I did not see based on MD case law, was just attacking the "Good and Substantial reason".

Would it be feasible to file a suit to have "Self-Defense" classified as a "Good and Substantial reason"? We would not change any laws.

Heller stated that "Self-Defense" is core to the right.

I believe that's basically what the current suits are about. I'm sure Gura wouldn't mind if the court says G & S can stay as long as "self-defense" qualifies.

 

[Mr H]

And MSP will say they already have "self defense" as a consideration under the "apprehended danger" option... IF you can prove you're ready to be killed.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Yes , BUT !! Md's Handgun Permit scheme is vulnerable on multiple Constitutional grounds.

All the 2A groups have been putting all their eggs in the 2A basket. Ie thating the pure 2A view that setting requirements of "G&S" at all is inherently wrong no matter how it is applied.

The other hypothetical aproach is to conceede that while some form of G&S is permissable , but that if it were administered fairly and equally then you ( and a buncha others) would rightly qualify as G&S , and thus receive permits.

But I doubt that any 2A group would support you , and you are conceeding on 2A , while apealing on 14A grounds. And it would be a major shift for any Md based 14A advocacy group to step up.

 

[Inigoes]

I believe that's basically what the current suits are about. I'm sure Gura wouldn't mind if the court says G & S can stay as long as "self-defense" qualifies.

Woolard is challenging 5-306.

I am only looking for someone to define self defense as a good and substantial reason. Without changing any laws.

Baby steps, one at a time.

 

[press1280]

Yes , BUT !! Md's Handgun Permit scheme is vulnerable on multiple Constitutional grounds.

All the 2A groups have been putting all their eggs in the 2A basket. Ie thating the pure 2A view that setting requirements of "G&S" at all is inherently wrong no matter how it is applied.

The other hypothetical aproach is to conceede that while some form of G&S is permissable , but that if it were administered fairly and equally then you ( and a buncha others) would rightly qualify as G&S , and thus receive permits.

But I doubt that any 2A group would support you , and you are conceeding on 2A , while apealing on 14A grounds. And it would be a major shift for any Md based 14A advocacy group to step up.

Before Heller and McDonald, attacking G & S (and its similiar statutes in other states) would have been through 14A equal protection, by getting the statements of successful applicants and making them public so those with similiar cause could also be successful. It could work up to a point, however, I think that should be considered only a backup plan in a worst case scenario. You could end up cutting out some arbitrariness, but still people would end up being denied because they weren't in the right profession exc. We do see that angle pushed(though not very hard) in the current lawsuits, and the courts haven't been very receptive towards it.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I'm not trying to say which aproach is *right* , but I will try to throw out some parameters of what we're potentially speaking of.

States with Shall Issue have issue rates ranging from 1% to 3% of overall population. There are postulated to be a number of interacting factors , but cost & inconvience of getting permit , and what degree of carry and transport allowed w/o permit are certainly factors.

With the spread of Shall Issue , there aren't many areas left to study with may issue that actully issue in meaningful numbers. The primary ones being parts of Northern Cali , and parts of Upstate NY .

Some of those Counties in Cali issue at rate of about 0.5% , or about half that of Shall Issue. At first glance that seems bad compared to Freedom. But that is exponential increase over Md. If Md did similar , it would issue 150,000 plus permits , or about a 1200% increase.

There is enough presedence of politicians packing , to include their kids receiving a crank phone call as being not only G&S , but worthy of expedited issue , that applying the same to citizens would result in many thousands of "personal protection" permits. And business related would mushroom far beyond the current bank deposit , and "business currency" dance into widespread approval for valuable tools , merchandise , samples , bad neighborhoods , etc. I once talked with someone from Upstate who had had a business related permit for selling magazine subscriptions door to door.

Is Equal Protection the ultimate answer ? Nope. Could it be a massive harm reduction for Marylanders ? Yup.

 

[OEH]

IIRC SAF cited both 2A and 14thA claims in the original Wollard filings. Judge Legg never ruled on the 14thA claims because his opinion was that the 2A claims were all that was needed to get rid of G&S (paraphrasing). If SCOUTS does not accept Wollard for Cert, can SAF refile Wollard on the 14thA grounds that were never ruled upon?

 

[press1280]

IIRC SAF cited both 2A and 14thA claims in the original Wollard filings. Judge Legg never ruled on the 14thA claims because his opinion was that the 2A claims were all that was needed to get rid of G&S (paraphrasing). If SCOUTS does not accept Wollard for Cert, can SAF refile Wollard on the 14thA grounds that were never ruled upon?

I suppose they could but if we got to that point (which would mean the CA and NJ lawsuits also bit the dust) we'd be in a real bad position.

 

[Inigoes]

District of Columbia v. Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."


McDonald v. Chicago http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

• "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right"
  
• "Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the an-swer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day"
  
• self-defense was “the central component of the Opinion of the Court right itself.” Ibid.

Any federal/State/Local court accepts self-defense as a natural right.

Self-defense is the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm, or to a lesser extent, one's property, from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a defense to a criminal charge or to tort liability. To establish the defense, the person must be free from fault or provocation, must have no means of escape or retreat, and there must be an impending peril.

The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to prolong the attack or use excessive force. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/self-defense/

Yet, Maryland refuses to accept self-defense as a good and substantial reason.

 

[Mr H]

District of Columbia v. Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."


McDonald v. Chicago http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

• "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right"
  
• "Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the an-swer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day"
  
• self-defense was “the central component of the Opinion of the Court right itself.” Ibid.

Any federal/State/Local court accepts self-defense as a natural right.

Self-defense is the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm, or to a lesser extent, one's property, from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a defense to a criminal charge or to tort liability. To establish the defense, the person must be free from fault or provocation, must have no means of escape or retreat, and there must be an impending peril.

The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to prolong the attack or use excessive force. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/self-defense/

Yet, Maryland refuses to accept self-defense as a good and substantial reason.

Nicely assembled.

May I print and send this in with my informal hearing request??

 

[Inigoes]

Nicely assembled.

May I print and send this in with my informal hearing request??

Sure, let us know how it works

 

[Mr H]

Sure, let us know how it works

It probably won't!!

But, it's stuff they need to know that we know.

 

[Inigoes]

It probably won't!!

But, it's stuff they need to know that we know.

I'm wondering, if a low level lawsuit to get a judge to opine "self-defense" is suitable for a good and substantial reason, so something is on the record for the MSP to point at.

 

[Mr H]

I'm adding Legg's "The Right's existence" quote to it as well.

 

[Inigoes]

I'm adding Legg's "The Right's existence" quote to it as well.

No matter how powerful the quote was, it was essentially erased by the CA4 decision.

 

[Inigoes]

I this little gem

openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the
Second Amendment.

TAB BONIDY, and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
PATRICK DONAHOE, Postmaster General, and
MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colorado,
Defendants.

Bonidy Opinion.pdf

 

[MJD438]

I this little gem



TAB BONIDY, and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
PATRICK DONAHOE, Postmaster General, and
MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colorado,
Defendants.

Bonidy Opinion.pdf

That was a quick, and interesting read. It will make a nice addition to my HPRB request package. Thanks for posting!