3% of these cases are resolved in 2 weeks.Listening now....what's the timeline on a decision?
what do we know about Agee, Keenan, and Richardson?
Interesting note on the judges this morning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Steven_Agee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Milano_Keenan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_N._Richardson
Agee and Richardson are both right leaning with Richardson being a member of the Federalist Society. Keenan is a gun grabber that wants to ban ARs.
Excellent oral arguments by the MSI attorney. The state attorney was unimpressive, repetitive and as expected, without logic.
He doesn't have to be, there is already precedent on his side...MA, NY, IL and others have required a permission slip to buy a gun for years, in some cases decades...If the court has upheld those why does MSI think Maryland's challenge will change anything?
Today’s discussion wasn’t on the merits. The state was trying to shoot down the notion that any of the parties involved have standing. The state’s representation was having to essentially ignore the two thirds of the panel that saw right through the flimsy argument he was pitching to that end.
Today’s discussion wasn’t on the merits. The state was trying to shoot down the notion that any of the parties involved have standing. The state’s representation was having to essentially ignore the two thirds of the panel that saw right through the flimsy argument he was pitching to that end.
IIRC, until one side or the other submits a notification of change of party, the name would remain (just like it does in my organization's case at SCOTUS).MD’s lawyer also said he was there representing MSP Supt. Pallozzi, who as we all know is no longer the MSP Superintendent.
Actually its a neat trick if the state could pull it off. One does not have standing unless one applies... then one does not have standing unless one is denied. Under their ever moving goalposts only people who are denied the HQL would have standing. Of course they are prohibited, so getting to the merits is no problem in that case.
So, under the state's theory the HQL really can never be challenged. Neat trick, but I think that at least 2 judges saw through it.
OK, but if MSI argument is successful isn't the next step arguing against the constitutionality of the HQL once standing has been re-established?
I believe it would be sent back to the district court so that the merits (constitutionality) can be determined.
It is what happened in Heller. The case was not originally called Heller because there were six plaintiffs in the case. Heller was the only one that actually applied. The other five were denied standing and Heller was the only one allowed to move forward with the merits because he was the only one to apply.
OK, but if MSI argument is successful isn't the next step arguing against the constitutionality of the HQL once standing has been re-established?