MSI v. Hogan - The Challenge Against the Handgun Qualification License Proceeds

[teratos]

No, not the same thing. Bruen expressly allows States to use "shall issue" permits for carry outside the home. The HQL applies to the right to acquire a handgun for use solely in the home. Different historical tradition. Listen to the argument.

Didn’t Bruen say it was “presumptively legal”?

 

[esqappellate]

Didn’t Bruen say it was “presumptively legal”?

Actually it was quite clear. See footnote 9: "To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “'shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].'”

 

[dblas]

When the State loses the HQL don’t think they will appeal. I think they just let it go. Time is on our side. A decision tomorrow would be great but the MGA sitting on their hands hoping for en blanc or scotus would be stupid.

It would be the MGA, not their call, it would the AGs call.

Heck since people can get an HQ L with a HGP, almost makes it not worth the trouble or cost to fight. Don’t get me wrong, i said almost. We need the HQL gone, but the JV team should be able to handle from here.

My bet is they will not go so easily, fighting, screaming, stomping their feet "but it's for public safety" the whole way.

 

[teratos]

Actually it was quite clear. See footnote 9: "To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “'shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].'”

Thanks!!

 

[pcfixer]

Didn’t Bruen say it was “presumptively legal”?

That's language written by Kavanaugh, J concurring
[Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]

Following paragraph.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 626−627, and n. 26 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 786 (plurality opinion). * * * With those additional comments, I join the opinion of the Court.

 

[teratos]

That's language written by Kavanaugh, J concurring
[Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]

Ah, thanks.

 

[pcfixer]

Ah, thanks.

I posted this for you, My friend.

 

[6-Pack]

She may have thought they were discussing a W&C permit instead of a permit to buy.

She was getting caught up that the state “shall issue” an HQL if a person meets the criteria. Despite the appellant explaining, numerous times, that the HQL is not a carry permit, I don’t think she understood.

 

[swinokur]

Federal Appellate judge doesn’t understand the issue,

SMH

 

[smokey]

When the State loses the HQL don’t think they will appeal. I think they just let it go. Time is on our side. A decision tomorrow would be great but the MGA sitting on their hands hoping for en blanc or scotus would be stupid. Heck since people can get an HQ L with a HGP, almost makes it not worth the trouble or cost to fight. Don’t get me wrong, i said almost. We need the HQL gone, but the JV team should be able to handle from here.

Time is not on our side. We have kindve lucked out that circumstance has gifted us the SC. Are you confident the next SC justice appointed is going to be appointed by someone that's pro 2a? While the courts have swung in our favor, demographics through our nation trend bluer in the legislative bodies. The courts are the dam holding back a flood of infringements.

If/when the SC falls, we could be knocked back decades in one legislative session.

 

[teratos]

Federal Appellate judge doesn’t understand the issue,

SMH

Probably doesn’t want to understand the issue. Guns=bad.

 

[Bob A]

Probably doesn’t want to understand the issue. Guns=bad.

So much for actually doing her job.

Promoted to her level of incompetence, per the Peter Principle? Or promoted for her support for The Agenda, per the Soros/Bloomberg Axis?

 

[Allen65]

Actually it was quite clear. See footnote 9: "To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “'shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].'”

But does that language mean they're finding all existing shall-issue schemes constitutional, or are they just saying Bruen does not address the constitutionality of each specific shall-issue permitting scheme already in use?

 

[Threeband]

So much for actually doing her job.

Promoted to her level of incompetence, per the Peter Principle? Or promoted for her support for The Agenda, per the Soros/Bloomberg Axis?

Obama appointee.

She sounds like an old Second Wave Feminist.


She got in a snit over the idea of a school requiring female students to wear skirts, offering an absurdly fallacious misrepresentation of the issue to justify her position:



Keenan strongly dissented in part in an August 9, 2021 decision which ruled that a charter school's policy to force female students to wear dresses or skirts did not violate Title IX, despite allowing the Title IX lawsuit to continue. Keenan explained "No, this is not 1821 or 1921. It’s 2021. Women serve in combat units of our armed forces. Women walk in space and contribute their talents at the International Space Station. Women serve on our country’s Supreme Court, in Congress, and, today, a woman is Vice President of the United States. Yet, girls in certain public schools in North Carolina are required to wear skirts to comply with the outmoded and illogical viewpoint that courteous behavior on the part of both sexes cannot be achieved unless girls wear clothing that reinforces sex stereotypes and signals that girls are not as capable and resilient as boys."

Barbara Milano Keenan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fabsroman]

Judge Barbara Milano Keenan was the female judge on the panel today - she seemed to think that the case should be remanded back down.

Based on what I heard today, I think it will be 2/1 in our favor - she seemed to be working to try to help counsel for Maryland make his argument.

If the HQL is overturned, that's an awesome step forward, but sad that it took a full decade and precedent of a major SCOTUS decision to undo it.

When it gets overturned, I'm going to ceremoniously burn my HQL card.

When it gets overturned, I am calling Brian at SCSGs and seeing how much a Beretta 92X Performance and Colt Python are going to cost me. I'll probably buy both. Might buy a Beretta 80X too if it will not result in divorce.

Of course, when I told my wife about Bruen, her response was, "So, you are telling me that we didn't have to buy all those guns in 2013!!!!!!!!!" Man, I was thinking, "Bruen means I get to buy more assault weapons and handguns!!!!!!!!!!" Funny how different minds view something. lol

As far as when we are going to see an opinion on this, it is going to be months. Believe it has been months since the oral arguments on Bianchi and there still isn't an opinion. The 4th Circuit published an opinion a week or two ago, from a case that had oral argument in late October. I believe Bianchi had oral argument at the beginning of December.

So, don't hold your breath on the HQL going away in a day or two.

 

[esqappellate]

But does that language mean they're finding all existing shall-issue schemes constitutional, or are they just saying Bruen does not address the constitutionality of each specific shall-issue permitting scheme already in use?

No, they were not opining on all 43 of these schemes, but noting only that these 43 did not require a special reason for the permit other than self-defense and hence were different than the may issue scheme at issue in the case. The particular merits of each shall issue scheme was not before them. Footnote 9 emphasizes that unreasonable requirements like huge fees or long wait times in any shall issue schemes are subject to challenge.

 

[Blacksmith101]

I posted this for you, My friend.

Footnote 9 is on page 30.
Footnote 26 is on page 55.

 

[press1280]

No, they were not opining on all 43 of these schemes, but noting only that these 43 did not require a special reason for the permit other than self-defense and hence were different than the may issue scheme at issue in the case. The particular merits of each shall issue scheme was not before them. Footnote 9 emphasizes that unreasonable requirements like huge fees or long wait times in any shall issue schemes are subject to challenge.

I wonder how they'd view MD's scheme of requiring 16 hours of training for the initial license, plus 8 hours every 2 years, factoring in the permit and training costs?
Not to mention the state passing this law after Woollard.

 

[coinboy]

But, but, FOOTNOTE #9!!

 

[Biggfoot44]

It would be the MGA, not their call, it would the AGs call.

True , But .......

Significant overlap in the guidance of their common Party Bosses .