SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

[annihilation-time]

Anyone see this yet?

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7239

Yes:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=72499

 

[Patrick]

Sort of.

Wollard is sueing for his permit. His permit thus becomes the relief he seeks from the court. He's not sueing for money or anything.

If this bill were to pass; the MSP could approve his permit, thus he gets the relief he seeks.

But since the bill is subjective about how the MSP may deny permits, they could approve his permit, then go back to denying.

So we would then have to go back to the beginning and resue.

Actually, part of the relief requested is striking the Good and Substantial requirement entirely. While the case is about Woollard and his permit (as-applied), all counsel acknowledge it is also more general (facial) than that.

Were the judge to grant the plaintiff prayer for relief, Maryland would be a Shall-Issue state at that time. At least until they came up with something else.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Actually, part of the relief requested is striking the Good and Substantial requirement entirely. While the case is about Woollard and his permit (as-applied), all counsel acknowledge it is also more general (facial) than that.

Were the judge to grant the plaintiff prayer for relief, Maryland would be a Shall-Issue state at that time. At least until they came up with something else.

Could the judge rule in Woollard's favor, and fail to strike the G&S clause?

(This is a bit of a loaded question, because I'm sure that the argument and opinion could be manufactured to partially dismiss Woollard's case while granting just him relief, and thus starting the whole process all over again).

 

[faze]

I wrote every representative for Baltimore and Harford counties. Seems like I am getting some support for this... You guys should do it too! Write EVERYBODY otherwise you won't be heard.

Contact info here: http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/sendist.html

 

[Norton]

I wrote every representative for Baltimore and Harford counties. Seems like I am getting some support for this... You guys should do it too! Write EVERYBODY otherwise you won't be heard.

Contact info here: http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/sendist.html

They have no effect on the outcome of a court case.

 

[faze]

They have no effect on the outcome of a court case.

They can leverage legislature that rescinds the current CCW law.

 

[E.Shell]

They can leverage legislature that rescinds the current CCW law.

This is not the best solution, and is, in fact, no solution at all.

Please try to understand that WE NEED THE COURTS to strike down this requirement on Constitutional grounds.

If the legislature is given the opportunity to change the law by it's own volition and escape a verdict, there is NOTHING stopping it from changing it back again later. We lose all the ground we seem to have gained, and then some.

In other words, if we take the legislative handout as a solution, we forfeit our RIGHTS and can never win what is ours as Citizens.

This is the problem with HB 45. The intent is good, the method sucks.

As simple as that concept is, many folks seem to miss it and are eager to take whatever scraps our Masters will toss us, dragging everyone down with them.

 

[faze]

This is not the best solution, and is, in fact, no solution at all.

Please try to understand that WE NEED THE COURTS to strike down this requirement on Constitutional grounds.

If the legislature is given the opportunity to change the law by it's own volition and escape a verdict, there is NOTHING stopping it from changing it back again later. We lose all the ground we seem to have gained, and then some.

In other words, if we take the legislative handout as a solution, we forfeit our RIGHTS and can never win what is ours as Citizens.

This is the problem with HB 45. The intent is good, the method sucks.

As simple as that concept is, many folks seem to miss it and are eager to take whatever scraps our Masters will toss us, dragging everyone down with them.

Well I got this from a state representative...

The best option in my opinion is to legislatively remove the restrictions for obtaining a permit. This would be along the lines of saying that any Marylander who hasn’t been convicted of a felony, is of sound mind, has no alcohol or drug dependencies, etc. can be issued a permit. This would do away with the current restrictions such as documented threat on a person’s life or the carrying of large sums of money that you mentioned in your first email. Legislation to this effect has been introduced in previous sessions and I have supported it, but it has, unfortunately, not gotten very far. I will continue to support these efforts and, hopefully, over time we will bring more people to our side on this legislation. I hope that helps to answer your question.

 

[PJDiesel]

Well I got this from a state representative...

Would you mind disclosing which one?

 

[faze]

Would you mind disclosing which one?

Eric Bromwell.

I also have gotten support from Rick Impallaria and Joseph Boteler,

 

[Jim Sr]

This is not the best solution, and is, in fact, no solution at all.

Please try to understand that WE NEED THE COURTS to strike down this requirement on Constitutional grounds.

If the legislature is given the opportunity to change the law by it's own volition and escape a verdict, there is NOTHING stopping it from changing it back again later. We lose all the ground we seem to have gained, and then some.

In other words, if we take the legislative handout as a solution, we forfeit our RIGHTS and can never win what is ours as Citizens.

This is the problem with HB 45. The intent is good, the method sucks.

As simple as that concept is, many folks seem to miss it and are eager to take whatever scraps our Masters will toss us, dragging everyone down with them.

​

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

I've got to agree with the wait-and-see folks. I like legislative solutions better than judicial decrees, but we are in a delicate situation here. There's no RKBA in our Constitution, so this cannot be handled domestically -- we need federal courts to instruct our legislature about what is and is not permissible under the US Constitution. I wouldn't object to amending our Constitution to add RKBA, though... has it been tried since 1867?

 

[haoleboy]

Well I got this from a state representative...

The best option in my opinion is to legislatively add more restrictions for obtaining a permit. This would be along the lines of saying that any Marylander who hasn’t been convicted of a felony, is of sound mind, has no alcohol or drug dependencies, etc. can not be issued a permit because those things are not qualifiers. This would also do away with the current restrictions such as documented threat on a person’s life or the carrying of large sums of money as qualifiers. Legislation to this effect has been introduced in previous sessions and I have supported it, because I feel, as many of my colleages do, that no one but the Military and Police should have a firearm in the state of MD. I will continue to support anti-gun efforts and, hopefully, over time we will bring more people to our side on this legislation. I hope that helps to answer your question.

Fixed it for you. This is what E. Shell was trying to say.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Eric Bromwell.

I also have gotten support from Rick Impallaria and Joseph Boteler,

You are in my district then. And yeah, those are primarily good guys.

The problem is, a court ruling would be absolutely binding upon the state. If need be, the US Marshal service can force the state to abide by the court's ruling (or us citizens could probably apply, be denied, and then carry without impunity, provided things go our way).

Wiggle room created by the legislature, is nothing more than more tyranny of good intentions.

 

[faze]

You are in my district then. And yeah, those are primarily good guys.

The problem is, a court ruling would be absolutely binding upon the state. If need be, the US Marshal service can force the state to abide by the court's ruling (or us citizens could probably apply, be denied, and then carry without impunity, provided things go our way).

Wiggle room created by the legislature, is nothing more than more tyranny of good intentions.

So what can I do to push this hard? This law is bullcrap.

Fixed it for you. This is what E. Shell was trying to say.

If you say so...

 

[E.Shell]

Well I got this from a state representative...

As a state representative, of course this DOES present the best option, because it leaves them in control of YOUR rights. "Hold on, don't demand your rights, it's not necessary, let us give you a privilege to stop all this bickering (for now).".

It is NOT your best option, which is actually to have MD compelled to respect our Constitutionally enumerated rights as a United States Citizen. The sooner this happens, the better. We do not want to fight this same fight again after the next legislative session.

I guess I cannot explain it clearly enough, but there is a VERY distinct difference in how we would procure a guarantee from the State to respect our rights.

If we force it and win, it's over, completely, and never again can they infringe upon our rights in this manner. Grasp the actual meaning of this solution.

If legislature is allowed/encouraged/requested to change the law now, there is nothing to stop them from changing it back during their next mood swing. We can easily we can find ourselves right back here, but years behind our current progress and with a potentially less Constitutionally minded court system to drag through.

 

[faze]

As a state representative, of course this DOES present the best option, because it leaves them in control of YOUR rights. "Hold on, don't demand your rights, it's not necessary, let us give you a privilege to stop all this bickering (for now).".

It is NOT your best option, which is actually to have MD compelled to respect our Constitutionally enumerated rights as a United States Citizen. The sooner this happens, the better. We do not want to fight this same fight again after the next legislative session.

I guess I cannot explain it clearly enough, but there is a VERY distinct difference in how we would procure a guarantee from the State to respect our rights.

If we force it and win, it's over, completely, and never again can they infringe upon our rights in this manner. Grasp the actual meaning of this solution.

If legislature is allowed/encouraged/requested to change the law now, there is nothing to stop them from changing it back during their next mood swing. We can easily we can find ourselves right back here, but years behind our current progress and with a potentially less Constitutionally minded court system to drag through.

Good insight, I guess there's not much I can do except paying their salaries and continue to have my rights infringed upon.

 

[PJDiesel]

Coming up on 200 pages......

Is there an option to NEVER file an opinion?

 

[faze]

Coming up on 200 pages......

Is there an option to NEVER file an opinion?

They don't care, they'll just tell you that your opinion is noted and it will be considered in the next session.

 

[paulstitz]

They don't care, they'll just tell you that your opinion is noted and it will be considered in the next session.

PJ is talking about Judge Legg.

Have you read the entire thread?