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

[MDFF2008]

becareful with that advice right now, the stats aren't going to help much and the denial that is sure to come on most cases might prohibit the denied person from getting permits in other states that have questions on their application like "have you ever been denied a firearms permit before?"

There are conflicting reports on if being denied for a Maryland CCW affects your applications.

Some have reported it raises a red flag; while others have reported that Maryland's attitude is own and a denial can be ignored if it was for the subjective part.

 

[P-12 Norm]

I've been telling everyone, he is in hibernation.

Groundhog Day for the decision to be made public. They will have Punxsutawney Phil read it out loud.

"Here ye, Here ye.....oh look, my shadow!!"

Funny, but I would not be surprised if Legg did do that...

 

[krucam]

#49 was the latest on the Docket. I'd expect Jensen/SAF to comment on this one....or maybe not...

Quoting myself...sorry. SAF DID decide to respond to the NJ-pfft-cision today....among other things.

01/23/2012 50[RECAP] NOTICE by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Raymond Woollard re 48[RECAP] Notice (Other), 21[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 49[RECAP] Notice (Other), 25[RECAP] Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment of Supplemental Authority, and response to Defendants' Notices (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 01/23/2012)

Brief:
NOTICE OF NEWLY DECIDED AUTHORITY, AND REPLY TO
DEFENDANTS’ CITATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

The Newly Decided Authority that Pltf's present is the recent Chapman decision at CA4, which ran along the lines of Chester.
See: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=74102

They bring up US v Staten, also recently decided in CA4, along the lines of Chapman & Chester. I need to look into Staten unfortunately. There's a good overview in today's brief.

Finally, Pltf's bring up the very recent and very favorable CA1 Opinion in US v Rehlander, covering Mental Illness and Involuntary Commitments not necessarily cutting it for firearm prohibition.
See: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=73690

In a quick "Shot" at the Defendants...

3. Defendants’ Citations
Defendants have taken issue with Plaintiffs’ responses to their persistent citation of supplemental authority. Plaintiffs agree there is no need for further briefing. However, it is accepted practice in many courts to offer some minimal explanation of supplemental authority so that the court is not left guessing as to the authority’s relevance, or lack thereof.

They then go on to begin the summary dismantling of NJ's Piszczatoski case...I won't spoil it and it is well worth the read.

 

[press1280]

I have heard from several folks present at the NJ oral arguments that the judge was very biased, and this supplemental authority points this out along with all the other problems of that opinion.

 

[Lightning]

NOTICE OF NEWLY DECIDED AUTHORITY, AND REPLY TO
DEFENDANTS’ CITATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY[/URL].

Nice read!!!! Gura and Hansel are truly gifted and articulate their points extraordinary well.

 

[Al Norris]

It is manifestly clear that, regrettably, many courts simply refuse to follow Heller and McDonald. They read ambiguity into Heller’s clear sources, decline to apply Heller’s constitutional definitions, declare for no logical reason that the case was limited to its facts, or outright refuse to develop the law of the Second Amendment as though the Supreme Court were, for this one Constitutional provision, the court of first resort.

Ouch! That was meant to hurt.

 

[MDresident]

I was posting facetiously. I am, like everyone else, patiently awaiting the uneventuality.

 

[press1280]

There are conflicting reports on if being denied for a Maryland CCW affects your applications.

Some have reported it raises a red flag; while others have reported that Maryland's attitude is own and a denial can be ignored if it was for the subjective part.

Depends on the state. Some don't even ask that question on the application, so it's unlikely they could deny you for it.

 

[pcfixer]

Quoting myself...sorry. SAF DID decide to respond to the NJ-pfft-cision today....among other things.


Brief:
NOTICE OF NEWLY DECIDED AUTHORITY, AND REPLY TO
DEFENDANTS’ CITATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

The Newly Decided Authority that Pltf's present is the recent Chapman decision at CA4, which ran along the lines of Chester.
See: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=74102

They bring up US v Staten, also recently decided in CA4, along the lines of Chapman & Chester. I need to look into Staten unfortunately. There's a good overview in today's brief.

Finally, Pltf's bring up the very recent and very favorable CA1 Opinion in US v Rehlander, covering Mental Illness and Involuntary Commitments not necessarily cutting it for firearm prohibition.
See: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=73690

In a quick "Shot" at the Defendants...



They then go on to begin the summary dismantling of NJ's Piszczatoski case...I won't spoil it and it is well worth the read.

After reading that brief, I'd think it is abundantly clear that the right to carry concealed is a fundamental right in Maryland. (And I don't have a law degree)

Only a recognition
that law abiding, responsible people have a right to bear arms, meaning that however else it
might be regulated, and accepting fully that it can be licensed and limited in specific
circumstances, this is no longer something to which they must prove their entitlement

 

[teratos]

After reading that brief, I'd think it is abundantly clear that the right to carry concealed is a fundamental right in Maryland. (And I don't have a law degree)

Gotta agree with you on that one. I always enjoy these briefs.

 

[BenL]

More than 4000 posts and 200+ pages, and we're no closer to a real permit system than we were on page 1. The system is truly broken.

 

[haoleboy]

More than 4000 posts, 200+ pages, AND 18 MONTHS LATER and we're no closer to a real permit system than we were on page 1. The system is truly broken.

Fixed

 

[Brychan]

Any bets on how many pages this will go before the judge rules, I say 232.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Any bets on how many pages this will go before the judge rules, I say 232.

228.

My Birthday is on 2/28. Maybe? Just maybe we'll hit 228 and a decision by then?

 

[Auckland]

Any bets on how many pages this will go before the judge rules, I say 232.

I hope not. My screen shows we are only on page 101.

 

[Brychan]

I think your screen is off by 101

 

[Boondock Saint]

I hope not. My screen shows we are only on page 101.

I think your screen is off by 101

Somewhere amongst user settings, you can set it to show either 20 or 40 posts per page, with 20 being the default. Some 4,037 posts divided by 40 posts per page = 101 pages.

 

[jaredm1]

Adjust your settings so that you get more posts per page...less clicking to do.

 

[faze]

Got another b/s reply back:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding gun permits. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me.



Currently, Maryland law states that an individual must have “good and substantial reasons” to wear, carry, or transport a handgun. This reason includes a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger. Last session, there were efforts to overturn this part of the existing state law. House Bill 343 “Public Safety-Handgun Permits-Repeal of Finding Requirements” was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee last March. However, the committee issued an unfavorable report and the law remained unchanged.



I understand your concerns about constitutional rights and personal safety, and appreciate you reaching out to our office. For more information on public safety law, you may find it helpful to contact the House Judiciary Committee. The main office staff may be reached via telephone at 410-841-3488.



Once again, I appreciate your taking the time to write to me about the above matters. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any further questions or concerns.



Sincerely,



Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr.

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

Got another b/s reply back:

Oh, oh, I LOVE those replies! The ones that tell you what you already know, and religiously avoid taking a position? It always comforts me to know that my representatives don't have the nuts to tell me whether they agree with me.