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

[Boondock Saint]

It's good. It is a heightened standard of judicial review. Intermediate means the government cannot simply say "guns are bad m'kay."

True. It unfortunately stops short of strict scrutiny, which would have placed even more stringent standards that government would have to satisfy before infringing upon a right. Intermediate scrutiny is just a lower standard; the government still has to show cause.

 

[PJDiesel]

Ummmm,... MASS influx of new apps? I'm in if there is a consensus we have a chance now!

 

[Weak_Hand_Only]

So when is all of this "enforced"? Can they still deny an application using the old standard?

 

[Boxcab]

One more time, because I can...

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Maryland‘s requirement of a ―good and substantial reason‖ for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State‘s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court will, by separate Order of even date, GRANT Woollard‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012

 

[MDFF2008]

So when is all of this "enforced"? Can they still deny an application using the old standard?

Tough to say.

Since the order wasn't stayed; it technically is immediately enforceable, but let's let our legal eagles review it.

 

[annihilation-time]

Glorious!

 

[Plinkey]

So, when can we start applying and cite this decision?

Today?

 

[jac43k]

WOW

 

[annihilation-time]

So when is all of this "enforced"? Can they still deny an application using the old standard?

The way I understand the ruling is that the state is burdened. They must have a substantial reason to deny us a concealed carry permit.

 

[yellowfin]

So is it accurate to say that the Circuit would have an uphill battle trying to disprove the reasoning used by the District decision here, a significant threshold to justify overturning it?

 

[brain juice]

WOW

Couldn't have said it better

 

[paulstitz]

Thank you Mr. Gura and SAF where ever you are!!!!

 

[pcfixer]

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Maryland‘s requirement of a ―good and substantial reason‖ for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State‘s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court will, by separate Order of even date, GRANT Woollard‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012
/s/
_______________________________
Benson Everett Legg
United States District Judge

..

 

[Patrick]

Strict Scrutiny, For The Win!

Not when used properly and not as an enhanced form of rational basis. Judge Legg used Intermediate, then found (using Intermediate analysis) that G&S and individuals having to ask to exercise a Fundamental right fails...

Outside the Home got Intermediate here after referencing thee 4th Ckt's use of Intermediate in Masciandaro. Judge Legg didn't have a lot of choice, but again...using Intermediate properly, a legitimate analysis gave us what was right.

Strict Scrutiny was applied:

The Fourth Circuit is in accord. In Chester, the appellate court confronted the assertion of a Second Amendment right against indictment for the crime of firearms possession by domestic violence misdemeanants. “[W]econclude that intermediate scrutiny is more appropriate than strict scrutiny for Chester and similarly situated persons,” because “his claim is not within the core right identified in Heller—the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense.” Chester, 628 F.3d at __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508 at *26 (emphasis in original). The individual plaintiffs in this action are law-abiding, responsible citizens. Accordingly, the State cannot classify them with respect to the exercise of their Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense in a manner that fails strict scrutiny.



“The right to equal protection of the laws, in the exercise of those freedoms of speech and religion protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, has a firmer foundation than the whims or personal opinions of a local governing body.” Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 272 (1951). Likewise, with the exercise of fundamental Second Amendment freedoms. Defendants’ whims and personal opinions as to who should enjoy Second Amendment rights impermissibly classifies individuals in the exercise of these rights in a completely arbitrary, standardless fashion.




The practice thus fails all aspects of strict scrutiny analysis. There is no compelling state interest in depriving people of the means of self-defense. The state may have an interest in reducing gun violence and accidents, but it cannot presume that the exercise of a constitutional right will cause the sort of harm it is allowed to curtail. Defendants cannot point to the impact of their practice – the deprivation of constitutional rights – as their interest. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 120 (1991).

You all are reading too fast. Understandable.

Intermediate applies to those who are not law-abiding, per Chester. Because Ray is a law-abiding gentleman, his claims are elevated to strict scrutiny.

 

[HarCo2ANewb]

Strict Scrutiny was applied:



You all are reading too fast. Understandable.

Intermediate applies to those who are not law-abiding, per Chester. Because Ray is a law-abiding gentleman, his claims are elevated to strict scrutiny.

Hugs all around!

 

[Plinkey]

Strict Scrutiny was applied:



You all are reading too fast. Understandable.

Intermediate applies to those who are not law-abiding, per Chester. Because Ray is a law-abiding gentleman, his claims are elevated to strict scrutiny.

Wow, did not expect that. I am just starting to read through it.

 

[Patrick]

What this means:

It is a big win. Hell, most of this looks like it would have come from a round-up of our postings.

The state will ask for a stay pending appeal. They would have to demonstrate a strong liklihood of success on the merits of their argument. Judge Legg looks as if he would not do this, as he calls this decision "simple".

The state will need to ask the Fourth Circuit for a stay pending appeal. The 4th will also use the same logic - whether the appeal is likely to succeed on the merits. That call will depend on the judge assigned to review the request - I think such reviews are initially done by a single judge.

Assuming no stay...lock and load your pens and line up for fingerprints!

 

[yellowfin]

Or apply before the stay can be granted.

 

[hodgepodge]

Wow!

I read through the legal opinion, and I guess I'm understanding this as a victory against MD's "May issue for good and substantial" rationale.

I need to send a check to SAF.

 

[Hopalong]

Strict Scrutiny was applied:

I think this, in and of itself, is at least as valuable as the ruling in our favor. Judge Legg just set the precedent that Strict Scrutiny should be applied to carry outside of the home.

Or am I reading too much into that?