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

[saberwuf]

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.

Finally, Woollard‘s equal protection challenge is, in part, an effort to obtain review under a more stringent standard than the intermediate scrutiny the Court has already found to be appropriate.

 

[aberforth]

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.

Patrick, correct me if I'm wrong but you're quoting from Mr. Gura's MSJ (dated 2/18/11). In Judge Legg's Opinion (dated 3/2/12) he explicitly calls out Intermediate as the form of scrutiny he, as a judge in the 4th, is using to decide the case.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

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!

BADASS!

Wonder if it pays to download the app today, and get it ready to go, wait to hear "stay and appeal cert, denied."

I'll be walking into pikesville and handing off, in person. (I guess bending over ala Bart Simpson style, would be frowned upon).

 

[bbgunn177]

Watch as see, the State is crying poor mouth and trying to raise taxes and fees as fast as they can. They won't think twice about spending Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars or even a Million or more to appeal and drag this out. They only love unconstitution rulings when they benefit their belief system. Clearly this UNCONSTITUTIONAL law/requirement of a good and substantial now has their panties in a wad.

State of Maryland CCW Permit - $124
Legal Fees to Defend Marylands UNCONSTITUTIONAL Permit System - $500,000+
To be a fly on the wall in Frosh's Office, O'Malley's Office and Gansler's Office - Priceless

 

[Hopalong]

So after last week in Maryland, The People can get married regardless of their gender and exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless of their political standing.

"The Free State" really is becoming free again....

 

[Mike OTDP]

Oh, my. This is what victory feels like. :-)

 

[MDFF2008]

So after last week in Maryland, The People can get married regardless of their gender and exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless of their political standing.

"The Free State" really is becoming free again....

 

[ToneGrail]

I can't stop smiling!

 

[Sev]

I will celebrate when I can send in my application knowing it won't get denied.

Until then, I'll just sit and be pleased

 

[Plinkey]

I guess I picked a bad time to start a job assignment in California.

 

[K-Romulus]

Patrick, correct me if I'm wrong but you're quoting from Mr. Gura's MSJ (dated 2/18/11). In Judge Legg's Opinion (dated 3/2/12) he explicitly calls out Intermediate as the form of scrutiny he, as a judge in the 4th, is using to decide the case.

I agree with this, as page 17 of the opinion says:

ii. Intermediate Scrutiny

As stated, Maryland‘s permitting scheme, insofar as it requires a good and substantial‖ reason for a law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm outside his home, is subject to intermediate scrutiny. In order to prevail, the State must demonstrate that the challenged regulation is reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest. Under this standard, the degree of fit‖ between the regulation and ―the well-established goal of promoting public safety need not be perfect; it must only be substantial. Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179, 191 (D.D.C. 2010).

But I will take it. The only hiccup is this from pages 20-21:

The Court wishes to emphasize the limits of this decision. While it finds Maryland‘s requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate good and substantial reason‖ to be unconstitutional, the Court does not address any of the State‘s other regulations relating to the possession and use of firearms, many of which would qualify as presumptively lawful. Nor does the Court speculate as to whether a law that required a good and substantial reason only of law-abiding citizens who wish to carry a concealed handgun would be constitutional.11 . . . .

n.11 Maryland law does not differentiate between open and concealed use, but some courts have held that states have a greater interest in reducing the number of concealed handguns because of their disproportionate involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence, particularly in streets and other public places. Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1117 (S.D. Cal. 2010).

We will have to see how this plays out in both the 4th Cir. and the MD Legislature (which is still in session, and I am 100% positive would have no trouble allowing new bills after the already passed deadlines). . . I am sure the legislature will come up with some sort of hurdle, possibly to even differentiate open v. concealed carry permits.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

So after last week in Maryland, The People can get married regardless of their gender and exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless of their political standing.

"The Free State" really is becoming free again....

I'll double up on the

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Best one week late birthday present, btw.

 

[MDFF2008]

The Chair of the House Rules Committee has campaigned as a pro-2A friend.

 

[MJD438]

Patrick, correct me if I'm wrong but you're quoting from Mr. Gura's MSJ (dated 2/18/11). In Judge Legg's Opinion (dated 3/2/12) he explicitly calls out Intermediate as the form of scrutiny he, as a judge in the 4th, is using to decide the case.

I would agree with this one -

Woollard‘s asserted right falls within this same category of non-core Second Amendment protection. He already enjoys an unchallenged right to possess a handgun in his home; but, like Masciandaro, he also seeks to carry one into the wider world for general self-defense. The statute he challenges, therefore, is properly viewed through the lens of intermediate scrutiny, which places the burden on the Government to demonstrate a reasonable fit between the statute and a substantial governmental interest. See Chester, 628 F.3d at 683.

 

[Sev]

surprise surprise, nothing in the washington post yet

 

[aberforth]

surprise surprise, nothing in the washington post yet

Not just the WP, I haven't seen anything in any mainstream news outlet (including local). Then again I'm sick in bed with a stomach bug, so I haven't been looking too hard.

 

[Klunatic]

YEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA.... I am going to get my finger prints and application filled out today. I am willing to blow a $124 to first in line and take the chance the decision gets stayed. Might even head down the Rockville barracks today! Wonder how happy the MSP will be to see me.....?

 

[ChrisR/T]

So, I'm assuming I should download the application and send it in citing this ruling?

 

[Hopalong]

My favorite section from the ruling so far:

"The Maryland statute‘s failure lies in the overly broad means by which it seeks to advance this undoubtedly legitimate end. The requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate ―good and substantial reason to carry a handgun does not, for example, advance the interests of public safety by ensuring that guns are kept out of the hands of those adjudged most likely to misuse them, such as criminals or the mentally ill. It does not ban handguns from places where the possibility of mayhem is most acute, such as schools, churches, government buildings, protest gatherings, or establishments that serve alcohol. It does not attempt to reduce accidents, as would a requirement that all permit applicants complete a safety course. It does not even, as some other States‘ laws do, limit the carrying of handguns to persons deemed ―suitable by denying a permit to anyone ―whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun."

THAT right there is the kind of stuff we needed to see in a ruling. Way to go Judge Legg!

EDIT: Emphasis added by me