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

[Maverick0313]

I'm gathering that the stay IS in place, and the light that I thought I saw at the end of the tunnel is somewhat fading into the distance. Just trying to cut through the rhetoric.

 

[PJDiesel]

It don't seem fair but it was Mr. Woollards fight not ours. All we can hope for is that in the end we will get to benefit from it.

Agreed, but it is (could be, IMO) no different that any other person who was granted the permit without G&S. All the while the rest of us are waiting to have employers called to tattle on us.

Should be a level playing field, not just if you win a multi-million dollar law suit, or are a person with the proper political influence, etc., etc.

 

[esqappellate]

And, 3rd and final question (yeah right), Explain to me how this is fair?

You're kidding, right? Mr. Woollard was the named plaintiff. He had to put up with all this BS from the State in this lawsuit. Until you've been there, you can't appreciate what a pain that can be. Basically, the judge invalidated the statute for all of us!!! He did not, as in Bateman, just invalidate it as applied to Mr. Woollard, but issued a facial invalidation. That is huge!!! In ordering that the State process Mr. Woollard's application, the court is just refusing to stay his ruling as to Mr. Woollard and telling the rest of us that he wants to rule on the stay motion after further briefing. Patience. We all owe Mr. Woollard a tremendous vote of gratitude. We are just free riders on this lawsuit.

 

[esqappellate]

I'm gathering that the stay IS in place, and the light that I thought I saw at the end of the tunnel is somewhat fading into the distance. Just trying to cut through the rhetoric.

The light might be as close as June 1. That's only two months. I call that damn close.

 

[Merlin]

Speaking of which, here is Judge Legg's order -- He signed (on March 30, 2012, docketed today) the proposed order jointly submitted by the parties last week without alteration.

So can you tell us what it all means at this point?

 

[PJDiesel]

We all owe Mr. Woollard a tremendous vote of gratitude. We are just free riders on this lawsuit.

Understood, and I gave a donation to SAF to show my gratitude.

My question was, is it (will it be) fair if G&S is applied to ANY single person from here on out, if it was agreed that it's unconstitutional for Mr. Woolard to be subjected to the scrutiny?

No disrespect was intended for the great lengths him and/or his legal team have been through. I'm really just trying to determine if this means the very first person who is denied out of the several (unknown quantity) of people whom have applied recently should be filing suit?

Would be pretty simple to just point to his case and ask what is different about mine (theirs).

 

[RAJay]

They way I read it is that Judge Legg amended the order to include the details of processing Woolards request and making G&S invalid, but then applied a Stay to the motion. So in effect, it is here is what you should do, but not yet.

Right? Wrong?

 

[esqappellate]

because Woolard was the party to the case, we're all just (hopefully) going to be benefitting from his victory.

the next question is, will the legislature the opportunity to put in a legislative fix before the stay and/or appeal? My guess is they won't. But we have till June-ish to find out for sure, so why not speculate idly?

The legislature goes home April 9. Today is April 2 and no such bill has passed either house. The cross over date was March 26. As to when the appeal is decided, my rough guess is that we may have a decision a year from docketing. If a stay is granted, either by Judge Legg or the 4th Circuit, we wait until the CA4 decides the case. If the stay is denied by both Judge Legg and the CA4, the state has to process without regard to 5ii.

The next thing that will be filed is a notice of appeal in district court. The AG has 30 days to do that. My guess is that he won't wait 30 days as the order refers to Rule 62 FRCP, which authorizes a stay where an appeal is pending (notice filed). He has little to gain by waiting at this point. They have already told us that they intend to appeal.

 

[esqappellate]

Understood, and I gave a donation to SAF to show my gratitude.

My question was, is it (will it be) fair if G&S is applied to ANY single person from here on out, if it was agreed that it's unconstitutional for Mr. Woolard to be subjected to the scrutiny?

No disrespect was intended for the great lengths him and/or his legal team have been through. I'm really just trying to determine if this means the very first person who is denied out of the several (unknown quantity) of people whom have applied recently should be filing suit?

Would be pretty simple to just point to his case and ask what is different about mine (theirs).

That is what at issue in the stay. My guess is that NO ONE has been denied for G&S reasons since Judge Legg's opinion. If no stay is issued, you can expect the State to process without regard to G&S. If they continue to apply G&S and there is no stay, that is contempt and they won't do that. No state is that stupid to defy a federal court injunction. Wait for a ruling on the stay motion before Judge Legg and before the CA4 if Judge Legg denies a stay.

 

[esqappellate]

They way I read it is that Judge Legg amended the order to include the details of processing Woolards request and making G&S invalid, but then applied a Stay to the motion. So in effect, it is here is what you should do, but not yet.

Right? Wrong?

It looks to me like the actual order is identical to the proposed order. The details as to Mr. Woollard were in the proposed order too.

 

[dlmcbm]

esqappellate I think we need to open up a fund for you. You do a lot of work here just to help us understand whats going on. THANK YOU!!!

How long does it take for them to approve an appeal? Could it be that they would wait till Judge Legg is completely done with his ruling so that they are not crossing paths or maybe have an influence on each other?

 

[esqappellate]

So can you tell us what it all means at this point?

See http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1587951&postcount=8025

 

[esqappellate]

esqappellate I think we need to open up a fund for you. You do a lot of work here just to help us understand whats going on. THANK YOU!!!

How long does it take for them to approve an appeal? Could it be that they would wait till Judge Legg is completely done with his ruling so that they are not crossing paths or maybe have an influence on each other?

You are welcome. You guys deserve straight talk on this. The appeal is not approved, per se. The state has a right to appeal, 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292. With his order on the 59(e) motion, this is a final judgment and the state then files a notice of appeal. That appeal gets docketed and processed by the CA4 independently of what Judge Legg does on the motion for a stay. The state and Gura enter their appearances in the CA4 and, in due course, a briefing schedule will be established. When and if Judge Legg denies a stay, then the State has the option of asking the CA4 for a stay pending appeal. That motion is briefed and the court will then rule on that in due course, before the merits of the appeal are decided (or probably even briefed).

 

[Maverick0313]

You're kidding, right? Mr. Woollard was the named plaintiff. He had to put up with all this BS from the State in this lawsuit. Until you've been there, you can't appreciate what a pain that can be. Basically, the judge invalidated the statute for all of us!!! He did not, as in Bateman, just invalidate it as applied to Mr. Woollard, but issued a facial invalidation. That is huge!!! In ordering that the State process Mr. Woollard's application, the court is just refusing to stay his ruling as to Mr. Woollard and telling the rest of us that he wants to rule on the stay motion after further briefing. Patience. We all owe Mr. Woollard a tremendous vote of gratitude. We are just free riders on this lawsuit.

Thanks. This is what I was looking for.

 

[Merlin]

See http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1587951&postcount=8025

So the judge is giving Mr. Woollard his CCW but he wants the all parties and the courts to go over the details dotting the "I"'s and crossing the "T"'s a little more before they just open the flood gates?

 

[esqappellate]

So the judge is giving Mr. Woollard his CCW but he wants the all parties and the courts to go over the details dotting the "I"'s and crossing the "T"'s a little more before they just open the flood gates?

Well, the state has to process Mr. Woollard's application without regard to 5ii. The judge wants further briefing on those questions he asked of counsel before deciding whether to stay his ruling as to the rest of us. I wouldn't call that dotting "I"s as it is an open and very important inquiry as to whether the stay issues or not. Judge Legg is being very careful here to give the State and Gura a chance to make their arguments on the stay question. I look for an equally careful decision by Judge Legg.

 

[Merlin]

Well, the state has to process Mr. Woollard's application without regard to 5ii. The judge wants further briefing on those questions he asked of counsel before deciding whether to stay his ruling as to the rest of us. I wouldn't call that dotting "I"s as it is an open and very important inquiry as to whether the stay issues or not. Judge Legg is being very careful here to give the State and Gura a chance to make their arguments on the stay question. I look for an equally careful decision by Judge Legg.

So he is giving the state every chance to plead their side of the issues so the state can't say they were not given the chance to?

 

[esqappellate]

So he is giving the state every chance to plead their side of the issues so the state can't say they were not given the chance to?

That is part of it. I think the Judge had legitimate questions on the stay that he wants briefing on. Don't assume that he is just going through the motions. The good part of this is that if the State fails to persuade Judge Legg and he issues a strong order saying why, then their odds of getting a stay from the CA 4 go way down.

 

[BenL]

So the judge is giving Mr. Woollard his CCW but he wants the all parties and the courts to go over the details dotting the "I"'s and crossing the "T"'s a little more before they just open the flood gates?

As much as I'm ready to grab a torch and pitchfork and storm the castle, I think this is actually fair to the state.

From their perspective, this has been the law of the land for as long as they can remember, right or wrong. Judge Legg's decision will open the flood gates, so it's only fair to provide immediate relief directly to the one person directly asking (Mr. Woolard), and temporarily stay the thousands that are going to follow to get specifics on the decision. I just hope it doesn't take more than a year to get a *truly* final decision (which I suspect it will.)

 

[esqappellate]

As much as I'm ready to grab a torch and pitchfork and storm the castle, I think this is actually fair to the state.

From their perspective, this has been the law of the land for as long as they can remember, right or wrong. Judge Legg's decision will open the flood gates, so it's only fair to provide immediate relief directly to the one person directly asking (Mr. Woolard), and temporarily stay the thousands that are going to follow to get specifics on the decision. I just hope it doesn't take more than a year to get a *truly* final decision (which I suspect it will.)

If you mean a final decision by the CA4, a year is roughly right. If you mean a decision by Judge Legg on the stay motion, I would say June. If you mean a decision by the CA4 on a stay motion (assuming it is denied by Judge Legg), I would say, roughly, September. Alas, the federal courts are busy places. PS: Don't forget that the losing party in the
CA4 can petition for cert from the SCT. Such a petition is due 90 days after the CA decision (after an order on any petition seeking rehearing en banc). The other side has 30 days to respond and a decision on cert (assuming that the Court is sitting) goes the next Friday conference after the response is filed, roughly two or three weeks (if the Court is not in recess). So, you can see that the stay is really important in getting our permits in our lifetimes.