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

[Jim Sr]

Because they get paid by the hour.

​

​

 

[esqappellate]

View attachment 55410​

​

Love it!

 

[Dead Eye]

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.

I think what Diesel is getting at, is like Mr. Woollard, several of us (myself included) applied at or near the same time as Mr. Woollard filed for his renewal. We also were at various stages of appeal, or flat out being denied, and either lacked the financial or legal resources (or whatever reasoning) afforded to Mr. Woollard in his continuance. As a result, we know all too well the BS the State can impose, having lived it. In essence, it speaks to the previous scenario that I described to you, whereby we are in the "2nd" category of people that seem to be in limbo, whereby some are telling us that we have to reapply, and in my case, you recommended (for which I am grateful) that I might want to check into the statute of limitiations, for which I am currently doing.

With all of that said, I think what Diesel is asking, is whether or not this recent order by Judge Legg will potentially bring any reprieve to those others of us who have long been fighting this issue independently, and simultaneously, to Mr. Woollard?

 

[BenL]

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.

I meant for CA4 to rule and SCOTUS to deny.

 

[FRISteve]

As I see it, you'll get exactly the same relief as did Woollard; you can reapply without G&S being considered.

 

[esqappellate]

I think what Diesel is getting at, is like Mr. Woollard, several of us (myself included) applied at or near the same time as Mr. Woollard filed for his renewal. We also were at various stages of appeal, or flat out being denied, and either lacked the financial or legal resources (or whatever reasoning) afforded to Mr. Woollard in his continuance. As a result, we know all too well the BS the State can impose, having lived it. In essence, it speaks to the previous scenario that I described to you, whereby we are in the "2nd" category of people that seem to be in limbo, whereby some are telling us that we have to reapply, and in my case, you recommended (for which I am grateful) that I might want to check into the statute of limitiations, for which I am currently doing.

With all of that said, I think what Diesel is asking, is whether or not this recent order by Judge Legg will potentially bring any reprieve to those others of us who have long been fighting this issue independently, and simultaneously, to Mr. Woollard?

Potentially? Yes. For those with live applications (either original or on reconsideration if the State is willing to do that), if a stay is denied, the State will then process those applications without regard to 5ii, as they are now enjoined from applying 5ii. For those whose applications are final and NOT on reconsideration, you will have to apply again to restart the process. I would NOT expect the State to sua sponte (on its own) reopen any otherwise final denials. You would have to at least ask for reconsideration at a minimum and I am not sure (as we discussed) if the state has any obligation to reopen any otherwise final decisions on an application, even on a request for reconsideration. This isn't legal advice, just my personal perspective.

 

[esqappellate]

As I see it, you'll get exactly the same relief as did Woollard; you can reapply without G&S being considered.

Well, not quite. The State has to tell Woollard what they want to refresh his original application and then the state has to act on that information without regard to 5ii. A reapplication is a new application.

 

[Merlin]

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.

And I deduce the only way the state could have a chance of persuade Judge Legg over on their side is if they give him tainted or unrealistic statistics that show how safe the world is without guns and if the judge believes them without looking at the true facts from other states.

Is it safe to assume the judge has someone in his office researching how the states that are "shall Issue" states are really making out?

 

[pcfixer]

And I deduce the only way the state could have a chance of persuade Judge Legg over on their side is if they give him tainted or unrealistic statistics that show how safe the world is without guns and if the judge believes them without looking at the true facts from other states.

Is it safe to assume the judge has someone in his office researching how the states that are "shall Issue" states are really making out?

Seems to me Judge Legg is not naive or doesn't live in a vacuum.
I'm betting he researchs the statics and or statics are readily available
to be verified. I would think most judges trust but verify. JMHO

 

[Merlin]

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.)

I agree. Also if the state has every chance to plead their side they can not say they did not have the chance.

 

[FRISteve]

Well, not quite. The State has to tell Woollard what they want to refresh his original application and then the state has to act on that information without regard to 5ii. A reapplication is a new application.

You are correct...I was trying to point out that Woollard will have to confirm (I would assume that that is what the State will want) that all the info in the original app is still accurate and current, so, in essence, he is giving the same info as if he re-applied.

My main point was that if/when the stay is gone and the decision is upheld, everyone gets to apply (or re-apply, as the case may be) without 5ii - in essence, the same relief as Wollard got. Soooo, everyone gets the same benefits without having had to be the guinea pig.

 

[Merlin]

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.

So the worst case is if things do not get over turned and the MSP continue as normal. But if this does all turn around and Maryland becomes a "Shall Issue" state, what is your best guess of a worst case time frame after the state max out all of their appeals?

 

[esqappellate]

.

My main point was that if/when the stay is gone and the decision is upheld, everyone gets to apply (or re-apply, as the case may be) without 5ii - in essence, the same relief as Wollard got. Soooo, everyone gets the same benefits without having had to be the guinea pig.

Right!

 

[Dogabutila]

worst case time frame? SCT grants cert, takes a year and then says JK no outside the home right.

december 2014.

 

[esqappellate]

So the worst case is if things do not get over turned and the MSP continue as normal. But if this does all turn around and Maryland becomes a "Shall Issue" state, what is your best guess of a worst case time frame after the state max out all of their appeals?

See http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1588065&postcount=8042

If the SCT takes cert, it could be two or more years from today.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

See http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1588065&postcount=8042

If the SCT takes cert, it could be two or more years from today.

Ugh, don't make us wait that long!

Here's a simple question: If Legg sees it fit to allow Mr. Woollard to proceed with the "application and renewal" now, without a stay, and we follow equal protection and the facial injunction, does this handicap how he may be leaning currently?

Or is the simple made into the complex for the stewards of justice and the law?

 

[esqappellate]

worst case time frame? SCT grants cert, takes a year and then says JK no outside the home right.

december 2014.

I would never pick a date. Too many variables that are unknowable right now. If the CA4 panel issues a decision, the loser can ask for rehearing en banc of the entire Court of the CA4. If that is granted, the court could ask for more briefs and set a new argument date to reargue the case (or not). Then you wait for the en banc court to rule and then the loser gets to seek cert. If the SCT grants the writ, then new briefs and argument and a decision. Depends on when the cert. petition is filed how fast that goes. A petition filed in the summer (or after the cut-off date in the Spring) is not generally ruled on until October (or maybe September if the Court acts early on cert petitions, as they have been lately). October cert grants get ruled on by June of the following year at the latest (usually before then -- depends on how fractured the Court is) UNLESS the Court puts the case down for reargument (rare, but it does happen). See what I mean?

 

[esqappellate]

Ugh, don't make us wait that long!

Here's a simple question: If Legg sees it fit to allow Mr. Woollard to proceed with the "application and renewal" now, without a stay, and we follow equal protection and the facial injunction, does this handicap how he may be leaning currently?

Or is the simple made into the complex for the stewards of justice and the law?

I would agree that the State faces an uphill climb in seeking a stay pending appeal. They have to satisfy the 4 part test and that is an uphill climb by any measure. Again, that 4 part test is:

"Under that standard, a court considers four factors: '(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.'"

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), quotingl Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

The court applies its "equitable discretion" in applying this test. That the judge refused to stay its injunction as to Woollard is a good sign to be sure, but hardly definitive as to the facial injunction for everyone else.

 

[faze]

Guys... http://marylandshallissue.org/2012/04/woollard-case-update-april-2/

 

[dlmcbm]

I would agree that the State faces an uphill climb in seeking a stay pending appeal. They have to satisfy the 4 part test and that is an uphill climb by any measure. Again, that 4 part test is:

Under that standard, a court considers four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).

The court applies its "equitable discretion" in applying this test. That the judge refused to stay its injunction as to Woollard is a good sign to be sure, but hardly definitive as to the facial injunction for everyone else.

You say "where the public interest lies". Where do they get this information? Is there a way that we should show that we are in favor of his decision?