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

[MJD438]

I loved all of the revocation comments. Gee, no context to say whether those revocations were for firearms-related reasons, merely stating that they were revoked due to charges being filed or DV issues - both of which are valid reasons for revocation under MD existing law. To me this whole thing reminds me of the phrasing from multiple movies - "nothing to see here, move along"...

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

I love this line:

The equities to be balanced, therefore, are the plaintiffs’ desire to wear and carry, in public, a particular type of firearm—which happens to be the type of firearm most frequently used in criminal activity

And the type of firearm most frequently used in self-defense, and the only firearm which can be carried in any case (holding a permit) without being arrested and compelled to prove to a judge that you had good and substantial reason to do so.

 

[jfox]

Notice in Part 1: if G&S can not be applied:

"Likely glut of applications to process"

and that point is reiterated further in the document.

It's an interesting point, considering the state previously claimed a 97% approval rate. If you think about it; they are essentially contradicting themselves.

Then, further it talks about how if some permits have to be recalled because there G&S is upheld, there could be "safety implications" for some people. Isn't it interesting that they recognize the validity of the firearm for self-defense "for some people"?

I won't go into the representations in Part 3...better to just let Gura and SAF tackle those allegations. It's so easy to twist statistics, isn't it?

 

[Patrick]

Wow. Weak.

They admit that there is no relationship between crime and shall-issue, but then go ahead and toss out some tired (and refuted) numbers anyway.

Public Safety:

The state does itself in with some of these arguments. They use the Violence Policy Center "CCW Killers" numbers, which are suspect in myriad ways. They quote 270 murders between May 2007 and now. That's five years or 54 killing a year. Do some basic math and we see that (270 / 5) / 6,800,000 permit holders over that period is a whopping crime rate of ... 0.00000794%. If we assumed VPC missed half of all murders we are still at 0.00001588%. Hardly the stuff nightmares are made of.

Maryland then outlines what they consider failures in the systems of other states in processing of permits. But...what the hell does that have to do with Maryland unless they outsource permit processing to Florida? Presumably the state undercuts their own public safety argument by pointing out potential flaws in the process - flaws they could remedy now that they know them.

The Balance of Equities:

Maryland points to issues in processing - that the unwashed masses asking for permits might cause the state extra work. If only all fundamental rights were so easy to deny: they could close polling stations in "difficult" districts because the work is just too hard.

I especially like this concession:

If there is no stay, MSP would attempt to mitigate these potential consequences by asking, during the Interim Period, that applicants who have good and substantial reason voluntarily provide it and cooperate with MSP’s investigation. Id. ¶ 6. MSP would not deny permits to individuals who decline to provide any such reason, but would keep records so that if the Fourth Circuit reverses, MSP would not be required to revoke permits of individuals who had demonstrated good and substantial reason. However, in light of the strong feelings surrounding this issue, MSP nonetheless expects that a significant number of applicants who have good and substantial reason may decline to provide it during the Interim Period as a matter of principle.

Success On The Merits

Their entire argument for success on appeal points back to their request for the temporary stay. Literally - they reference the entire argument in the intro and point to the pages of the previous motion. Nothing else. Perhaps if their previous argument was great they would be able to lean on such prose, but the previous argument was essentially, "a bunch of other courts in other circuits didn't do this and this is a new question and we won't talk - at all - about the fact this ruling used the exact framework specified by this Circuit to evaluate these cases."

When addressing their chances of winning on the merits in the Fourth Circuit, they cite everybody but the Fourth Circuit. I just reviewed it again - not one reference. They use New Jersey courts as controlling citations. How can you convince someone you will win in the Fourth when you refuse to even acknowledge a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that openly instructs its district courts in how to evaluate claims under the Second Amendment?

Overall:

I expected more for my tax dollars. I could have framed better arguments. I am disappointed and going shooting now, before the sun sets and the bugs come out.

 

[MDFF2008]

I'm suprised Gansler wants to play the statistics game. I know Gura has tried to avoid it and frame the debate as a fundamental right, but now I think I would go for the kill and overload the court with statistics galore.

 

[press1280]

Notice in Part 1: if G&S can not be applied:

"Likely glut of applications to process"

and that point is reiterated further in the document.

It's an interesting point, considering the state previously claimed a 97% approval rate. If you think about it; they are essentially contradicting themselves.

Then, further it talks about how if some permits have to be recalled because there G&S is upheld, there could be "safety implications" for some people. Isn't it interesting that they recognize the validity of the firearm for self-defense "for some people"?

I won't go into the representations in Part 3...better to just let Gura and SAF tackle those allegations. It's so easy to twist statistics, isn't it?

Yep, they are definitely contradicting themselves on the permit issuance. That's aside from them using more "blood in the streets" cooked stats and telegraphing that they'll yank all permits if the 4th reverses.

 

[aberforth]

In this scenario, the greatest impact of denial of a stay would fall on individuals with good and substantial reason to wear and carry a handgun in public, those individuals who, by definition, have the greatest need for a permit.

Interesting how the State implicitly concedes that individuals other than those with G&S still have a need for a permit....

 

[Dklo]

Since they yet again brought up the long gun carry, maybe we should have a long gun, empty holster rally. We can invite lawmakers and the media to show how dumb the current law is. I think with proper planning we could pull it off. Any thoughts?

 

[yellowsled]

Since they yet again brought up the long gun carry, maybe we should have a long gun, empty holster rally. We can invite lawmakers and the media to show how dumb the current law is. I think with proper planning we could pull it off. Any thoughts?

long gun rally. scary bad idea.

 

[OnTarget]

Other than hunting season, when were you able to get away with toting a rifle/shotgun around town? IMHO, the MSP/LEA wouldn't stand for it.

 

[BUFF7MM]

Other than hunting season, when were you able to get away with toting a rifle/shotgun around town? IMHO, the MSP wouldn't stand for it.

But it legal, they just said so in the brief.

 

[MJD438]

Other than hunting season, when were you able to get away with toting a rifle/shotgun around town? IMHO, the MSP wouldn't stand for it.

I believe that should probably read no LEA in MD will stand for it...AG "non-binding opinion" or not.

 

[CypherPunk]

Since they yet again brought up the long gun carry, maybe we should have a long gun, empty holster rally. We can invite lawmakers and the media to show how dumb the current law is. I think with proper planning we could pull it off. Any thoughts?

Carrying an AR-15 slung over your back to the grocery store...

I cant think of any way to demonstrate that Gansler & police would never tolerate that (even though Gansler asserts it is a legal option) without seriously hurting the overall cause.

 

[Broadside]

and big big surprise.


They mentioned the martin/zimmerman thing.

This one really gets me. To mention a case that is still pending in trial court seems at the very least unprofessional if not down right unethical for a lawyer. Here you have an attorney general stating someone is guilty on a case where he hasn't even seen the evidence.

 

[BUFF7MM]

This one really gets me. To mention a case that is still pending in trial court seems at the very least unprofessional if not down right unethical for a lawyer. Here you have an attorney general stating someone is guilty on a case where he hasn't even seen the evidence.

I hope they can use this against them in their brief, just goes to show you how our attorney general thinks.

 

[Patrick]

Since they yet again brought up the long gun carry, maybe we should have a long gun, empty holster rally. We can invite lawmakers and the media to show how dumb the current law is. I think with proper planning we could pull it off. Any thoughts?

Illegal under Maryland law. You cannot carry any arms within 1000 foot of a rally, protest or public political gathering. Even if it's your rally.

And it wouldn't exactly look good. If anything it would make it all but impossible to fight back dumb laws proposed by the legislature.

Optics are still important.

 

[OnTarget]

Meanwhile, over 40 states support "Shall Issue," including our neighbors, and Maryland's model hasn't shown itself to be superior in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Bob A]

I expected more for my tax dollars. I could have framed better arguments. I am disappointed and going shooting now, before the sun sets and the bugs come out.

If you could have framed better arguments, we thank you for not going over to The Dark Side. Personally, I hope my tax dollars will not fund better lawyers.

May success attend your shooting, and may bugs find you singularly distasteful.

 

[CrueChief]

Ok so here is my question for the lawyers among us how excited would you be, knowing what you do about this case, to write a response brief to this?

 

[esqappellate]

Wow. Weak.
.

I am very leery of drinking our Kool Aid and I am trying hard not to, but I gotta say about their brief: That's it? That's the best they can do? Who knew that the argument was actually this weak? In litigation, you know you have a serious issue when your first reaction to the other side's brief is a sinking feeling that they have may some good arguments. Then you have to work hard to refute them. But this? It is almost a joke.

The stuff about how hard it might be to recover revoked permits is laughable, because some permit holders *might* not give them up? You knock on their door. Duh. Oh, yes, there might be a "significant" number of G&S persons who might refuse to reveal their G&S reason? Pleeeezzzze. Revoke their permit and make them reapply if they "refuse" to give their G&S reason. And how many such dumb asses could there be? They shouldn't have a permit because their collective IQs are in the low double digits, particularly if they work for a armored car or a security company. This does not pass the laugh test. It doesn't even pass the smirk test.

The use of raw numbers on crimes committed by permit holders without giving a relevant percentage number is transparently weak, as Patrick points out. A universally recognized misuse of statistics that is taught as a no-no in the basic statistics class in Stat 101 in college. The best they can say is that the impact of Shall Issue on crime is that experts say that it is hard to figure out? As to the balance of the equities, issuance of a stay directly harms all those individuals who would otherwise be able to exercise their 2A rights should the CA4 affirm. No mention of that.

And Lord. They are citing two 2007 newspaper articles from a single Florida newspaper (South Florida Sun-Sentinel) and a New York Times 2011 article as proof for the truth of the matters asserted. Never done -- such articles are rank hearsay, inherently unreliable and inadmissible for such purposes. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp., 113 F.3d 738, 65 USLW 2799, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,458, C.A.7 (Ill.), May 12, 1997

This isn't shooting fish in a barrel. This is shooting a dead whale stranded on the beach.