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

[Papi4baby]

Just read Gansler tissue paper of a response.

These people are complete deluded into their mindset.

 

[Squaredout]

It is my opinion that the State did not satisfy the 4 part test required to keep the stay until CA4 gives a verdict. We are talking Civil Rights here.

 

[G O B]

A right delayed is a right denied.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

My *guess* (and it is only that) is that the judge is looking to see if the State can make an actual, supported case that lifting the stay will cause danger to the public. This is an inquiry that the CA4 will likely also make two under Judge Wilkerson's admonition in Masciandaro to take tiny, careful steps (that admonition was in a majority opinion on that point so it is binding law). There is no doubt that Judge Legg's ruling breaks new ground. There should be no doubt that Judge Legg fully knows that. Personally, I think the State's showing is weak. Whether it is so weak as to give Judge Legg comfort in lifting the stay is an unknowable. The stay issue is addressed to the court's equitable discretion as informed by the 4 factor test. There is lots of room there for a decision either way. That said, Judge Legg is a good, careful and smart judge who has already demonstrated that he was willing to go where no court had gone before.

This struck me (and I sped read it because some of it was just mindless drivel to my arm chair lawyer status).

Finally, the plaintiffs argue erroneously that the “Defendants’ prospects on appeal are yet-more remote” as a result of a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina holding that the scope of the Second Amendment extends outside the home. (citation omitted by myself for brevity) Bateman, which did not address the constitutionality of a permit statute, became only the third court in the country to hold that the scope of the Second Amendment right identified in Heller extends beyond the home.

Ok, so...if I am not mistaken, we did not challenge the permit statue as facially invalid as a whole, only the application to each individual on the merits of assigning arbitrary "need." Thus, this seems like a piss poor attempt to say "But that case has nothing to do with our case and is only 1 of 3 rulings in the whole country by 'activist' judges."

Seems that Gansler and company forget that A) Those three rulings came from within the same circuit court of appeals and B) It matters not what specific permitting scheme or restriction is challenged, a finding for outside the home is still a finding for outside the home.

This was the ONLY part of the argument that I found based in law that made sense to argue, but it failed miserably. Esq, don't they teach lawyers good persuasive writing skills? Something like, open with your 2nd best argument, bury your weakest argument in the middle, Expose your opponents weakest argument next to last and close with your strongest argument? Seriously, junior high school students should be writing better persuasive arguments.

No, I'm not drinking the cool-aid since I know this is still an uphill climb, but I feel as though the light at the end of the tunnel here at district level is the other side of the tunnel, and not an oncoming train.

 

[Mr H]

The segment you quoted re: Bateman struck me as well on my initial read.

"Only the third court"... The fact that ANY Court held that the right extends "outside the home" is pretty significant, but then MD diminishes that with "only".

So, MD will go kicking and screaming, willing to be the final holdout in the 2A fight... and the good people will be on the short end of their intransigence.

Nice.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Step 1: Click the "Multi-Quote" image on all of the posts that you wish to quote.
Step 2: Click "Post Reply" at the bottom of the page.
Step 3: Blabber on about what you wanted to say in a single post.

Deaf ears there, Hyper.

Many before you have tried and failed.

Probably not my place, but.........

I have read and kept up on the entire thread and it seems ironic that a certain member of this forum adamantly refuses to heed these requests by other members. He digs in his heals, makes snide comments when challenged on it, and ultimately refuses to do it. The irony comes in, due to the fact that this is just what Gansler and the State are doing in regards to Permit Issuance. They (and he) just don't and WON"T do it, yet he criticizes the State for the same behavior......

Pot meet Kettle

 

[esqappellate]

This struck me (and I sped read it because some of it was just mindless drivel to my arm chair lawyer status).



Ok, so...if I am not mistaken, we did not challenge the permit statue as facially invalid as a whole, only the application to each individual on the merits of assigning arbitrary "need." Thus, this seems like a piss poor attempt to say "But that case has nothing to do with our case and is only 1 of 3 rulings in the whole country by 'activist' judges."

Seems that Gansler and company forget that A) Those three rulings came from within the same circuit court of appeals and B) It matters not what specific permitting scheme or restriction is challenged, a finding for outside the home is still a finding for outside the home.

This was the ONLY part of the argument that I found based in law that made sense to argue, but it failed miserably. Esq, don't they teach lawyers good persuasive writing skills? Something like, open with your 2nd best argument, bury your weakest argument in the middle, Expose your opponents weakest argument next to last and close with your strongest argument? Seriously, junior high school students should be writing better persuasive arguments.

No, I'm not drinking the cool-aid since I know this is still an uphill climb, but I feel as though the light at the end of the tunnel here at district level is the other side of the tunnel, and not an oncoming train.

Most of what lawyers write *is* drivel...especially to the lay public. But then lawyers only write to each other so it is often drivel squared. The old saw is that law school sharpens your mind --- by narrowing it. And yes, they try to teach lawyers how to write, but some of us are slow learners. I have been a litigator for 37 years, but after literally hundreds of appellate briefs in the federal court of appeals and in the Supreme Court (taken together), I am *still* learning. It's an art form that only a few ever really master. Smarts matter, indeed, are essential, but are not necessarily controlling. Welcome to the most complex legal system in the world.

We should all bear in mind that these filings by both Gura and the state were in response to inquiries by the court -- they were not intended to be merits briefs. BTW: That there are 3 favorable district court decisions in the 4th Circuit won't necessarily matter squat to the court of appeals. Nice, but hardly dispositive. None of those DCT decisions from any circuit are binding on the CA4 in the slightest. Their persuasive value, if any, lies in how well they are reasoned under the law. IMHO, Judge Legg's decision is quite well reasoned, given his premises. The CA4 is free to reject the premises of his reasoning.

 

[krucam]

I see what you did there...

For the new and uninitiated, this has been the running gag for the last 24 months.

Shamelessly stolen from the 2A forums at calguns.net where it is the standard reply when someone asks for a timeline on any Judicial action...the 'B' following the 'A' which just happened...

 

[BenL]

I'm thinking Gansler will get his stay. He already has a temporary stay in place, and the fact that he made an argument, no matter how refutable, means he'll probably get his stay to move his argument. Think of the argument: "Maryland has been without concealed carry this long; what's another 6 months?"

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[eruby]

I'm thinking Gansler will get his stay. He already has a temporary stay in place, and the fact that he made an argument, no matter how refutable, means he'll probably get his stay to move his argument. Think of the argument: "Maryland has been without concealed carry this long; what's another 6 months?"

I hope I'm wrong.

While I completely understand what you say, and also fear it may come true, there is also the "you've been doing G & S for a long time, but it is unconstitutional" ruling, so we do have hope.

 

[Sportstud4891]

Wow, just read that garbage. It reminds me of that person in the office that will argue with you and tell you the sky isn't actually blue when we can all clearly see that it is f-ing blue. No matter the reason why it's blue, that's a different story but from down here, from our perspective the sky is blue damn it!

 

[Merlin]

Step 1: Click the "Multi-Quote" image on all of the posts that you wish to quote.
Step 2: Click "Post Reply" at the bottom of the page.
Step 3: Blabber on about what you wanted to say in a single post.

Look, get a grip. i'm not going to read the entire thread, make a list of all of the post I want to respond to just so I can send them in all one post just to please you and the few that think that is so important.

Skip over my comments if you want. Put me on your ignore list if you want. But stop your bitching like a little girl and instead say something constructive we can learn or benefit from.

Yes we know you so smart because you know how to click the Multi-Quote. Thank you for the wonderful info you have provided.

 

[Merlin]

esq,

One other reason the state wants the stay so they do not have to start issuing ccw's, they do not want Maryland's with ccw's to start building a good track record of not contributing to the crime numbers, showing that we can be safe. Any track record like that can only hurt their chances with the 4th down the road when the 4th rules. I think you mentioned in a past post this appeal with the 4th could take us into 2014. If they were forced to issue ccw's and we had 1.5 years under our belt of staying out of trouble the states case would be blown out of the water.

 

[BenL]

While I completely understand what you say, and also fear it may come true, there is also the "you've been doing G & S for a long time, but it is unconstitutional" ruling, so we do have hope.

Well, that's my hope; Legg says, "enough is enough" and denies their stay.

I don't think it's likely, but I can hope...

 

[pcfixer]

Well, that's my hope; Legg says, "enough is enough" and denies their stay.

I don't think it's likely, but I can hope...

I believe Judge will lift the stay, highly likely. The state has not
met their 4 part test. I'd say good change the 4th will not grant a stay either.

 

[Mr H]

I believe Judge will lift the stay, highly likely. The state has not
met their 4 part test. I'd say good change the 4th will not grant a stay either.

OK... assuming you're right...

The case is currently under appeal at CA4, and those briefs are due beginning in the next couple weeks.

As a result, there is suddenly another huge grey area, where MSP has all these applications which are suddenly valid under Legg's invalidation of G&S.

When denials start flying, it will be more than a little interesting to hear the justifications.

Does Legg then intervene with new approval guidelines (if he even can)? Or is it then left open for MD to institute a "Legislative "Solution" (goodness knows how THAT will go!!)?

This, as has been said for some time, is nowhere near done.

We're not even parties to this case... Imagine how Woollard feels about now!!

 

[esqappellate]

OK... assuming you're right...

The case is currently under appeal at CA4, and those briefs are due beginning in the next couple weeks.

As a result, there is suddenly another huge grey area, where MSP has all these applications which are suddenly valid under Legg's invalidation of G&S.

When denials start flying, it will be more than a little interesting to hear the justifications.

Does Legg then intervene with new approval guidelines (if he even can)? Or is it then left open for MD to institute a "Legislative "Solution" (goodness knows how THAT will go!!)?

This, as has been said for some time, is nowhere near done.

We're not even parties to this case... Imagine how Woollard feels about now!!

Judge Legg can only intervene if an issue is brought to him in 1. a new lawsuit or 2. on a show cause motion for contempt in Woollard. (Are you a member of the SAF yet? Hint) He is not going to take over and write new guidelines for the state. Not his job. He reviews what the state has done if and when 1. or 2. take place.

 

[esqappellate]

esq,

One other reason the state wants the stay so they do not have to start issuing ccw's, they do not want Maryland's with ccw's to start building a good track record of not contributing to the crime numbers, showing that we can be safe. Any track record like that can only hurt their chances with the 4th down the road when the 4th rules. I think you mentioned in a past post this appeal with the 4th could take us into 2014. If they were forced to issue ccw's and we had 1.5 years under our belt of staying out of trouble the states case would be blown out of the water.

I doubt that the state is looking that far down the road. They can moot this out at anytime with new legislation.

 

[dlmcbm]

speaking of Woollard I am surprised that Gansler did not speak of him.... Your honor, Mr. Wollard has not had a permit in YEARS since we denied him and this case has been going on. He is still here and alive. I guess we were right that he did not have GSR. Imagine the people he would have shot if we did give him the permit.

 

[Merlin]

OK... assuming you're right...

The case is currently under appeal at CA4, and those briefs are due beginning in the next couple weeks.

As a result, there is suddenly another huge grey area, where MSP has all these applications which are suddenly valid under Legg's invalidation of G&S.

When denials start flying, it will be more than a little interesting to hear the justifications.

Does Legg then intervene with new approval guidelines (if he even can)? Or is it then left open for MD to institute a "Legislative "Solution" (goodness knows how THAT will go!!)?

This, as has been said for some time, is nowhere near done.

We're not even parties to this case... Imagine how Woollard feels about now!!

I do not think they will waist anytime giving you a justification other then to say it is their opinion that you do not meet G&S. The end. Not more, no less. I do not think they will go into any details about why they feel that way because then you can pick apart their reasoning. They will just tell you you do not have a G&S. But at the same time they will try to sound fair by telling you to reapply when you get G&S.