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

[ezliving]

That's right. My guess is that the Sct will let the issue percolate for awhile so no guarantees that the Court will take the case regardless, even after the first circuit split

This points to the importance of who controls the US Senate after the November elections.

Maryland has skin in the game. Bongino vs. Cardin.

155 days until election day. Can you volunteer to help Bongino win? 301-BONGINO (301-266-4466)

 

[press1280]

That's right. My guess is that the Sct will let the issue percolate for awhile so no guarantees that the Court will take the case regardless, even after the first circuit split

I'm curious whether the court would actually deny certiorari for the first case, or simply sit on it until the others get there, then hear 1 case and remand the others after the opinion is handed down.

 

[Mr H]

Technically they cannot appeal to SCOTUS. They can submit a petition or request a writ of Certiorari.

SCOTUS decides whether they hear the case.

Just sayin

You are correct.

I was trying to simplify, and should have gone with that instead.

 

[MJD438]

That's right as a logical matter. But, as Justice Holmes wrote, “[T]he life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” The Common Law, 1 (1881).

I think possession here is possession in public, as opposed to the home. Note that this statute was written prior to Heller and McDonald and under MD law there was never a right to keep and bear arms bestowed by the state constitution. As Holmes stated in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921), "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." (and yes, Holmes is one of my favorite SCT Justices of all time)

The more important point is that 5(i) (as opposed to 5(ii)) puts the burden on the state to find lack of suitability. The applicant does not have to prove that he is suitable --the state has to have a reason for concluding that he is not suitable. Some Troopers seem to take that inquiry more to heart than others, with a lot of intrusive questions during the interview, with questions about your EX, your meds, your medical condition, your job, your employment history, etc, etc. Cuz of my security clearances, their investigation is pretty minimal in my experience, but to others, it seems really unnecessarily intrusive.

While it is not specifically declared, it is directly incorporated:

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:

Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.
<snip remainder>

(emphasis mine)

 

[esqappellate]

While it is not specifically declared, it is directly incorporated:
(emphasis mine)

Well, not really incorporate. The State Constitution merely declares that the Constitution is supreme, but then the Constitution itself does that in the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, Cl.2. And declaring that the federal constitution is supreme begs the question as to what the Constitution requires. Until McDonald was decided, the 2A applied only to the Federal Government, not the states. Prior to McDonald, the State Court of Appeals had directly held that there was no constitutionally RTKAB arms in Maryland. See Scherr v. Board, 163 Md.App. 417, 880 A.2d 1137 (2005).

 

[esqappellate]

I'm not a lawyer; but I would be a little suprised if they didn't take Woollard considering the limited scope of the question could allow them to discuss carry outside the home without opening pandoras box

I agree that Woollard is a great case. I also agree completely that the Court is not going to take a Section 922 case -- it hasn't yet. In any case, Woollard probably won't be decided until after the 7th rules in Moore and maybe after other circuits rule as well, as there are 4 circuits ahead of it. We will just have to see how the decisions break. Maybe we will get lucky and win them all at the circuit level.... I would be ecstatic with that. The more the better when the issue finally does make it to the Court.

 

[esqappellate]

I'm curious whether the court would actually deny certiorari for the first case, or simply sit on it until the others get there, then hear 1 case and remand the others after the opinion is handed down.

that very much depends on whether the decisions are close to each other in time. If there are no other decisions as of the time when the case gets to conference, then it is quite unlikely that the court will relist the case on the off chance that cert. petitions will be filed later in other cases. It is quite common for the Court, after granting cert on an issue in one case, to hold petitions filed thereafter and dispose of them after a decision in the first. If the held cases are in arguable conflict with the decision, the Court will GVR them (Grant Vacate and Remand). That's SOP for the SCT Bar to suggest it.

 

[Atlasarmory]

Today perhaps

 

[swinokur]

I'm thinking Friday before the weekend. Let's have a pool !

 

[jkray]

I'm thinking Friday before the weekend. Let's have a pool !

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=83399

 

[jrosenberger]

that very much depends on whether the decisions are close to each other in time. If there are no other decisions as of the time when the case gets to conference, then it is quite unlikely that the court will relist the case on the off chance that cert. petitions will be filed later in other cases. It is quite common for the Court, after granting cert on an issue in one case, to hold petitions filed thereafter and dispose of them after a decision in the first. If the held cases are in arguable conflict with the decision, the Court will GVR them (Grant Vacate and Remand). That's SOP for the SCT Bar to suggest it.

If the SC declines to hear the first few cases, then later takes one and the decision is in conflict with the previous CA decisions denied cert, what happens next? Is there a procedural way to bring them back, or do all new cases have to be filed and start the process over again?

It don't see how there could be a procedure to bring them back, since cases have to be final eventually, but it also seems bogus to have to start all over and spend 2-3 years working their way up the chain again. Is there some expedited process for things like that?

 

[Merlin]

Win or loose, on either side, what is the chances that a case like this will ever go to the SC?

 

[krucam]

Win or loose, on either side, what is the chances that a case like this will ever go to the SC?

99 & 44/100%

 

[MJD438]

99 & 44/100%

OT - but you gotta love how successful P&G's advertising campaigns have been over the years...

 

[Merlin]

99 & 44/100%

So after having said that, is it more likely to go the the SC if we win, or if the State wins?

 

[Merlin]

I can't help but think that Legg has already made his mind up long before all of these briefs. Briefs that did not do anything but restate the same, or more of the same that was talked about during the court case. I think all of this waiting and preparation on Legg's part now is him putting together his well thought out official ruling after giving both parties a chance to bring something new to the table that supported their side.

And/or he is also taking into account things like will the ya or na help or harm his future. When Judge Legg is at a dinner party with his peers, do you think he is hearing, "Way to go, we are with you on this one". Or do you think his peers are saying, "What are you nuts, what were you thinking"?

 

[Zaicran]

Court cases cannot provide a general code of behavior for the state. Courts are not legislatures. Courts can decide the issues brought before them. Here, the only matter being litigated in Woollard was the G&S requirement in 5(ii). So the state isn't permitted to re-enact 5(ii) or otherwise adopt G&S under some other guise. The state can do anything else until some court somewhere decides that it is unconstitutional. That is the way it works. That is why organizations like MSI are so essential in the legislative battles.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point another essential ...voting.

GET OUT AND VOTE...IT IS YOUR DUTY.

By not voting you're not only hurting yourself...but those who do vote and work tirelessly to protect our rights.

/off soapbox

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Merlin]

Technically they cannot appeal to SCOTUS. They can submit a petition or request a writ of Certiorari.

SCOTUS decides whether they hear the case.

Just sayin

But is there a process the looser that would like the SC to consider the case has to do to be on some list the SC selects from?

 

[swinokur]

huh?

 

[esqappellate]

If the SC declines to hear the first few cases, then later takes one and the decision is in conflict with the previous CA decisions denied cert, what happens next? Is there a procedural way to bring them back, or do all new cases have to be filed and start the process over again?

It don't see how there could be a procedure to bring them back, since cases have to be final eventually, but it also seems bogus to have to start all over and spend 2-3 years working their way up the chain again. Is there some expedited process for things like that?

A case that is final stays that way. But, a SCT decision that annouces a new rule of law becomes controlling in all future cases. For example, if we lose in the CA4 and the court denies cert. Woollard is over and circuit law is thereby established. But, if a year from now the Court takes another case and holds, for example, that the right extends outside the home, then that holding controls in all circuits, regardless of circuit precedent. That is what the court does when it resolves circuit splits on a given issue. Here, the state would presumably amend its statute to come into compliance and if they refused, the next case would very quickly apply the SCT's holding to enjoin enforcement or application of the statute. Once the SCT rules, states typically comply voluntarily without new litigation -- but litigation is always an option if they don't. .