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

[yellowsled]

ZING

 

[High Q]

Don't anyone get their hopes up. Even if Maryland loses the law suit, the dems will come up with something else to block it, and continue to deny to right to carry. They will not accept the decision, they are too arrogant.

 

[swinokur]

I am not getting my hopes up but we ain't given up either. Quittin is for quitters.

 

[hvymax]

I am not getting my hopes up but we ain't given up either. Quittin is for quitters.

I thought rehab was for quitters?

 

[knownalien]

my understanding is that you have the right not to follow an unconstitutional law. I am pretty sure this (in different wording) was said at the SCOTUS level.

What would happen if a conservative judge keels over and Obama replaces him with another f-cktard liberal? Then all of this changes really quick and a whole bunch of libs will fast track back to SCOTUS and possibly nullify previous decisions they made. Remember, gun grabbing is a GLOBAL desire of powers that are very powerful. Of our Bill of Rights, only one has been fought over globally: 2A. The government wants more power and we all know that this armed nation is the only thing that is keeping that from happening.

What would have happened if Heller had gone the other way? Or McDonald? What if the gov't literally found you had no real 2A right? What would we have done? Notice other people in other countries riot. And they always loose because they are unarmed. The sad fact is we let the 2A get widdled down to the level it is in the first place and that should never have happened. In that respect, our fathers and grandfathers let us down. And this comes from Repubs and Dems.
The reality is, 2A should be treated just like the 1A. That's the way our Forefathers wanted it and that is our Contract with America. We simply should never have settled for less. In the end, only the gov't can win . . . not the people. Why? Who writes the rules? Not us. And many times not even your "elected" leaders. They never read their legislation anyway. It's given to them by "think tanks" and special interest groups.

 

[krucam]

Don't anyone get their hopes up. Even if Maryland loses the law suit, the dems will come up with something else to block it, and continue to deny to right to carry. They will not accept the decision, they are too arrogant.

Granted...then we take them to court again. There are enough suits out there where the right to Bear will be defacto policy across the Country. When this happens, states will have no choice. It's acoming...

This takes $$.

 

[Patrick]

If the Supreme Court goes the way we want it to over the next few years, future courts will be exceptionally hesitant to roll back those changes. Even one flipped to a more liberal court.

The fact is that undoing a strong precedent on a fundamental right (enumerated or not) is a big freaking deal. Huge, actually. So big it really does not happen.

Even cases almost universally considered horribly decided from over 140 years ago (Slaughterhouse) do not get turned over. You get judges like Alito and Scalia who hate that case...yet still openly voice opposition to changing it. Only Thomas has gone that far.

If you open the door to rolling back one right (2A), then you open that same door for other rights: abortion, prohibitions on state-sponsored religions, speech, you name it.

That is why the fight now is critical. We want it. This is the best chance we got.

I'm all for Congress stepping in this coming session to handle reciprocity and the like, but only if it does not sideline these cases. We need decisive, permanent, victories.

What does that mean? It means if Congress tries to pass a law that forces MD to give me a permit, I will oppose that law. I would rather wait two years than to allow yet another group of politicians to legislate and horse-trade my rights. Because what is given by a politician can be taken away by a politician. That keeps power in their hands. But the Supreme Court is lasting. Not perfect...but lasting.

 

[Tom43491]

Badda bing!

He's here all week folks. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

"I thought the "bazinga!" was implied..."
- blatantly stolen from The Big Bang Theory

 

[Nobody]

my understanding is that you have the right not to follow an unconstitutional law. .

I have the right to argue with my wife as well, but I would rather be happy than right.

BAZINGA...love BBT

NOBODY

 

[Ethan83]

I would rather wait two years than to allow yet another group of politicians to legislate and horse-trade my rights. Because what is given by a politician can be taken away by a politician. That keeps power in their hands. But the Supreme Court is lasting. Not perfect...but lasting.

Brilliantly said.

A legislative 'win' in essence just reinforces the fact that the legislators have authority over our 2A rights, thus rendering any 'win' completely temporary until somebody else gets in power that isn't on our side. A judicial 'win' removes the power of legislators to touch 2A rights entirely, which is exactly what we want and need (and the BoR intended, of course).

This is why I could never really get completely behind Prop 19 in CA (legalization of marijuana) - because it would still perpetuate, if not worsen, the notion that the State has any authority in this realm at all. Having to get permission from your government to do something is not "liberty"; that is only achieved when the government's power or authority is entirely removed, not just modified to be more friendly to your own interests.

 

[krucam]

As expected and no big surprise, Hansel/SAF/Gura today filed a Motion for Summary Judgement.

11/15/2010 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Raymond Woollard. Responses due by 12/2/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Declaration of Julie Versnel, # 8 Declaration of Raymond Woollard)(Gura, Alan) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

AND....

In response to the Defendants Letter of last Friday

11/15/2010 13 RESPONSE re 11 Request for Conference filed by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Raymond Woollard. (Gura, Alan) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

I can not upload to the Docket from work, I will do this after work. I'll let everyone know when these items are available on the Docket later this afternoon.

For now, 12, 12-2 and 13 are attached as pdf's. 12-2 MSJ Memorandum is by far the best read...it gives me great hope for the future of our newly freed right to bear arms. Well done!

This case is not difficult. The Second Amendment secures a right to carry arms for self defense. Defendants refuse to acknowledge that carrying arms is a right, and instead demand that applicants prove their need to do so.

BIG, BIG day today...Peruta v SD, Heller II and Dearth v. Holder are all having arguments today as well....

 

[INMY01TA]

Just read the MSJ Memorandum, man the SAF is brilliant. I am left wondering how the state will try to skate around that one.

The desire for self-defense, regardless of Defendants' opinions on the subject, is all the "good and substantial reason" required of plaintiffs by the Second Amendmant.

SAF seemed to cover every angle the state could possibly come up with.

 

[Hopalong]

I just read the memorandum. It made me kinda giddy.

So if I'm following events correctly, MD has avoided the core issue(s) so far, SAF et al. knows it, and they've now used that to essentially back MD into a corner and force them to address the issue or face judgement against them. Have I missed anything?

 

[krucam]

A very good analysis of '13', Response to Request for Conference. This from John at "No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money"

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/11/maryland-ag-asks-for-status-conference.html

"His (SAF) letter examines the rules for filing motions for summary judgment. He notes that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1) he could have filed a motion for summary judgment at the same time he filed the complaint in this case. If the state thinks his motion is premature, Gura says they can file a motion under Rule 56(f) to seek discovery which would identify which facts it expect discovery to produce. Nonetheless, he goes on to say that his motion is "aimed exclusively at a legal, not a factual, dispute" and that Rule 56(f) would not apply.

He goes on to add:

Indeed, even if this Court were to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs' motion as moot, the appellate courts would prefer a complete record. For example, the leading Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), saw both the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court grant a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that the district court did not reach, as it had granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Had the summary judgment motion not been filed, that case would still be unresolved.​

It is almost as if SAF is daring this judge to dismiss this case...


EDIT: Someone was kind enough to update the Docket. Every filing is available here: http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html

 

[kronusthebonus]

Looks good ! I get so impatient, but I've got a good feeling about this...

 

[Sev]

I said it before and i'll say it again

I wont get excited until the verdict is in and maryland starts issuing permits actively.

But i have a very cynical view of what will happen.

 

[Patrick]

The last line of the Gura letter addressing MD's desire for a status conference sums up everything filed today in the last line:

"Plaintiffs would welcome the opportunity to have a substantive argument on the merits of the cross-dispositive motions." In other words, "It's time for MD to try to justify their illegal laws."

This is a 'put up or shut up' moment for MD. Gura notes that MD has only argued that Woollard should be dismissed because it requires state action first. He also notes that this is wrong.

Gura also gracefully offers to consent to an extension of time for MD. But he also notes that they would probably object to discovery as nothing suggests it is required.

MD will probably get their hearing and that will take some time. They will also get an extension if they ask for it. But don't expect them to ask for more time, because that will come at the cost of agreeing to make a defense. Instead they will keep playing procedural bingo until forced to respond.

But the good news is that the judge will deny the SAF MSJ, but then force MD to respond with an MTD based on the merits of their case. Then another response from the SAF (by way of an MSJ), followed by a granting of the MD MTD, and then soon after an appeal by the SAF.

I think.

 

[kohburn]

the 12.2 almost reads as if to say legally the government can only say that we can't hide the guns but can't tell us that we can't carry them.

almost forces them to either ease up on the CCW permit restrictions or allow full open carry without the permit. both of those are wins.

 

[boricuamaximus]

The last line of the Gura letter addressing MD's desire for a status conference sums up everything filed today in the last line:

"Plaintiffs would welcome the opportunity to have a substantive argument on the merits of the cross-dispositive motions." In other words, "It's time for MD to try to justify their illegal laws."

This is a 'put up or shut up' moment for MD. Gura notes that MD has only argued that Woollard should be dismissed because it requires state action first. He also notes that this is wrong.

Gura also gracefully offers to consent to an extension of time for MD. But he also notes that they would probably object to discovery as nothing suggests it is required.

MD will probably get their hearing and that will take some time. They will also get an extension if they ask for it. But don't expect them to ask for more time, because that will come at the cost of agreeing to make a defense. Instead they will keep playing procedural bingo until forced to respond.

But the good news is that the judge will deny the SAF MSJ, but then force MD to respond with an MTD based on the merits of their case. Then another response from the SAF (by way of an MSJ), followed by a granting of the MD MTD, and then soon after an appeal by the SAF.

I think.

I fell asleep through my Anceint Greek courses. Can you explain that in a way that liberal progressive like myself can understand?

 

[ezliving]

Great read. Since there is no factual dispute and this case is on a narrow point of law, no discovery is necessary.

I envision a strong possibility of a summary judgment for the good guys. And then, what does Gansler have left to appeal. His dog won't hunt.