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

[agrin2005]

Motion to Dismiss DENIED

The case moves on. Will read and comment later. PDF of decision is in the above link.

Ok so I read it but have no idea if this is good or bad.. Can someone exolain this to me a simple way.

 

[Inigoes]

The younger absention motion to dismiss = Denied

Did Maryland get a dismissal of the case on Count II?

Therefore, although I will grant Defendants‘ motion to dismiss Count II, I will permit Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint stating their equal protection claim with more particularity.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Awesome news. Another step down the path.

 

[eruby]

- The judge would not dismiss due to weak 14th Amendment claims. He wasn't impressed with the initial complaint made by the SAF on this one, but found enough in the SAF response to the MTD to hold the question open. In this case, the judge said the SAF response included an implication that the law impacted a fundamental right. Note this does not mean the judge agrees with the SAF position, just that under the rules for these things he must assume the implication exists. Don't read too much (i.e.: anything) into this.

Therefore, although I will grant Defendants‘ motion to dismiss Count II, I will permit Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint stating their equal protection claim with more particularity.

Patrick - as always, thank you for your invaluable insight and information in this case so important to us all.

In the above quote, didn't the judge grant MD's motion to dismiss on the 14th amendment count (count II) while stating SAF could re-submit with more detail (not the correct words, but I think the gist of it)?

I could easily be wrong on this.

Again, thank you!

 

[krucam]

Wow...knock me over with a feather yada, yada. Judge Motz's letter telling MD to not worry about the Pltf MSJ (Till he ruled on the Def MTD) indicated to my suspicious mind that it was over....

Good news thus far that the Judge understands this is a Constitutional question and can't be easily dismissed by the state with Smoke in Mirrors.

The Judge did partially agree with the Defendants count regarding Equal Protection. He will allow the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, to polish up their EP argument.



Thanks for "plucking" this one Patrick...

 

[br3krj]

This is awesome news. Thanks to you all for your detailed explanation which is easy to understand.

 

[Kharn]

Yet another baby step forward.
I can't wait to read the amended complaint.

 

[rambling_one]

I join others in praising the in-depth analyses provided by krucam and Patrick. If not for them I'd be knee deep in confusion.

 

[Jim Sr]

I join others in praising the in-depth analyses provided by krucam and Patrick. If not for them I'd be knee deep in confusion.

+1

 

[CHUNKERMD]

I join others in praising the in-depth analyses provided by krucam and Patrick. If not for them I'd be knee deep in confusion.

+2

 

[Tom43491]

+2

I join others in praising the in-depth analyses provided by krucam and Patrick. If not for them I'd be knee deep in confusion.

+3

 

[BenL]

...when they can not get 50 people to attend one of these very important and worth while events you are very far from millions. Hell IF the millions would just go vote things would change but alas...they are the same and will remain so for years to come and possibly forever.

There's the rub that I think a lot of us forget: we are in the vast minority in this state.

Maryland has ~5 million people living in it. The vast majority of the citizens in this state (Carroll and Harford counties not withstanding) are extreme leftists that would be perfectly happy having all guns of any type banned, permanently. My best friend lives in Connecticut, and often comments on his disbelief that we don't have an assault weapons ban like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and California does. By most measures, our state is just as liberal as those four, if not more so.

 

[Patrick]

Patrick - as always, thank you for your invaluable insight and information in this case so important to us all.

In the above quote, didn't the judge grant MD's motion to dismiss on the 14th amendment count (count II) while stating SAF could re-submit with more detail (not the correct words, but I think the gist of it)?

I could easily be wrong on this.

Again, thank you!

The judge did not dismiss the complaint over the 14th Amendment claims. But I should have caught the actual claim being dismissed and pointing it out. I'd blame it on the iPad, but realistically I just missed the detail. Thanks all for pointing it out.

My initial read (done in about ten minutes) was that the claim was allowed but on thin ice. Turns out it was disallowed but thrown a life jacket.

Either way, we can expect a full facial challenge based on a fundamental right to bear arms in public.


As for Gansler...I am waiting anxiously for something I expect to be less than stellar. In an odd way, I kinda hope our state AG can come up with something novel to use as an argument. But I am prepared to be underwhelmed. He is not in Gura's league. So the bar is low for him to impress...

 

[krucam]

In retrospect, the conference and letter in Nov directing the parties to not respond to Pltf MSJ until he ruled on Def MTD, while at first glance seemed ominous now brings up new thoughts...

Any Pltf MSJ and any Defendant response would be moot given the Pltf's must now complete an amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint is due Jan 21, 2011 btw...: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.18.0.pdf

The original complaint was filed 7/20, the Defendants responded (MTD) on 9/29. I would think the Judge would ask them to start working on their response, whatever it may be, right now. Perhaps we'll be back to where we were on 9/29, by Feb or March.

Gansler's response, now that it has to address the 2A issues (unless they think of other creative diversions), will likely fall into the same, tired "in the home" argument...take the lessons-learned in Peruta and apply them here and we should be able to reasonably hope for a different outcome.

Even if we don't succeed at the District Level, the 4th Circuit awaits and MD is the only state in the 4th that isn't Shall Issue....it's a coming.

 

[Hopalong]

The vast majority of the citizens in this state (Carroll and Harford counties not withstanding) are extreme leftists that would be perfectly happy having all guns of any type banned, permanently.

Hey, don't forget us good 'ole boys and girls west of Frederick, however few we are. Sadly, there aren't really enough of us to do much at the state level, but we do what we can.

Patrick: I agree with you about Gansler. I actually hope that he comes up with something out of Left Field (see what I did there?) so SAF & Co. can meet it head on now and resolve it. Do I think it'll happen? Not really, but stranger things have happened.

MD is the only state in the 4th that isn't Shall Issue....it's a coming.

You know, I never really stopped to think about that, but you're right. One more thing in our favor....

 

[Patrick]

Based on this latest news, we are looking at a restartof the whole case. Nothing accomplished thusfar other thandealya by MD. Give them credit where due: Gansler and crew slowed Gura where others have failed. Even if it proves littlemore than a speed bump.

I don't see us winning at the district or even circuit level. There is not enough jurisprudence for that yet. Maybe.

One thing about Peruta: the judge leaned, to some extent, on CA's unloaded open carry statutes. As laughable as they are, it was a nugget she could use. Maryland has no such amalgam. The SAF is already using Peruta's opinion to say that the judge found in favor of a right to bear arms (though not concealed) in public. Touché.

 

[krucam]

Based on this latest news, we are looking at a restartof the whole case. Nothing accomplished thusfar other thandealya by MD. Give them credit where due: Gansler and crew slowed Gura where others have failed. Even if it proves littlemore than a speed bump.

That was the gist of my frail thoughts above...we're basically back to square 1...July 2010 retro.

I don't see us winning at the district or even circuit level. There is not enough jurisprudence for that yet. Maybe.

All it takes is the right Judge at the District or Circuit level. You said it before yourself...keep & bear are on the same side of the coin. Particularly at the Circuit level, I think there's a Judge out there that sees the writing on the wall...Unobstructed Gun Control is over, Bear & the "Core" Self Defense means outside the home as well as in it, minus schools and court houses of course....

These "Carry" cases, all 9 of them, are not individually guaranteed a SCOTUS visit (cert granted)...unless there is a circuit split, in which one of the those on the side of that split would go to 1 First St.

Palmer (DC Ckt)
Richards (CA Dist, 9th Ckt)
Woollard (MD Dist, 4th Ckt)
Kachalsky (NY Dist, 2nd Ckt)
Jacobs (CA Dist, 9th Ckt)
Peruta (9th Ckt)
Pizzo (CA Dist, 9th Ckt)
Birdt (CA Dist, 9th Ckt)
Muller (NJ Dist, 3rd Ckt)

Marginal Carry: Bateman (NC Dist, 4th Ckt)

If we're to assume there's a "Master Plan" with SAF and their strategy, which of these cases would you have bet would be the one to likely be in favor of the Plaintiffs at the Circuit level? Which ones would rule against us?
Circuit Courts Map: http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx
They need a gimme amongst these cases and I think the 4th is it and what was planned by SAF. Of course, I could be completely off...

One thing about Peruta: the judge leaned, to some extent, on CA's unloaded open carry statutes. As laughable as they are, it was a nugget she could use. Maryland has no such amalgam. The SAF is already using Peruta's opinion to say that the judge found in favor of a right to bear arms (though not concealed) in public. Touché.

That MD doesn't have a crutch (UOC) works in our favor....

Ready for some Chicken McNuggets with Honey btw??

 

[Patrick]

All it takes is the right Judge at the District or Circuit level. You said it before yourself...keep & bear are on the same side of the coin. Particularly at the Circuit level, I think there's a Judge out there that sees the writing on the wall...Unobstructed Gun Control is over, Bear & the "Core" Self Defense means outside the home as well as in it, minus schools and court houses of course....

You: Eternal optimist.

But you have a good point, there are an awful lot of cases out there and it would be tough for the anti's to run a 100% win against all of them. Each loss seems to 'give' just a little more. As laughable as Peruta was, it did introduce the idea that some form of carry could be required. Though not to over-read, it was a backup argument from the judge that unloaded open carry would answer the problem...if the problem existed.

If we're to assume there's a "Master Plan" with SAF and their strategy, which of these cases would you have bet would be the one to likely be in favor of the Plaintiffs at the Circuit level? Which ones would rule against us?
Circuit Courts Map: http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx
They need a gimme amongst these cases and I think the 4th is it and what was planned by SAF. Of course, I could be completely off...

The 4th is ripe with judges who could help, as it is comprised of states that were traditionally red and therfore has Senators willing to hold against liberal judges. But it is hardly stalwart. Like all cases everywhere...depends on which judges randomly drops out of the pool at any given time.

But I would certainly hold more hope for our case in the 4th than Peruta/Richards in the 9th.

That MD doesn't have a crutch (UOC) works in our favor....

I think it means Gansler will need to double down on 'in the home' and avoid 'concealed carry restrictions are presumptively lawful', because that second argument on manner of carry is a trap: if he walked in Gura would eat him alive for not reading that dicta in context. That's not a secret...Gura's recently been tearing into that argument elsewhere. I would not be surprised to see in a later book how he left that point unanswered until everyone started using it. Then pounced.

The 'in the home' dicta is also tough to defend, given the fact it is not dicta and has that "most acutely" tacked onto the front. The only problem we have is that the court only really hinted that there was more but left no clear lines. This makes sense from their perspective, but it makes the work of the lower courts that much harder.

Ready for some Chicken McNuggets with Honey btw??

Yes. And as it turns out, most McDonald's have dropped actual honey as an option for McNugget sauce. This pisses me off to no end. I don't eat McD's junk often, but when I do I want real honey. For some reason, this stands as one of those small things in this world that really, really annoys me. I've had people try to do real harm to me, yet somehow I fixate on this little thing. Admittedly odd.

So I'll bring my own honey.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

In retrospect, the conference and letter in Nov directing the parties to not respond to Pltf MSJ until he ruled on Def MTD, while at first glance seemed ominous now brings up new thoughts...

Any Pltf MSJ and any Defendant response would be moot given the Pltf's must now complete an amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint is due Jan 21, 2011 btw...: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.18.0.pdf

The original complaint was filed 7/20, the Defendants responded (MTD) on 9/29. I would think the Judge would ask them to start working on their response, whatever it may be, right now. Perhaps we'll be back to where we were on 9/29, by Feb or March.

Gansler's response, now that it has to address the 2A issues (unless they think of other creative diversions), will likely fall into the same, tired "in the home" argument...take the lessons-learned in Peruta and apply them here and we should be able to reasonably hope for a different outcome.

Even if we don't succeed at the District Level, the 4th Circuit awaits and MD is the only state in the 4th that isn't Shall Issue....it's a coming.

That's true, it will be awfully hard for MD to argue against carry in the 4th circuit when they are the only hold out. It will pretty easy for the judges to look at Gansler and ask "So are, ah, 4 states wrong, or are you wrong?"

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Based on this latest news, we are looking at a restartof the whole case. Nothing accomplished thusfar other thandealya by MD. Give them credit where due: Gansler and crew slowed Gura where others have failed. Even if it proves littlemore than a speed bump.

I don't see us winning at the district or even circuit level. There is not enough jurisprudence for that yet. Maybe.

One thing about Peruta: the judge leaned, to some extent, on CA's unloaded open carry statutes. As laughable as they are, it was a nugget she could use. Maryland has no such amalgam. The SAF is already using Peruta's opinion to say that the judge found in favor of a right to bear arms (though not concealed) in public. Touché.

That is one small nugget, and one that MD CANNOT run from. And face it, to see a bunch of us in Annapolis open carrying (even if unloaded) will not sit well with them.