Surely you jest? These summaries are extremely helpful to me, anyway. I just don't have the time or energy to stay on top of all these nuances, and rely on the experts to translate them into English that mere mortals can follow.
Bryan
SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Surely you jest? These summaries are extremely helpful to me, anyway. I just don't have the time or energy to stay on top of all these nuances, and rely on the experts to translate them into English that mere mortals can follow.
Bryan
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
This is from docket #19.
The Heart of the matter is "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is a fundamental right.
The 2A is enumerated thru the 14th Ammendaments "Due Process clause", the Opinion of Alito is Substantive Due Process. Judicial review of substantive due process violations, When a law or other act of government is challenged as a violation of individual liberty under the Due Process Clause, courts nowadays primarily use two forms of scrutiny, or judicial review.
This inquiry balances the importance of the governmental interest being served and the appropriateness of the government's method of implementation against the resulting infringement of individual rights.
If the governmental action infringes upon a fundamental right, the highest level of review—strict scrutiny—is used.
In order to pass strict scrutiny review, the law or act must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.
The Heart of the matter is "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is a fundamental right.
The 2A is enumerated thru the 14th Ammendaments "Due Process clause", the Opinion of Alito is Substantive Due Process. Judicial review of substantive due process violations, When a law or other act of government is challenged as a violation of individual liberty under the Due Process Clause, courts nowadays primarily use two forms of scrutiny, or judicial review.
This inquiry balances the importance of the governmental interest being served and the appropriateness of the government's method of implementation against the resulting infringement of individual rights.
If the governmental action infringes upon a fundamental right, the highest level of review—strict scrutiny—is used.
In order to pass strict scrutiny review, the law or act must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.
...
Ultimate Member
reason, how about my state is filled with democrats that can't seem to stop committing crimes, breaking in to houses and robbing people. Other reason, our idiot governor is calling my state, "Casa de Maryland" and encouraging illegal aliens and foreign drug gangs to come operate in my state.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
I agree wholeheartly with this in docket number 19
Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry
permit applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit impermissibly classifies
individuals with respect to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision creates two classification of individuals. Applicants who have demonstrated to Defendants’ satisfaction that a handgun carry permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” or that they face a greater than average level of danger, are given permits;applicants who cannot satisfy that burden are not given permits. The classification system is inherently arbitrary, irrational, and deprives individuals of their fundamental right to bear arms based on criteria that cannot be justified under any means-ends level of scrutiny for the security of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision thus violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of
this provision.
edit: I found this very interesting....http://www.defraudingamerica.com/civil_rights_act.html
Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry
permit applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit impermissibly classifies
individuals with respect to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision creates two classification of individuals. Applicants who have demonstrated to Defendants’ satisfaction that a handgun carry permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” or that they face a greater than average level of danger, are given permits;applicants who cannot satisfy that burden are not given permits. The classification system is inherently arbitrary, irrational, and deprives individuals of their fundamental right to bear arms based on criteria that cannot be justified under any means-ends level of scrutiny for the security of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision thus violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of
this provision.
edit: I found this very interesting....http://www.defraudingamerica.com/civil_rights_act.html
Last edited:
SkunkWerX
Ultimate Member
Mark, thanks for that candid thought about the defendants.
Maybe they are in complete and utter denial?
Maybe they knew this has been coming over the last 2 decades and the day is close?
Maybe Gansler told them their goose was cooked when the case was filed?
Maybe they still live in MambyPamby land and have no clue it's really a firm possibility and thought it would get tossed out on a quickly granted MTD?
I'll go with your thought of the of the Kahr or Ruger LC9 during warm weather...but it's going to be 1911 during colder weather.
Patrick, thanks for the 2 step analysis. It keeps us grounded.
If the Honorable Judge Motz were a known anti-gun grabber type, we would probably see the writing on the wall? I guess only he [Motz] has a true inkling which way this thing is truly going to fall.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I think it's just more kicking the can down the road. Avoid, deny, obfuscate.
At this point there is nothing for the SAF to reply to. The affirmative defenses put forward by the state are essentially the ones that were already ruled upon.
Another MSJ will force a real response from our state. Right now there is no risk of a ruling on the complaint. An MSJ is a request to rule. It is coming. Should MD fail to artfully respond to the MSJ, they will lose.
So MD is keeping their cards close to their vest. OK. We'll see them soon.
At this point there is nothing for the SAF to reply to. The affirmative defenses put forward by the state are essentially the ones that were already ruled upon.
Another MSJ will force a real response from our state. Right now there is no risk of a ruling on the complaint. An MSJ is a request to rule. It is coming. Should MD fail to artfully respond to the MSJ, they will lose.
So MD is keeping their cards close to their vest. OK. We'll see them soon.
Lightning
Active Member
Sorry if I missed it in an earlier post, but what kind of time frame do you think we are looking at 2-3 weeks or 2-3 months...
BenL
John Galt Speaking.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
If you are talking about a substantive reply to this stage of the case, we are probably in the 2-3 month timeframe. That assumes the SAF updates their MSJ from last year in the next few weeks and gets it out, followed by the customary delay for a defendant to respond.
Maryland will ask for another extension. Maybe this time Hansel/Gura tell them to stick it. To this day Maryland has never substantively responded to the claims. It's been half a year now.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
It is difficult to tell about the time frame or how Gansler will respond.
Is there any insight into how Judge Frederic Motz might rule? Understand
the affermative defense doesn't mean much. The only ruling I could see
is ruling on the Bear outside the home part which doesn't have any precident
other that the language from McDonald case.
From McDonald page 20 :Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”
Last edited:
Gray Peterson
Active Member
From Wiki:
Born in Baltimore, Maryland, Motz received an A.B. from Wesleyan University in 1964 and an LL.B. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1967. He was a law clerk, Hon. Harrison L. Winter, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit from 1967 to 1968. He was in private practice in Baltimore, Maryland from 1968 to 1969. He was an assistant U.S. Attorney of the District of Maryland from 1969 to 1971. He was in private practice in Baltimore, Maryland from 1971 to 1981. He was a U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland from 1981 to 1985. His wife, Diana Motz, sits on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Motz is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Motz was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on April 23, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on July 11, 1985, and received his commission on July 12, 1985. He served as chief judge from 1994-2001.
He's not a Carter appointee, which is a plus.
Born in Baltimore, Maryland, Motz received an A.B. from Wesleyan University in 1964 and an LL.B. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1967. He was a law clerk, Hon. Harrison L. Winter, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit from 1967 to 1968. He was in private practice in Baltimore, Maryland from 1968 to 1969. He was an assistant U.S. Attorney of the District of Maryland from 1969 to 1971. He was in private practice in Baltimore, Maryland from 1971 to 1981. He was a U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland from 1981 to 1985. His wife, Diana Motz, sits on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Motz is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Motz was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on April 23, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on July 11, 1985, and received his commission on July 12, 1985. He served as chief judge from 1994-2001.
He's not a Carter appointee, which is a plus.
If he rules against us, would she have to recuse herself from the litigation if it was assigned to her??
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Per this article, Motz still claims Republican. When he took a "retirement" to become a senior judge in the District, he said of the opening he was going to create in 2009, "One shouldn't hold on until one's party gets put in office."
He was talking about the fact Obama would be naming his successor.
On an interesting side note, his wife is a Circuit Judge in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. And no...she would not hear appeals of his cases.
Reading comments about him on a few sites, some see him as a shill for corporate America and the right. One commenter claimed that he acted as if he needed "to offset every liberal on the Maryland District Court bench before he retires."
That said, I wouldn't put much stock in the blather. He might be a tad more conservative, but after all these years of working the bench he has moved up in the system. That implies he tries to be true to the law more often than not. He is unlikely a shill for either side in this case. That's good news, because we are one with the constitution here. A fair evaluation of the law is all we need.
He was talking about the fact Obama would be naming his successor.
On an interesting side note, his wife is a Circuit Judge in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. And no...she would not hear appeals of his cases.
Reading comments about him on a few sites, some see him as a shill for corporate America and the right. One commenter claimed that he acted as if he needed "to offset every liberal on the Maryland District Court bench before he retires."
That said, I wouldn't put much stock in the blather. He might be a tad more conservative, but after all these years of working the bench he has moved up in the system. That implies he tries to be true to the law more often than not. He is unlikely a shill for either side in this case. That's good news, because we are one with the constitution here. A fair evaluation of the law is all we need.
I'm not sure but I'd think she may have to recuse herself from any case her husband hears.
krucam
Ultimate Member
I've been trying to find out more about J. Motz as well...nothing jumps out that pins him as someone with an agenda, nothing that suggests he leans left or right. In all honest its a crap shoot.
I'd seen that before about his wife being on the 4th and that is true: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/JudgesBio/judgesmain.htm
"IF" this goes to the 4th, she would undoubtedly recuse herself...at least I would hope so.
Where will he fall? He DID deny the States MTD and gave SAF an opportunity to polish up the Equal Protection claim
...and after Peruta, that probably means we're screwed royally. 
Other 2A junkies will recall Judge Gonzalez's beautiful, pro-2A ruling on a MTD a year ago, only to ultimately rule against us last December...2 stepping all the way. This stuff is harder to predict than a roulette wheel. Who knows?
I'm positive....
I'd seen that before about his wife being on the 4th and that is true: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/JudgesBio/judgesmain.htm
"IF" this goes to the 4th, she would undoubtedly recuse herself...at least I would hope so.
Where will he fall? He DID deny the States MTD and gave SAF an opportunity to polish up the Equal Protection claim
...and after Peruta, that probably means we're screwed royally. Other 2A junkies will recall Judge Gonzalez's beautiful, pro-2A ruling on a MTD a year ago, only to ultimately rule against us last December...2 stepping all the way. This stuff is harder to predict than a roulette wheel. Who knows?
I'm positive....
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
See the CATO's forum from 1/20/2011. http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/297621-1
This is an eye opener. All should watch this. Nelson Lund and Alan Morrison really took a lot of shots at Scalia's reasoning and approach worded in both Heller and McDonald.
Both make comments as too Scalia's opinion. 1st they comment he didn't approach his statements as a fundametalist. 2. He failed to enlighten the full scope of the RKBA.
Lund went so far to say Scalia's arguments were full of falacy and absurdity's.
3. Scalia didn't codify what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, meant.
Rightfully so, Gura states the orginal intent is right is inside and outside the home. Nothing he see as orginal intent that 2A in only inside the home.
This is an eye opener. All should watch this. Nelson Lund and Alan Morrison really took a lot of shots at Scalia's reasoning and approach worded in both Heller and McDonald.
Both make comments as too Scalia's opinion. 1st they comment he didn't approach his statements as a fundametalist. 2. He failed to enlighten the full scope of the RKBA.
Lund went so far to say Scalia's arguments were full of falacy and absurdity's.
3. Scalia didn't codify what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, meant.
Rightfully so, Gura states the orginal intent is right is inside and outside the home. Nothing he see as orginal intent that 2A in only inside the home.
BenL
John Galt Speaking.
Excellent read my Mr. Lund.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacSecondAmendmentFoundation.pdf
I saved a copy for those who wish the argue that the 2nd is meant for militias.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacSecondAmendmentFoundation.pdf
I saved a copy for those who wish the argue that the 2nd is meant for militias.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WVU, Fairmont State University plot courses for campus carry implementation
- Started by bcr229
- Replies: 1