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

[Kharn]

Norton,
Some groups are one trick ponies striving for relevance anywhere they can find it.

 

[Bigfoot21075]

I am as thrilled as anyone about this ruling. However, I do not think that the war is won yet. I am 100% sure MD will appeal (with my last breath I spit at thee) until the bitter, bitter, bitter end. Maryland does not care about your rights. It will not happen until they are FORCED to conceed, and IMHO that is many court battles away.

I would think we still want to support the current round of house bills, especially with the momentum we have built up. Also, stop sending MSP $112.00 for nothing. They will not issue anything until they are told to. Take the money and send it to MSI, let's build up the battle wagon for the LOOOOONG fight to come. We do not want to stumble now, this is our best shot in YEARS.

Again - just my opinion.

**EDIT**

In light of further reading AND this

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-gun-law-appeal-20120306,0,6673248.story

I too conceed that it may be best to yank at lesat HB45 for now. HOWEVER the part about wasting your money now is still spot on. Send it to MSI.

 

[swinokur]

If we can figure out that HB45 passage might moot the ruling, might the GA come to the same conclusion and pass it just to moot the ruling?

 

[Kharn]

If we can figure out that HB45 passage might moot the ruling, might the GA come to the same conclusion and pass it just to moot the ruling?

IIRC the rules of the House allows the sponsor to withdraw the bill, preventing a vote.

 

[Klunatic]

72 HOURS?

The info on the MSP website says that the prints are good for 30 days?

Like usual I'm confused.

They even stamp the form "send to the MSP within 72 hours.

 

[navycraig]

WOW!

I normally check this site / thread every day, but due to work and school circumstances I missed a few days and sure enough, that is when the announcement was made. It's taken me many well spent hours to catch up on the reading.

As has been said, a HUGE thank you is due to all those who have worked so hard to get us to this point. For a lot of us, it's not a big deal to donate a few bucks here and there so that's what we do. But the rubber meets the road behind the scenes and there are a lot of folks who have put a lot of time and effort into this. For that, I am forever thankful. I'm already a member of MSI and SAF, but will certainly be donating more $$$.

Application is printed out, references have been notified and I plan to apply as soon as I can get to Glen Burnie for the electronic fingerprints.

Thanks again folks. Man, what a good, good day.

 

[Klunatic]

It means nothing for Constitutional Carry in Maryland because this is totally unrelated to the topic. There is nothing, anywhere in this ruling that directs us towards Vermont style (ie Constitutional) carry.

Perhaps they are applying a different meeting to "permitted" in Legg's ruling. Could be construed to mean that one doesn't need a permit to exercise a right that already exists.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights, The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

 

[BUFF7MM]

I'm lost here on HB45, isn't it kinda doing the same thing that the ruling did? If it were to pass and remove the G&S reason why would it make the ruling moot since it was passed after the ruling, wouldn't it just reinforce the ruling in a sense? I'm so confused.

 

[PJDiesel]

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights, The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

Interesting, a literal read of it. I like your line of thinking.

 

[Boxcab]

I'm lost here on HB45, isn't it kinda doing the same thing that the ruling did? If it were to pass and remove the G&S reason why would it make the ruling moot since it was passed after the ruling, wouldn't it just reinforce the ruling in a sense? I'm so confused.

HB45 does not remove the G&S requirement, it just says that the MSP must find your G&S instead of the applicant supplying the data.

So how hard do you think the MSP will look for a G&S reason for you to carry a gun?

Fox and Hen House.

 

[Jaybeez]

IIRC the rules of the House allows the sponsor to withdraw the bill, preventing a vote.

del Smigiel is still asking for support on hb45 as of this morning, and is indicating via facebook that all the backroom deals have been completed to assure its passage...

Really hoping Msi and Saf have a plan for this soon.


all the backroom deals are in place for hb45 to pass
for emphasis

 

[annihilation-time]

If we can figure out that HB45 passage might moot the ruling, might the GA come to the same conclusion and pass it just to moot the ruling?

I don't see how it can moot a rendered decision.

 

[BUFF7MM]

HB45 does not remove the G&S requirement, it just says that the MSP must find your G&S instead of the applicant supplying the data.

So how hard do you think the MSP will look for a G&S reason for you to carry a gun?

Fox and Hen House.

That makes it a little clearer.

 

[Storm40]

it shouldn't matter whether the burden of G&S is shifted to the MSP, G&S was ruled unconstitutional. HB45 is simply furthering, though altering slightly, the same unconstitutional principle.

 

[Jaybeez]

it shouldn't matter whether the burden of G&S is shifted to the MSP, G&S was ruled unconstitutional. HB45 is simply furthering, though altering slightly, the same unconstitutional principle.

that would take a new court case and years to decide.

 

[OH IT'S KINO]

Can anyone answer for me why Del Smigiel is trying so hard to push HB-45 when it very clearly goes AGAINST what we're pushing for with the new ruling on G&S? I'm really confused; it seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[Wraith]

Put into simple english if I am reading everything correctly, if HB45 passes, it would make it so the verdict was/is unneeded, and then it won't be needed to be enforced. This means that Gansler would win the appeal by default, at which point they would convene an emergency session, and put us back to no issue immediately. Meaning Woolard, and SAF would be out alot of time, and money. This would also send us back to square one, as well as having the added failure of wasting the first court ruling that expands 2nd amendment rights beyond the home. I have guesses about why this is happening now, as in the push for SB45, but I think a few of our more well informed members might have a better idea whats happening behind the scenes in the state house.

 

[dlmcbm]

Front page of The Frederick News Post

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyID=132786

 

[Redcobra]

I don't see how it can moot a rendered decision.

When the appeal of Wollard goes to the 4th District Court, they could null the verdict because it is superseded. According to the AGC legislative officerlast night at the trustees meeting, he said that the best thing to happen is for the State appeal to the 4th to be heard and Wollard confirmed, and then the MD AG will petition SCOTUS. If the 4th confirms and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, we're in. Then it is settled once and for all. Until then MSP isn't going to change.

 

[Boxcab]

it shouldn't matter whether the burden of G&S is shifted to the MSP, G&S was ruled unconstitutional. HB45 is simply furthering, though altering slightly, the same unconstitutional principle.

Tell that to Chicago, they have been playing word games for a year or two. Yes, the Courts will eventually fix it, but add a few years for the judicial process to grind.