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

[Plinkey]

iPhone Report.

Looking forward to the full (non-iphone) writeup.

 

[weeman]

Looking forward to the full (non-iphone) writeup.

You and everyone else following this thread. Thanks Patrick for breaking this down for us peons.

 

[DeeDeub]

I'm a lurker extrordinaire, but wanted to also pass along my thanks to Patrick for taking the time to attend and give us some insight on something so many have an interest in!

Looking forward to further thoughts...

 

[Inigoes]

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/Forms/TranscriptOrderInstructions.pdf

That should get you in the right direction.

That link was awesome,

the URL for the audio:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/

edit: we need to wait a couple of days before it's posted

 

[eyesinpines]

Patrick, I too want to add my thanks....I'll name my next born after you!

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I'm very surprised that the state yielded this point. They just admitted that the regulation exists to reduce the number of permit holders; not to reduce crime, not because of some stupid legislative privilege, and not even "for the children".

It is a regulation expressly for the purpose of restricting a fundamental constitutional right. Period. And they just admitted it in front of a federal judge. I gaurantee you that'll bite them in the ass at some point.

EDIT: Thanks so much Patrick for going and taking notes.

Like, herm...Williams?

 

[teratos]

Thanks for the update, Patrick!

It sounds like things went mostly our way. Since most people in the inner cities are law abiding, and there seems to be a good deal more gun crime in the cities than in the burbs or the rural areas, wouldn't one argue that the need for a handgun for self defense is most acute in these areas? Wouldn't insult to the right to self defense be most egregious if you limited law abiding citizens from protecting themselves if they have no choice but to live/work in these areas?

This is almost the same argument they are making in the case in NC (name eludes me) where they say you can't carry during a state of emergency. That is when you are most likely to need your weapon.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

So...first of all, Thanks Patrick. We are all on the edge of our seats waiting for your long winded, detailed, and very thoughtful summary and opinion on today's hearing.

Thinking out loud here for a second. IF we win at this level, what would you do if you are Gansler? This means that a district court judge has just stuck his neck out to be the first one to rule in favor of a "core" right "outside the home" (or even forcing MD's interest balancing to take a turn towards due process in the least). Woollard winning this case now would me that MD would at least get to preserve it's permit system. With Williams before the big court, a non-appeal would almost certainly shape that case towards permitting, but it also might allow Gansler to argue in favor of a GVR to the trial court (or MD Court of special appeals?), issue Williams a permit, and keep going? (Irony perhaps?)

If this goes our way and is appealed by Gansler to the 4th Circuit, I think this will instantaneously put the pressure on SCOTUS to take Williams, which means that Gansler will effectively face going 0-3 on Constitutional reviews ofMaryland's carry laws (assuming WE win today, Williams is taken by SCOUTS, and then the 4th Circuit takes Woollard or GVRs or lets the District court ruling stand, and then assume we do win all of those things).

Basically what I am saying is, IF we win today, Gansler will have had his goose cooked.

Can the AG find some sort of legal way in a loss today on Woollard, to be able to offer some kind of relief to Williams? Basically he could go back to SCOTUS and say "Oops, our bad. We have decided to settle Mr. Williams, return him his property, expunge his record, no jail time and oh btw, for your troubles, here's a permit." That in essence would preserve MD's permit system (and thus we assume no open carry aspect and still preserve the arbitrary delays of issuance), and thus preserve some 2A 2Step through his loss?

That's a lot of if's, I know...guess we should "win" first.

Where's Charlie Sheen when we need him?

 

[pcfixer]

Thank You, Patrick... Good Job. Time to buy you a beer...

 

[swinokur]

Thanks Patrick.

 

[hvymax]

Patrick next time you make the SMIBtogether you get a round on me.

 

[swinokur]

May I suggest if we win that we have a social event of some kind and thank those that have worked so hard to keep us informed? They spent a great deal of their own time above and beyond the rest of us. Heck, we should thank them even if we lose. Good excuse for a meet and greet IMO.

 

[Atlasarmory]

May I suggest if we win that we have a social event of some kind and thank those that have worked so hard to keep us informed? They spent a great deal of their own time above and beyond the rest of us. Heck, we should thank them even if we lose. Good excuse for a meet and greet IMO.

Excellent idea

 

[Fodder4Thought]

May I suggest if we win that we have a social event of some kind and thank those that have worked so hard to keep us informed? They spent a great deal of their own time above and beyond the rest of us. Heck, we should thank them even if we lose. Good excuse for a meet and greet IMO.

I'm down for this - sounds like a fine idea.

 

[teratos]

May I suggest if we win that we have a social event of some kind and thank those that have worked so hard to keep us informed? They spent a great deal of their own time above and beyond the rest of us. Heck, we should thank them even if we lose. Good excuse for a meet and greet IMO.

That would be a great idea.

 

[hvymax]

Maybe in time for the MSI annual meeting.

 

[Afield]

May I suggest if we win that we have a social event of some kind and thank those that have worked so hard to keep us informed? They spent a great deal of their own time above and beyond the rest of us. Heck, we should thank them even if we lose. Good excuse for a meet and greet IMO.

Don't you mean when we win ? If not now, then at richmond or 1 First st.

 

[Patrick]

Where were you? I was dead center tan suit. Nice summary, I got the same thing out of it. "Ration a constitutional right" was an awesome phrase. The judge came up with that all by himself.

I was the bald guy front and left, under the screen. You were on the phone after the hearing in the hallway?

Nice to virtually meet you.

I just got home and am going to type something up. But my 3 year old daughter has confiscated my notebook computer. I am stuck with something sub-optimal.

I will try to answer some of the questions about the hearing today, but I will say there are some gotchas in here. There always are...

 

[Robert]

Patrick you are the man! You have helped me tremendusly with your down-to-earth synopis of these events.. Thank you Sir!

 

[SkunkWerX]

Patrick,
Big Thanks from all of us, can we pay your parking tab for the day?

This judge was prepared. He studied everything, including cited cases.

This is good news, he is not just going through the motions? Breath of fresh air.

His words: he leans towards the right extending outside the home...but it might be subject to lesser scrutiny. The question is whether G&S survives that intermediate standard. Also discussed was the idea of "advanced intermediate" (his words), muck like Ezell. He asked both sides if it existed. Both pretty much said yes.

Outside the Home! YES! good way to lean, that sounds like a slight tip-o-the-poker hand.
Advanced intermediate, wow. is that between Intermediate and Strict?
That's good for us, correct? Sounds like Shall Issue would be Advanced Intermediate...permitting=yes, but no G&S or judgement calls.

The judge recognized that the point of Maryland regulation was to reduce the number of permit holders in the state. The state reluctantly agreed. The judge asked about statistics of permit holders that commit crimes...in Texas. Maryland tripped over it Gura said "zero point one three percent."

Wow, this is a two-fer. Admission they are merely trying to reduce permit holders using G&S as the tool AND it appears the judge already knew the answer to Texas permit holders crime rate. Another tip of the hand, if you ask me. It tells me the judge already knows that many more permit holders doesn't adversely affect crime statistics.

The judge asked if the state public interest argument let's them "ration a constitutional right." The state said yes.

Wow. Did he shake his head? Hit Gansler with his gavel? Again, these questions are loaded. They seem loaded in our favor. No?

It is not all roses for our side. The judge appears sympathetic to arguments that dense populations in parks or downtown will represent a significant risk. But then he noted that would be another case, if Maryland banned those areas.

Could this be an escape hatch? Give Marylanders Shall Issue, but leave the door open for MD to determine "sensitive places"? We knew this was a firm possibility, and we know if it comes to MD being overbearing about it, certainly another Court Case. Kick the can further down the road.

We can still lose this, easily. The number one question asked was literally "how do I end-run the constitutional question?"

Ugh. perhaps this was more a way to of saying to MD, look m hands are tied if i am to follow the Constitution. Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps.

Mostly good for us. I am more hopeful than 24 hours ago.
Not giddy, but there is still hope.


Thanks again to Patrick. Cannot wait for tonight's concise recap!

We owe you dinner and a beer, for sure.