**FLASH TRAFFIC** WOOLARD REVERSED

[peafarmer]

I just re-read judge Legg's decision. He was very careful, and smart, to rely on previous rulings by the CA4 to frame his ruling. He logically and persuasively outlines why the statute fails IS. Then, the CA4 comes out and says that he is wrong, and that IS was met "because we say so".

I'll bet Judge Legg is fuming!

 

[randian]

Police stations and government buildings have to follow zoning regulations too.

Frequently, they don't. It's one of the ways that government schools quash the competition (private schools), for example. Due to zoning, many cities have either no qualifying parcels on which you could build a private school, or no qualifying parcels where you'd want to build one. And, if you can find a parcel, just try and get building permits for anything resembling a timely and cost-effective building. The delays and conditions planning/zoning will impose on you are designed to crush your spirit. Failing that, make the project so late and expensive that it no longer makes sense.

Public schools have none of these problems.

 

[Brooklyn]

Can someone explain this to me? IANAL And this paragraph from the decision and broken my brain:

"we like it so it stays." Do not lose sleep over it. The real court will go at it and they will learn that coping the brief of the government is not the same as reasoning to a decision. Lower courts tend to be rubber stamps for the views that got them appointed. Thats life.

The reason its hard to understand is that it makes no sense.

 

[Brooklyn]

I just re-read judge Legg's decision. He was very careful, and smart, to rely on previous rulings by the CA4 to frame his ruling. He logically and persuasively outlines why the statute fails IS. Then, the CA4 comes out and says that he is wrong, and that IS was met "because we say so".

I'll bet Judge Legg is fuming!

No laughing. It goes to scotus now. He will have his work looked over by THE COURT. I think it will fair well. That is quite a feather in his cap...

 

[press1280]

Just read the latest MSI email. Have they been in touch with Gura and SAF? They are indicating that Gura is requesting an enbanc panel. Can anyone verify this?

Can't confirm, but it wouldn't suprise me. I'm just guessing it could be used to stall a little and to possibly keep Kachalsky from getting denied certiorari, at least temporarily, and will allow the 2 remaining opinions(Richards-9th, Pizakowski-3rd) extra time to be released. Our circuit split is somewhat technical right now-a win in another case seals a split.
That being said I'd guess our chances of getting en banc are near zero and chances of an overturn are even closer to zero. For some reason folks keep thinking the 4th Circuit is a conservative court. Not even close-its packed full of Obama appointees.

 

[Ken Stanka]

This case was always destined to go En Banc followed by the supreme court no matter how the judges ruled.

JMHO but I think NRA/SAF have to run this up the flag pole or they risk the precedent being set for all other liberal states to impose extremely restrictive CCP legislation. Illinois is a great example, coming off a big win for 2A, if they impose "Good and Substantial", it all but negates that victory.

If we had won the decision, MOM/Maryland would have challenged to the supreme court too. It is too important for their political stance that they win so they can execute their agenda.

We had nothing to gain or lose at this point in the process. Supreme court was always the end point for this where we could celebrate success or be depressed about failure.

 

[pseudonym]

We had nothing to gain or lose at this point in the process. Supreme court was always the end point for this where we could celebrate success or be depressed about failure.

So, any ruling, for or against, was necessary for the process to move forward to the next step. That is actually a good way to look at it. For me, it actually takes away some of the disappointment.

A bad decision is better than no decision. You can fix (or try to fix) a bad decision, there is nothing you can do about indecision.

Thanks for your perspective!

 

[daNattyFatty]

A bad decision is better than no decision. You can fix (or try to fix) a bad decision, there is nothing you can do about indecision.

Especially when there is no timetable for which they have to rule on an issue.

 

[Ken Stanka]

So, any ruling, for or against, was necessary for the process to move forward to the next step. That is actually a good way to look at it. For me, it actually takes away some of the disappointment.

A bad decision is better than no decision. You can fix (or try to fix) a bad decision, there is nothing you can do about indecision.

Thanks for your perspective!

Thats how I feel man, I am pretty happy there is a decision (even though against us) so that it moves forward.

It is way too important to both sides to let it end at this point.

Furthermore, the legislation is extremely bad, not just for gun owners but every citizen. An example of good legislation is the DUI law, You know at exactly what BAC you will be charged, there are charts that define number of drinks versus body weight. Speed limits, you know exactly when you are doing right and wrong. There is no ambiguity here.

Legislation needs to be clear, concise and repeatable, like above you can repeat that law every time you make an arrest.

Conversely our CCP legislation states “Good and Substantial” which translates roughly to an apparent and immediate threat (don’t recall the exact verbiage used). This is very subjective, if you ask 2 different people what an “apparent and immediate threat” is, you will get 2 different answers. It allows the state too much ambiguity. They used to issue CCP’s to people who had their home broken into, next year the state police can change that by stating the threat for a B&E is not outside of the house, or maybe they change to everyone in Baltimore is under a “apparent and immediate threat” so everyone in the city limits is allowed a CCP.

Having legislation like this is very bad.

 

[CrueChief]

So, any ruling, for or against, was necessary for the process to move forward to the next step. That is actually a good way to look at it. For me, it actually takes away some of the disappointment.

A bad decision is better than no decision. You can fix (or try to fix) a bad decision, there is nothing you can do about indecision.

Thanks for your perspective!

While this point of view is very true for the world we now live in. It seems to me that these "judges" should not have to need to be told what the definition of some of the words in the Constitution is. Think about this how could you do your job if any time you needed to make a decision you first had to ask your boss and if he/she didn't have time to tell you what to do, you just looked at what the answer you got the last time you went to him/her instead of using your own brain and making your own decision. These are supposedly highly educated people yet they can't figure out what the meaning of the phrase " shall not be infringed" means. I understand that these people may not like what that phrase means but to sit there as a "judge" and say either you don't care or you don't know what that phrase means. Is completely unacceptable in every sense of what I think it means to be a "judge." Since when was thinking and making a decision such an abstract idea. I don't think making a decision and being wrong is that bad as long as you made a good faith decision with the information available. It's because of coward judges that we have some of these laws in the first place.

This whole situation makes me sad.

 

[Tashtego]

I am just catching up on this thread and it is very informative. One part of the discussion focused on whether and when the right to free speech is licensed, made to pay fees, or even prohibited, and whether parallels can be drawn with the 2A right. When I read that discussion, I think some people suggested that speech can require a permit based on being incendiary or potentially harmful. I think that may be a confusion. There is some speech that can be prohibited altogether--very narrow categories-- like "fighting words" and the proverbial fire in a crowded theater. But this is different than the question of permits and fees. Permits and fees can generally only apply in situations where the speech is using space that others need or might present a danger not from the content of the speech but its manner: meaning parades down streets where cars drive, or taking over parks for long periods of time. Permits and fees are not levied based on the incendiary character of the speech. On the contrary, that kind of condition on the content of speech is specifically disallowed as a basis for a speech restriction. If speech in a public forum is not prohibited altogether because it falls in the very very narrow scope of fighting words etc., the fact that the speech might incite extreme emotions is not grounds to impose permitting or fees. On the contrary, permitting and fees are prohibited from being based on the content of what is said. And even content-neutral permitting schemes can be unconstitutional, say for ordinary leafleting or picketing. So I think there's not a close parallel between speech and 2A permitting that would justify g&s as if "dangerous" speech is allowed to be subject to permits.

 

[Ken Stanka]

While this point of view is very true for the world we now live in. It seems to me that these "judges" should not have to need to be told what the definition of some of the words in the Constitution is. Think about this how could you do your job if any time you needed to make a decision you first had to ask your boss and if he/she didn't have time to tell you what to do, you just looked at what the answer you got the last time you went to him/her instead of using your own brain and making your own decision. These are supposedly highly educated people yet they can't figure out what the meaning of the phrase " shall not be infringed" means. I understand that these people may not like what that phrase means but to sit there as a "judge" and say either you don't care or you don't know what that phrase means. Is completely unacceptable in every sense of what I think it means to be a "judge." Since when was thinking and making a decision such an abstract idea. I don't think making a decision and being wrong is that bad as long as you made a good faith decision with the information available. It's because of coward judges that we have some of these laws in the first place.

This whole situation makes me sad.

I hear what you are saying but no one here really believes "Shall not be infringed". We all believe that the right should be infringed to an appropriate level. No one wants felons to own guns, no one wants the severely mentally ill to own guns, no one actually believes your right to bear arms gives you the right of ownership to a trident nuclear ballistic missile.

We all believe it should be infringed, the problem is that we all have different thoughts of how far infringement should go.

It was and is my firm belief that not a single CCP would be issued to anyone in MD under new legislation until the supreme court rules. We are gaining momentum as the CCP issue is elevated. I expect some level of Win today on SB281 (maybe not a full win but the bill wont go through as originally authored by o'malley), the feds removed the AWB from federal legislation (no matter what two-faced feinstein tries), illinois mandating a CCP process.

I understand your discouragement with illiterate, responsibility avoiding judges. I just wouldnt let it bother you too much.

 

[knownalien]

I hear what you are saying but no one here really believes "Shall not be infringed". We all believe that the right should be infringed to an appropriate level. No one wants felons to own guns, no one wants the severely mentally ill to own guns, no one actually believes your right to bear arms gives you the right of ownership to a trident nuclear ballistic missile.

We all believe it should be infringed, the problem is that we all have different thoughts of how far infringement should go.

It was and is my firm belief that not a single CCP would be issued to anyone in MD under new legislation until the supreme court rules. We are gaining momentum as the CCP issue is elevated. I expect some level of Win today on SB281 (maybe not a full win but the bill wont go through as originally authored by o'malley), the feds removed the AWB from federal legislation (no matter what two-faced feinstein tries), illinois mandating a CCP process.

I understand your discouragement with illiterate, responsibility avoiding judges. I just wouldnt let it bother you too much.

that's not true. some of us do. the problem, and history shows this, is that when you let them infringe on someone, they assume they have the ability to keep infringing until we get them to stop, but that is very difficult to do.
so while "felons shouldn't have guns" sounds great, it has led to the abridgement of everybody's else's rights, not to mention the concept that: if you are going to release a person back into society withiout all of their rights, there are going to be problems. If said person is too dangerous to have such potent rights, then confine them forever or restore them to their Rights.

another way to view this. there are two parties to this nation: the gov't and you. The intent of the Constitution was to make gov't small and very restricted. Reguardless, if we are two equal parties to the contract, how is it that the power of the GOV'T is near absolute and the citizens' power not? Those are not two equals. One becomes the servant of the other. Subservient to the other. The Constitution was not meant to be that way. Who allowed this "mission creep?" SCOTUS.

 

[jfox]

Not surprised if it's true. We did get just about the worst possible panel.

I highly doubt we "got" the worst possible panel. As a matter of fact, I think it is becoming increasingly obvious something is going on behind the scenes with the selection of these panels. Not saying it should...but fairly confident it is!

...And if true, would very much like to see some accountability.

This has nothing to do with this decision....I just think it is what is going on with some of the circuit panels. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Ken Stanka]

that's not true. some of us do. the problem, and history shows this, is that when you let them infringe on someone, they assume they have the ability to keep infringing until we get them to stop, but that is very difficult to do.
so while "felons shouldn't have guns" sounds great, it has led to the abridgement of everybody's else's rights, not to mention the concept that: if you are going to release a person back into society withiout all of their rights, there are going to be problems. If said person is too dangerous to have such potent rights, then confine them forever or restore them to their Rights.

another way to view this. there are two parties to this nation: the gov't and you. The intent of the Constitution was to make gov't small and very restricted. Reguardless, if we are two equal parties to the contract, how is it that the power of the GOV'T is near absolute and the citizens' power not? Those are not two equals. One becomes the servant of the other. Subservient to the other. The Constitution was not meant to be that way. Who allowed this "mission creep?" SCOTUS.

You truely believe everyone should have the right to own NBC arms?

 

[Ken Stanka]

that's not true. some of us do. the problem, and history shows this, is that when you let them infringe on someone, they assume they have the ability to keep infringing until we get them to stop, but that is very difficult to do.
so while "felons shouldn't have guns" sounds great, it has led to the abridgement of everybody's else's rights, not to mention the concept that: if you are going to release a person back into society withiout all of their rights, there are going to be problems. If said person is too dangerous to have such potent rights, then confine them forever or restore them to their Rights.

another way to view this. there are two parties to this nation: the gov't and you. The intent of the Constitution was to make gov't small and very restricted. Reguardless, if we are two equal parties to the contract, how is it that the power of the GOV'T is near absolute and the citizens' power not? Those are not two equals. One becomes the servant of the other. Subservient to the other. The Constitution was not meant to be that way. Who allowed this "mission creep?" SCOTUS.

I guess outside of the Nuke-Bio-Chem arms discussion (which any sane person does not support) you failed to mention those with severe mental illness and.......

You have specifically stated you are OK with infringing other consitutional rights to protect the 2nd ammendment. For example, a person who commits armed robbery is statistically very likely to do it again, you are suggesting imprisonment for life which is not only unlawful but unconstitutional.

 

[knownalien]

I guess outside of the Nuke-Bio-Chem arms discussion (which any sane person does not support) you failed to mention those with severe mental illness and.......

You have specifically stated you are OK with infringing other consitutional rights to protect the 2nd ammendment. For example, a person who commits armed robbery is statistically very likely to do it again, you are suggesting imprisonment for life which is not only unlawful but unconstitutional.

this attitude is what has gotten us where we are (the old "you want everyone to have a tank or a nuke" point??!!).

also, please elaborate on the highlighted part.

 

[Ken Stanka]

this attitude is what has gotten us where we are (the old "you want everyone to have a tank or a nuke" point??!!).

also, please elaborate on the highlighted part.

Its a yes or no question either you do or don't believe in their proliferation in society (yes or no, they are arms! Period) and in that belief you either don't or do belive in infringement. It is as simple as that.

you bringing up pointles agruements about my attitude is just you avoiding answering a simple yes or no question so that you do t have to admit you do believe in some level of infringement.

Regarding the highlight "confine them forever"

 

[Jim Sr]

Plowing new legal ground can be a rocky path, as attorney Alan Gura and SAF's Alan Gottlieb can attest following a setback in Maryland. . .

Concealed carry setback reveals dangers of plowing new legal ground​

​

 

[knownalien]

Its a yes or no question either you do or don't believe in their proliferation in society (yes or no, they are arms! Period) and in that belief you either don't or do belive in infringement. It is as simple as that.

you bringing up pointles agruements about my attitude is just you avoiding answering a simple yes or no question so that you do t have to admit you do believe in some level of infringement.

Regarding the highlight "confine them forever"

I don't feel like arguing. You may be used to intimidating people in your life with your "my way or the highway" mentality, but I won't bite. Just ignore my posts.

Thanks,