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

[Oreo]

As part of the ruling could the judge simultaneously stay the ruling pending appeal? Seems like once the genie is let out of the bottle it would be very hard to undo & the judge might be sympathetic to that on a case of first impression?

 

[Inigoes]

As part of the ruling could the judge simultaneously stay the ruling pending appeal? Seems like once the genie is let out of the bottle it would be very hard to undo & the judge might be sympathetic to that on a case of first impression?

The quicker the Genie is let out, the better. I don't care that it's kicking and screaming, that it doesn't want to come out because it's comfortable where it is.

Once "Bear" is a recognized fundamental right, all of the feel good laws evaporate (federal and state).

 

[press1280]

Sorry. Important question.

The judge really is interested in the masciandaro density question. He offered to both counsel - if they agreed - to let them submit an additional brief on the topic. He did not "invite them" to do it, because frankly it is a lot to digest and he was pretty impressed with the existing arguments. But he did recognize that his track there was unanticipated and therefore open to further comment as each side considered it further. It was a classy move.

He suggested it would be 3-4 weeks before he could dig into this case in depth. Sounds like he has some vacation coming up.

Assume he digs into this in 4 weeks and takes another 4 weeks to belt out an opinion.

Two months. Maybe.

The density question is troublesome because there have been historically(and still to this day) prohibitions on certain places because of density and not because of something "sensitive". The problem with the density issue is that where people congregate, they'll always leave at some point. That technically means a place could be population dense at one time, and not at another. Unlike a place like CIA headquarters, which always houses national security information, a National Park lot(the scene of Masciandaro) has no strategic or sensitive issue. It's possible the judge is trying to weave a way for finding protection of public carry but not in "dense" areas like the National Park lot, because by doing that he'd pretty much be at complete odds with Masciandaro. Side note: I don't think when Masciandaro was arrested in the middle of the night that the lot was "dense" with population.......
Hopefully Gura can correct the record on some of the bad stats given by MD, like TX being unlicensed OC.

 

[teratos]

There is another problem with the density argument. Making concealed carry illegal in these places does not seem to deter the carrying of concealed weapons. We have hundreds of murders a year in Baltimore, not to mention all of the armed robberies, muggings, shootings etc. One could argue that the need legal concealed carry for self-defense is most acute in the population dense (crime dense) areas. This argument is in the same vein as confiscating weapons in a state of emergency. You cannot strip a man of his ability to defend himself when he needs it most.

 

[navycraig]

As part of the ruling could the judge simultaneously stay the ruling pending appeal? Seems like once the genie is let out of the bottle it would be very hard to undo & the judge might be sympathetic to that on a case of first impression?

It would seem to me (sadly) that the judge would have to give a temporary stay of some sort in order to allow MD to get its act together and define the places where CC would not be allowed and to refine the permit process as necessary.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Tower43]

not allowing CCW in "dense" areas, such as Bmore and PeeGee will cause the crime rates to go up. Criminals from other areas will take advantage of this. Would you (if a Criminal) want to mug someone in say, Waldorf, who might be carrying a gun, or in suitland where its prohibited by law. This type of clause will effectively lower surrounding crime rates while skyrocketing the allready high rates here.


Better note: Thanks Patrick, if it wasnt for your layman's terms I would be lost in the sauce with this mess...

 

[rambling_one]

If "sensitive" areas are no problem today why do they become problematic tomorrow?

 

[pcfixer]

There is another problem with the density argument. Making concealed carry illegal in these places does not seem to deter the carrying of concealed weapons. We have hundreds of murders a year in Baltimore, not to mention all of the armed robberies, muggings, shootings etc. One could argue that the need legal concealed carry for self-defense is most acute in the population dense (crime dense) areas. This argument is in the same vein as confiscating weapons in a state of emergency. You cannot strip a man of his ability to defend himself when he needs it most.

This is whole meaning of 'self defense' in a nutshell. I think Gura really knows
that issue and will argue/press for CCW everywhere except "sensative" places. Defination of sensative places needs to be clearly defined.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/stafford_act.pdf

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5201

SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS."
No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;

As I read this, the state or armed forces cannot confiscate firearms.

 

[swinokur]

Is declaring an entire county or city "sensitive" a violation of the EP or P&I ?

 

[pcfixer]

Is declaring an entire county or city "sensitive" a violation of the EP or P&I ?

IMHO, I'd say YES.

McDonald vs Chicago.

The plurality decision also re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[28] Such restrictions include those "prohibit[ing]...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" [29]

 

[Tom43491]

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...

Me too! Recently bought a house in Finksburg, which takes most of my time and money. But, it is well worth it, having moved out of a condo in Timonium. Thank you all here, you know who you are, for putting so much time and effort into the fight, and keeping us informed!

As for the rest, keep up the donations, no matter how meager, and keep spreading the word and turning as many people as possible to the logical, in-brainwashed side!

 

[jrosenberger]

I was wondering why there was not a host of briefs filed on behalf of Woolard and the Second Amendment Foundation. You would of thought groups such as the NRA and the like would have filed briefs to support their case. Hell with Wisconsin going shall issue I think there are 40 or 41 states that issue CCW permits in some manner.

I just thought it was strange…..not to see this form of support.

That doesn't generally happen at this level. If an appeal gets up to SCOTUS, everybody and their brother will submit a brief.

 

[knownalien]

There is another problem with the density argument. Making concealed carry illegal in these places does not seem to deter the carrying of concealed weapons. We have hundreds of murders a year in Baltimore, not to mention all of the armed robberies, muggings, shootings etc. One could argue that the need legal concealed carry for self-defense is most acute in the population dense (crime dense) areas. This argument is in the same vein as confiscating weapons in a state of emergency. You cannot strip a man of his ability to defend himself when he needs it most.

this. the right to defense one's self is the point! you don't lose the need for it just because a lot of people are around you. as a matter a fact, you are in a position to help others as (these days) large groups are targets for phsycopaths and terrorists.

 

[Hopalong]

IMHO, I'd say YES.

McDonald vs Chicago.

The plurality decision also re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[28] Such restrictions include those "prohibit[ing]...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" [29]

That's the one thing that troubles me slightly about the "densely populated" argument. It's far easier to say that large swaths of area are "densely populated" than it is to say that those same large swaths are "sensitive". We'll need to watch this point very closely.

 

[annihilation-time]

this. the right to defense one's self is the point! you don't lose the need for it just because a lot of people are around you. as a matter a fact, you are in a position to help others as (these days) large groups are targets for phsycopaths and terrorists.

If this type of thinking was applied to the first amendment, we wouldn't be able to form a large protest.

 

[krucam]

That's the one thing that troubles me slightly about the "densely populated" argument. It's far easier to say that large swaths of area are "densely populated" than it is to say that those same large swaths are "sensitive". We'll need to watch this point very closely.

Baltimore is the 21st largest city according to the 2010 Census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

21 Baltimore Maryland Population (2010): 620961 Density (2000)/mi^2: 7,671.

Look at #4, 5, 6, 7, 9 on the wiki link. All bigger, all in Shall-Issue states.

 

[annihilation-time]

Baltimore is the 21st largest city according to the 2010 Census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

21 Baltimore Maryland Population (2010): 620961 Density (2000)/mi^2: 7,671.

Look at #4, 5, 6, 7, 9 on the wiki link. All bigger, all in Shall-Issue states.

And the population is getting smaller everyday.

 

[Hopalong]

Baltimore is the 21st largest city according to the 2010 Census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

21 Baltimore Maryland Population (2010): 620961 Density (2000)/mi^2: 7,671.

Look at #4, 5, 6, 7, 9 on the wiki link. All bigger, all in Shall-Issue states.

Oh I know that, but that doesn't mean that our opponents, and possibly a judge looking for a way to tap-dance around an issue, won't try to use it.

EDIT: BTW, look at Miami. It's a good bit more densely populated than Baltimore and allows CCW. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good comparison to draw in terms of base crime stats, but I'm pretty sure that the number of criminal shootings by CCW holders in FL is very low. Just like everywhere else.

 

[DeeDeub]

Another interesting twist on the density restriction: would CCW holders who today are permitted to carry within Baltimore City limits suddenly be prevented from doing so?

 

[K-Romulus]

If this type of thinking was applied to the first amendment, we wouldn't be able to form a large protest.

Exactly. The "densely populated" question is the wrong one to be asking. First Amendment time/place/manner restrictions are based on reasoning like whether the particular location is a traditional public forum and therefore recognized as an area where free expression or speech is to be expected.

In the CCW context, the time/place/manner restriction test should be on whether the government-controlled place at issue is an appropriate location to expect to NOT have to rely on personal defense self-help.

A public place where armed security is present - like a school with a school resource officer patrolling the small area, or a courthouse with metal detectors and armed bailiffs/sheriffs in every courtroom, or a police station or jail full of law enforcement officers - would be a logically sound CCW no-go zone. There is a lessened expectation that a person in any of those places is on their own against an attacker without any immediate help from the authorities.

But public parks or national parks, with one ranger or park officer per 150 square miles of parkland, or a public library with no security besides the local police on patrol, would not be such a place where the average person can reasonably expect immediate help.