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

[krucam]

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.

New York, Chicago, LA, DC and Baltimore are NOT 'Contitutionally-Free Zones'. It doesn't matter what the other side believes or wants any more. It's over.

I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but I'm hopeful Judge Legg sees through this smoke in mirrors trick...

Do not get wrapped up in this 'Cities being Sensitive Areas' diversion, at least in Wollard. Woollard is ONLY about G&S. We lose G&S, we become Shall-Issue. Step 1 completed.

Then, what we ALL think will happen, could happen. That being, MD will pull out the stops and devise clever Time/Place/Manner restrictions. If they do that, "Guess what? We'll see you in Court again".

We'll hopefully keep Mr's Gura and Hansel gainfully employed for a few years. The story in MD will not be over in 2-3 months even with a favorable ruling from District.

Cough up more $ if able. We're far from done.

 

[yellowfin]

The real problem with the density argument is that it means 2A rights vary by zip code, which establishes de facto segregation. You can either have your rights OR you can be where other people are. You basically can't function in society while having full rights as a citizen.

 

[BenL]

I'm trying really hard not to be optimistic, but it sounds like on the G&S issue, Judge Legg "get's it."

Am I still being overly optimistic, or does it sound like he's leaning toward shall issue?

 

[Dead Eye]

Thanks a bunch, Patrick, for giving of your time.

It sounds like Gansler is trying to confine the issue to "inside the home", and is holding fast to whatever silly argument he can contrive to keep it there. I find it encouraging that Judge Legg is probing the whole G&S issue, in fact one argument that was brought up that apparently got a raised eyebrow was the question about a person who lives in a drug infested neighborhood, in Baltimore, not meeting the State's G&S requirement, since it is not a threat specific to a person.

Any way you slice it or dice it, Gansler's argument doesn't hold water. All we are doing now is waiting to get the case before the right set of eyes and ears that wil eventually look him in the eye and say, "What part of shall not be infringed, don't you understand?". It sounds like Judge Legg just migt be that person.

 

[Plinkey]

I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone that it seems like MD will have to get rid of G&S from how the judge in this case was asking/framing his questions/statements.

The issue I can see is that MD will go crazy with sensitive areas. If they decide that X feet from school/park/playground/bus stop/place that serves alcohol or whatever else they can get into the statute it can possibly de-facto ban carry in Baltimore City.

Question about the 1000 ft from school requirement for other CCW states: If your house is within 1000 ft of a school how do you carry daily without breaking the law because of where you live?


Anyone know when we might get the audio?

 

[BenL]

The issue I can see is that MD will go crazy with sensitive areas. If they decide that X feet from school/park/playground/bus stop/place that serves alcohol or whatever else they can get into the statute it can possibly de-facto ban carry in Baltimore City.

Then it sounds like I may be the ideal next litigant. I live in Baltimore City, am surrounded by bars, and 100 yards from a school.

 

[Plinkey]

Then it sounds like I may be the ideal next litigant. I live in Baltimore City and 100 yards from a school.

Same here but I live 150-200 feet from the school.

 

[krucam]

40 people viewing: 19 Members, 21 guests...

Don't give the fine state of MD any more ideas, folks...

 

[Patrick]

The idea of saying MD could ban CCW due to population density is a bit disappointing. if a businessman currently has a permit, and he is depositing large sums of cash at a busy bank, on a Friday, at lunchtime, and the bank has lines of customers, is he prohibited from CCW-ing? (rhetorical).

However, if I might try to unwravel the judge's inquiries a bit, when he asked about someone in East Baltimore being able to get a permit (or not) could he have been actually trying to split ideas on the density topic?

ie; It may be OK to ban CCW in a crowded train station at rush hour, but not on a public street in East Baltimore? In other words, people don't usually congregate to great physical density (coming into contact and/or personal space violations) out on a public sidewalk, like they might at a rock concert with festival seating?

Of course, like Gura said, that may be another court case. Teratos brought it up a couple of pages back, MD will certainly push the envelope on density and/or sensitive places and other possible shenanigans.

Let's review the (probable) reason why the density question even comes up: Masciandaro.

That case can be parsed a few ways, and one of them is "The Second Amendment does not extend outside the home." The case is Fourth Circuit law, and therefore binding on the judge. His easy response to this whole phase of the suit is: "Sorry, Masciandaro says no way. You lose."

The judge appears to be considering another route: view Masciandaro as strictly as it was written and no further. In pure technical terms, it said that the density was an issue that reduced the strength of the right in that place at that time. It was an obvious way for two anti-rights judges on the Fourth to take a swipe at public RKBA without actually answering that question. As a matter of fact, Wilkinson (the lead judge in Masciandaro) actually said as much. They said they had not decided the public question at all, because the matter of "place" eliminated the question. In other words, they ruled the scrutiny before ruling on the right. Or, as someone quite wise in this matter told me yesterday after the hearing - "verdict before trial."

But it leaves a small hole in the ruling: if the decision never officially decides the RKBA issue for the 4th, and if Masciandaro was convicted due to the very specific nature of the place he was at (and the law regarding it)...then we can now openly talk about the larger right in general terms, provided it does not violate Masciandaro. That means the logic there must stand. Judge Legg cannot avoid or ignore it.

So here we get to density. It was noted as an issue in Masciandaro. The judge here cannot ignore it. But G&S has nothing to do with it, and Maryland actually has no laws that take it into account. It is all theoretical.

But the theory matters. As long as Maryland could theoretically create a law that matches the logic of Masciandaro, the judge has not stepped on those toes.

See how that works?

Question: Does it appear that Judge Legg wants to do a little more than just simply rule on G&S? That he is concerned with fallout and making this decision as orderly and as unconfusing as possible? I am suggesting, that as he leans toward "outside the home" he is concerned that he doesn't leave a huge void, that there is room around the fringes for MD to have enough breathing room to effect policy that really might make some sense (ie; banning CCW at a rock concert or in a packed train station)?

I think Judge Legg is looking more for the boundaries, should he find for the Plaintiff.

Absolutely not. He was quite particular in what he was not being asked to look at. My write-up did not do justice to that part of the discussion. You'll need to listen to the eventual audio to get a proper sense of that.

He listed a whole slew of things that he was not being asked to look at, as well as a long list of things Maryland could still do if G&S were ruled unconstitutional. Alan Gura added to the list.


Maryland could pass laws more restrictive than the ones we have. But they would apply to everyone, including judicial officers (judges and lawyers), off-duty police, retired officers, party donors and other politicians. We would all need to follow the same rules. Even Maryland could not reasonably argue in favor of a "separate but equal" standard.


I won't prognosticate the wisdom of the General Assembly or Maryland Senate. But I will say that they will need to think hard about that option.

Also, we do not know what the judge is going to do. He could have run all of this theory yesterday expressly for the purpose of dismissing it. That is how these things sometimes work.

But I would say the case is back in play.

 

[Patrick]

I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone that it seems like MD will have to get rid of G&S from how the judge in this case was asking/framing his questions/statements.

The issue I can see is that MD will go crazy with sensitive areas. If they decide that X feet from school/park/playground/bus stop/place that serves alcohol or whatever else they can get into the statute it can possibly de-facto ban carry in Baltimore City.

Question about the 1000 ft from school requirement for other CCW states: If your house is within 1000 ft of a school how do you carry daily without breaking the law because of where you live?


Anyone know when we might get the audio?

- Don't overread the judges words. We have been burned that way before (Peruta).

- Any restrictions would apply to all classes equally. Maryland has quite a few people who carry arms today, compared to other may-issue localities. Those people - many of them politicians and lawyers - will be subject to those same rules. Restricting others requires they restrict themselves.

 

[Patrick]

40 people viewing: 19 Members, 21 guests...

Don't give the fine state of MD any more ideas, folks...

Seriously, not an issue.

I do hope the AG's office is watching and noting the ideas. Whatever they craft for the legislature needs to be constitutional, first and foremost. If we have a role in making sure the "reasonable regulations" stay within that context, then good for all of us.

Nobody is arguing that we should start a "Machine Guns for Tots" program. Nobody is arguing for criminal carry of arms. We are simply asking the state to join this century and stop restricting the rights we have.

I came away with some added respect for the Maryland argument and team yesterday. I did not do them proper justice in my write-up, largely because I was tired last night. They scored some hits, even though they spent too much time talking about non-G&S issues. Their whole discussion of the "complete regulatory framework" was in response to the judge, but they over-sold it. Claiming that people do not need to carry arms for defense in public because they can drive them locked and unloaded to a practice range was too much. They sounded reasonable, right up to the point they didn't.

I'd really like to see their office call us and start talking options. The practical effects this fall would be minimal whether we win or lose, but a win would signal the changes to come. And even if we lose here, the near-future for this right is pretty much an accepted path. Might as well start working the issues now.

 

[BenL]

I'd really like to see their office call us and start talking options. The practical effects this fall would be minimal whether we win or lose, but a win would signal the changes to come. And even if we lose here, the near-future for this right is pretty much an accepted path. Might as well start working the issues now.

The problem is, that is behavior of a reasonable person; the anti's have a history of willingness to "go down with their ship." In the end, we'd probably be better off if gansler and his ilk don't cooperate, and insist on their unconstitutional laws. That will just lead to a bigger hammer, later.

 

[Tootall]

Sheridan is out. His retirement has been announced by O'malley. Head of transportation authority police is taking his place.

 

[Inigoes]

Sheridan is out. His retirement has been announced by O'malley. Head of transportation authority police is taking his place.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2011/07/state_police_superintendent_to.html

 

[MDFF2008]

Sounds like a stall move, try to buy an extension so they can argue we need to see what this guy's CCW policy is.

Hopefully the judge rules on the facts presented now.

 

[Inigoes]

Too bad Gansler was elected, it would be nice to see him replaced also...

 

[MDFF2008]

Well, he sort of won by default because the Republican's couldn't find anyone to oppose him.

 

[AKbythebay]

Wow Patrick, incredible summary. We all owe you a big "thank you" for posting that. You obviously spent a lot of time both at the hearing and doing the write ups.

sounds very positive for our side. Hard to believe how good it sounds. Seems like we have a rare judge who actually goes by the law and the Constitution rather than his own personal political beliefs.

I was very surprised to hear the "densly populated" aregument. They mention PG County and Baltimore City in particular. Both overwhelmingly black jurisdictions and both overwhelmingly violent crime ridden jurisdictions. Is MD really suggesting that we allow concealed carry in the state EXCEPT for those two areas??? Can you imagine that? We restrict the right to carry in the only to black-majority jurisdictions in the state! Something tells me they will have a nice civil rights law suit on their hands if they try to pull that business.

 

[MD=What 2nd Amendment?]

Sounds like a stall move, try to buy an extension so they can argue we need to see what this guy's CCW policy is.

Its a legislative regulation. Not so much of a decision made by the Secretary of the State Police but more by MOM. If the Secretary determined that a residents self defense was justification of "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" he would just be replaced.

5-306(a)(5)(ii):
In general. -- Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds:
(ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

 

[2ndCharter]

Will the transcript be posted before the the audio is available?