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

[md_rick_o]

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

If i didn't like and respect Patrick as much as i do, i'd start a write in campaign, Patrick for AG.

 

[Dave]

how long was the hearing? just wondering how much audio there's gonna be

 

[Abacab]

State preemption prevents a NYC situation. The state could try to cordon off counties and cities, but it would never withstand a court challenge.

 

[jdramsey]

I'll add + a lot! To all those who are thanking Patrick for his time and analysis, on this very important matter. Many cold beers and cheers are well deserved

 

[Inigoes]

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

Spoke with the docket clerk this morning the transcript costs $4 per page, and she said there is about 100 pages. I'm sorry, that's a bit expensive for my tastes.

Hopefully, audio will be made avaiable.

 

[2ndCharter]

Spoke with the docket clerk this morning the transcript costs $4 per page, and she said there is about 100 pages. I'm sorry, that's a bit expensive for my tastes.

Hopefully, audio will be made avaiable.

If someone was so inclined, I'd chip in $20 via PayPal.

 

[Abacab]

$4 a PAGE????? What a scam. The xerox machine at the pharmacy is 10t cents a page.

 

[2ndCharter]

That is for copy fees? Can't they provide a PDF in this day and age?

 

[Dead Eye]

$4 a PAGE????? What a scam. The xerox machine at the pharmacy is 10t cents a page.

$3.90 a page for labor for someone to stand at the machine and feed it.

 

[krucam]

$4 a PAGE????? What a scam. The xerox machine at the pharmacy is 10t cents a page.

This may not have bee transcribed yet, reporter hyroglyphics or audio only. $4/pg may be correct for initial transcription. I have no idea if this is the case.

 

[Inigoes]

In all fairness there were more pricing schemes, which went up,the faster you wanted it, and a little cheaper for the slower times...

The price for the slower times, wouldn't be worth it in my mind. We should already have a ruling from the judge by that time.

 

[ezliving]

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.

That's all covered by current CCW law. Larger numbers of law abiding CCW permit holders should not necessitate any change in places where CCW is allowed.

 

[Bikebreath]

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.

Are you kidding? It's like awarding the kid that loves video games for playing all night without sleep! Like you getting a new gun, just because you like guns!

Patrick is a law nerd, a court geek...he keeps briefs in his briefs! You know damn well he'd do this anyway and now you want to give him a party?

Having said that, I'll buy the first round...

 

[SkunkWerX]

OK, maybe we can get out of this density discussion like this:

EZlvin just pointed out, current MD CCW law does not specify density, or places in the law. The current CCW's are usually restricted to parameters like businessmen between their homes, bank and place of business.

So if the only thing that happens, is G&S disappears, then we are Shall Issue, simple right?

But how about the restrictions placed on each and every (almost every) privately held CCW at the moment? Does MD simply wave a magic wand giving them the run of the state? anytime anyplace?

And will they just simply start printing up permits and handing them out like Thrashers french fries? I'll believe it when i see it.

Then it's watch the legislators to pass new laws, listing where and when you can CCW.
This is MD, one of the most anal states in the nation. We'll have hurdles ahead, that is for sure.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

If Woollard wins; strategically, Gansler should cut his losses.

Williams is before the SCOTUS for cert, and with the present Judge Legg focusing on Masciandaro (also before the SCOTUS or cert). Meaning the writing is on the wall to tackle the larger issues of publicly carrying firearms is either core or very close to core.

That was what I was thinking as well.

He would have a chance to preserve permits in Williams IF Woollard wins.

 

[teratos]

That was what I was thinking as well.

He would have a chance to preserve permits in Williams IF Woollard wins.

I don't know that he is that smart....

 

[fightinbluhen51]

And then in the event of a win, what is the practical effect? The judge seemed predisposed to the idea Maryland could ban guns in densely populated areas, per Masciandaro. We would need something from the 4th Circuit ot the SCOTUS to overcome that.

Enough for tonight.

They would then need to do one of two things.

1) Create new legislation making "prohibited places" instead of "non-issuance" people
2) Restrict EVEYONE'S permits to the point that THEY fundamentally restrain the right (and we'd be right back in this trap again, AND with a win, AND with a SCOTUS case staring the legislature and the AG in the face).

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Asking the 4th circuit for an injunction.

50/50 on rather or not the 4th would grant it. Patrick has hinted that since 2A is a civil right, it is much, much harder to get an injunction since the government is basically saying "we were told not to violate this right, but we need to do it anyway."

It would more likely be a stay of the ruling, and not an injunction. It could even possibly come from Legg himself for purposes of allowing MD the change to appeal if they so chose (if the AG requests it, and he will probably at least request a stay if he looses).

 

[Inigoes]

Three avenues available:

Woollard wins non-2A via the 4th's Equal protection clause.

Judge Legg rules "Bear" is core, then Maryland looses more than G&S.

A compromise verdict would be: Maryland must accept "self defense" as a good reason (not touching 2A), leaving all the bureaucratic mechanisms in place.

 

[Patrick]

Everyone...

Let's talk about the "places" (non)issue:

It is a way around Masciandaro's "make no finding on RKBA" guidance. Gura framed Masciandaro as not entirely controlling for Woollard because, according to Gura, Masciandaro was about a 'sensitive place' (even though Gura did not agree it was sensitive). The judge did not completely agree with Gura, but neither did he agree with the state that it was not a special location. The judge went down the middle there and used the words of masciandaro to suggest another category of somewhere-in-between.

The big point here is not that the places exist, but that there was a law already on the books in Masciandaro that the Fourth Circuit said trumped whatever right existed - if it existed. The Fourth Circuit used that "place" (whatever it was) to avoid making the 2A call on public RKBA because the judges there did not want to do it.

Nobody in Maryland - not Gura, not Judge Legg, and not even the AG's office - has suggested in Woollard that the judges ruling be subject to some kind of new place limitation.

The whole point of the discussion was not about where Maryland residents could carry. It was about determining what parts of Masciandaro apply to Woollard. That is why Gura argues that the Fourth Circuit ruled on a "place" issue - because it short-circuits some of the circuit guidance and lets the judge take a more holistic view. Masciandaro is a set of handcuffs on a judge, but only when the law is controlling (think: similar situation).

So let me try explaining this another way: Maciandaro ruled the way it did because "place restrictions" were involved. Woollard has no "place restrictions". So the big question yesterday was: if Woollard does not involve the same question as Masciandaro (a place restriction), then how much of the Masciandaro answer applies to Woollard?

Our answer: not enough to avoid the 2A inquiry. Maryland's answer: Enough to toss the whole Woollard case in the trash. The Judge's answer: ???

So the judge was not questioning whether he says G&S is unconstitutional "except in busy places." He was exploring how much of Masciandaro applies to Woollard. When he was tossing hypothetical restriction in Maryland, they were not proposals. They were legal test of the relief Gura was proposing. If the "relief" we want violated Masciandaro, then the judge has hands tied. If the relief does not break Mascianadaro, then it is possible to grant Woollard his relief and still not break ranks with his circuit decision.

Nobody says the judge will do this. He was exploring the boundaries of Masciandaro. Nobody was quite ready for that line of inquiry, and he had enough developed ideas that it did not look spontaneous. Why he went down that path is known only to him.

He could easily have explored this topic just so he could dismiss it as an option. Or, he might be looking for a way to thread the needle. We won't know for some time.