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

[dlmcbm]

Correct me if I am wrong but if they put ANY restrictions on a permit it would have to be across the board. If they say you cant take a gun *here* then it would not just be for us but for LEO, security, etc. or it would be discrimination against us.

 

[swinokur]

The courts have upheld TPM (time, place, manner) restrictions and they have withstood legal scrutiny. Sworn LE are different than the rest of us. Many laws prohibiting firearms in certain places exempt certain classes of jobs.


My .02

 

[Papi4baby]

Correct me if I am wrong but if they put ANY restrictions on a permit it would have to be across the board. If they say you cant take a gun *here* then it would not just be for us but for LEO, security, etc. or it would be discrimination against us.

There's us, and there's them.

Make no mistake, citizen.

Let me know if you need an example.

 

[e40bib]

Correct me if I am wrong but if they put ANY restrictions on a permit it would have to be across the board. If they say you cant take a gun *here* then it would not just be for us but for LEO, security, etc. or it would be discrimination against us.

Look at the hands free cell phone law, we are all accountable to it except police, they are exempt.

 

[Kharn]

The courts have upheld TPM (time, place, manner) restrictions and they have withstood legal scrutiny. Sworn LE are different than the rest of us. Many laws prohibiting firearms in certain places exempt certain classes of jobs.


My .02

But many off-duty cops in MD carry on their handgun permit rather than their badge due to the restrictions their departments put on carrying (not many want to carry an issued Glock 17 or Beretta 92, radio, cuffs, etc, when they can just carry their J-Frame), so they should be restricted the same way as those with personal protection permits.

 

[Dead Eye]

But many off-duty cops in MD carry on their handgun permit rather than their badge due to the restrictions their departments put on carrying (not many want to carry an issued Glock 17 or Beretta 92, radio, cuffs, etc, when they can just carry their J-Frame), so they should be restricted the same way as those with personal protection permits.

What kind of restrictions are placed on those with "personal protection permits?"

 

[Dead Eye]

The judge will not be amused seeing the state ignore the order, after they promised to abide by it.

But they didn't ignore the order, they were merely waiting in order to gain further clarification (lawyer speak)...

 

[martinithebun]

But they didn't ignore the order, they were merely waiting in order to gain further clarification (lawyer speak)...

"The Maryland State Police, which oversees the permitting process, has said it will continue to follow the old rules until the courts make it clear what action they should take." from Baltimore Sun

Sure sounds like ignoring, as opposed waiting for clarification.

 

[csanc123]

Just a point of clarification...a number of us who have applied have been told by MSP that apps would be shelved pending the appeals outcome. They are going through the initial stages of processing applications but then putting the apps in a holding pattern.

"The Maryland State Police, which oversees the permitting process, has said it will continue to follow the old rules until the courts make it clear what action they should take." from Baltimore Sun

Sure sounds like ignoring, as opposed waiting for clarification.

 

[knightindullarmor]

Clearly, the named plantiff needs to be issued his CCW LAST WEEK for MD to be in compliance. Seeking clarification as to what to do with 'the rest of us' is one thing, but they need to at least start issuing temporary (120 day?) Permits w/o consideration to the idiotic G&S clause. Since a stay is not in place at the moment, MSP 'shelving' the current CCW applications is flat-out acting in contempt of the court. What leverage does the court have to enforce its ruling? Fining MD $X.XX for every application that has been denied or shelved since 3/6/12? I would guess a violation of constitutionally guarenteed rights would be worth $1000+ per incidence. Start hitting MD in their wallet, that might work.

 

[csanc123]

As been mentioned several times, Judge Legg did not issue any specific order or guidance hence the states request for clarification ( they are playing the game just as any lawyer would rightfully do)...let it play out.

Clearly, the named plantiff needs to be issued his CCW LAST WEEK for MD to be in compliance. Seeking clarification as to what to do with 'the rest of us' is one thing, but they need to at least start issuing temporary (120 day?) Permits w/o consideration to the idiotic G&S clause. Since a stay is not in place at the moment, MSP 'shelving' the current CCW applications is flat-out acting in contempt of the court. What leverage does the court have to enforce its ruling? Fining MD $X.XX for every application that has been denied or shelved since 3/6/12? I would guess a violation of constitutionally guarenteed rights would be worth $1000+ per incidence. Start hitting MD in their wallet, that might work.

 

[Inigoes]

As been mentioned several times, Judge Legg did not issue any specific order or guidance hence the states request for clarification ( they are playing the game just as any lawyer would rightfully do)...let it play out.

The Judge did issue a clear message, G&S reason is unconstitutional. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.

The state is throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old, using rules and technicalities to play games (stall tactic).

 

[csanc123]

Esq has expounded on this...like 3 times already

The Judge did issue a clear message, G&S reason is unconstitutional. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.

The state is throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old, using rules and technicalities to play games (stall tactic).

 

[Inigoes]

Esq has expounded on this...like 3 times already

I know, but it still doesn't stop the fact that MD is stalling by using technicalities.

 

[MJD438]

Clearly, the named plantiff needs to be issued his CCW LAST WEEK for MD to be in compliance. Seeking clarification as to what to do with 'the rest of us' is one thing, but they need to at least start issuing temporary (120 day?) Permits w/o consideration to the idiotic G&S clause. Since a stay is not in place at the moment, MSP 'shelving' the current CCW applications is flat-out acting in contempt of the court. What leverage does the court have to enforce its ruling? Fining MD $X.XX for every application that has been denied or shelved since 3/6/12? I would guess a violation of constitutionally guarenteed rights would be worth $1000+ per incidence. Start hitting MD in their wallet, that might work.

I think esqappellate discussed this. Since Judge Legg's original order is just a declaratory order and not an injunctive order, contempt of court does not come into play, IIRC from his comments.

Yup - here it is in entirety: http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1559909&postcount=6653 (emphasis mine)

Actually this is tricky. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, a federal court can simply issue an order that "declares" the rights and duties of the parties. Such a declaration is not enforceable with contempt. An actual injunction is an order to *do* or NOT to do a specific act and it must be detailed and otherwise compliant with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- detailed and specific. Injunctions are enforceable with the court's contempt powers. Arguably, (which is the State's point), Judge Legg here just issued a declaratory judgment, not an injunction, which is what Gura asked for in addition to asking for declaratory relief. Specifically, Gura asked for a declaration of unconstitutionality AND asked for an injunction against any enforcement of 5(ii) and an injunction requiring the State to give Mr. Woollard his permit. The court's order clearly did not purport to do the second and did not appear to do the first under Rule 65(d) -- it appears just to "declare" 5(ii) unconstitutional. It benefits both sides to get clarification on this. Let's wait to see what Gura says today in his papers.

 

[Inigoes]

I think esqappellate discussed this. Since Judge Legg's original order is just a declaratory order and not an injunctive order, contempt of court does not come into play, IIRC from his comments.

Yup - here it is in entirety: http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1559909&postcount=6653 (emphasis mine)

The point being, the state is poking the bear per se.

The state is on the losing end (everyone will agree) of this round, and they didn't like what they heard. The only thing the state is unclear on whether the memorandum was declaratory or injunctive.

If more reports get out that the state is ignoring the order against them, the harsher the type of judgement may be rendered against the state.

 

[MJD438]

Agreed on all counts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk

 

[Dead Eye]

Yes, we all understand the legal wrangling that is going back and forth, and to the lawyers, they see the beauty in the legal deftness of the AG's parry and prowess. To the rest of us, however, that have and continue to suffer at the hands of the "puppet master", we're not amused. In fact, Inigoes hits the nail right on the head, with his comment regarding a three year old's tantrum. In essence, I'm NOT impressed. To the contrary, I only find it highly upsetting. I only pray that Judge Legg is equally infuriated.

 

[eyesinpines]

It's been suggested [and it makes sense] that MSP are processing up to G & S and then "shelving" them until the G&S question has gone through the appeals process. Presumably this might take up to a year. I thought there was a 90 day limit on process? Seems to be a contradiction here?

 

[Inigoes]

It's been suggested [and it makes sense] that MSP are processing up to G & S and then "shelving" them until the G&S question has gone through the appeals process. Presumably this might take up to a year. I thought there was a 90 day limit on process? Seems to be a contradiction here?

Long story short: if no stay is granted, the state is violating the Judge's order.