Victory in MSI HQL suit

[dblas]

On December 5th MD AG appealed the 4th circuit decision of MD HQL law being unconstitutional and asked for an En Banc review. On December 18th attorneys for MSI issued a reply to the MD request for an En Banc review asking that it be denied. How long will it take the 4th circuit to decide whether or not they will or will not do an En Banc review ?

It takes as long as it takes.

 

[dblas]

So have they decided? I thought they decided they would grant the request for en banc review.

No such decision has been made yet.

 

[dblas]

So in the near future they will decide on granting the en banc review?
They can either say NO and issue the mandate and the HQL goes away
OR they can grant the en banc review then we wait?

If they deny the En Banc, the State can request CERT from SCOTUS. I believe they have 30 days to do so from the ruling.

If the State decides not to persue CERT, then the HQL mandate goes into affect 7 days after the ruling.

 

[rseymorejr]

...If the MGA would mandate that all departments share their information with DPSC with the intent of supplying it to NICS, Maryland (and other states) would provide the information. But then that requires those departments to also notify DPSC when a records change, such that they need to be removed from NICS.

And if Maryland really gave a shit about preventing prohibited people fron accessing guns they would do just that.

 

[dblas]

And if Maryland really gave a shit about preventing prohibited people fron accessing guns they would do just that.

It's not quite that easy.

Given that half the Circuit Court files aren't digitized and accessible via network, they would have to be digitized. That takes time, people and money. (Are you going to volunteer?) I doubt any of the various Ciruit Courts are going to do so without funding for time and people, as well as equipment and an IT upgrade.

DHMH isn't going to share shit, with regards to mental health records, so PDSC would have to a portal holder from DHMH to NICS for those records. That takes resources, and they aren't going to do that for free.

Then you have all of the records of people that have convictions as minors, that MSP uses for anyone under 30 (Not technically required in NICS).
None of this is going to "just get done" without funding and resources. None of which Maryland really wants to spend, and neither does any other state for that matter. So, it's not really a Maryland centric thing, it is a US wide issue. Now - If the Feds would provide funding to make this easier, it might happen, but they still can't compel the states to provide the information.

 

[pre64hunter]

Thank you and many thanks to Sminokur for helping us understand.

and DBLAS!

 

[owldo]

It takes as long as it takes.

If they drag their feet to long can't the petitioner ask SCOTUS to grant an expedited writ of Certiorari ?

 

[PowPow]

It is actually a factual statement. The 77R does indeed prevent prohibited persons from aquiring a handgun through a legal purchase or transfer.

I get that, but the statement in the response simply says, "... ensures that prohibited persons may not acquire a handgun.", and it does not qualify it with "through a legal process". Perhaps that is implied, but it reads poorly to me. The 77R doesn't ensure anything other than ensuring it is a pain in the ass for law abiding persons to acquire one. Writing it like that could give a casual reader some talking points, e.g. "See, even they say it's possible to legislate handguns out of the hands of prohibited persons."

 

[Apd09]

If they drag their feet to long can't the petitioner ask SCOTUS to grant an expedited writ of Certiorari ?

How’s that thought process working out for the “assault” weapons ban?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Biggfoot44]

and DBLAS!

Absolutely , and DBLAS !

 

[rambling_one]

DBLAST is a blast…in a very good way!

 

[dblas]

If they drag their feet to long can't the petitioner ask SCOTUS to grant an expedited writ of Certiorari ?

They can yes, but we are a long way off from that point.

 

[dblas]

I get that, but the statement in the response simply says, "... ensures that prohibited persons may not acquire a handgun.", and it does not qualify it with "through a legal process". Perhaps that is implied, but it reads poorly to me.

They were talking about the various legal processes, so it read as implied. So long as it reads correctly for the Court, it probably doesn't matter how we read it.

The 77R doesn't ensure anything other than ensuring it is a pain in the ass for law abiding persons to acquire one. Writing it like that could give a casual reader some talking points, e.g. "See, even they say it's possible to legislate handguns out of the hands of prohibited persons."

We agree that is indeed a PITA, but if Maryland would take the information from all of the State databases they used and send that information to NICS, it would be instantanious, and less of a PITA for a legal firearms owner, and on the plus side, it would apply to any former Maryland residents that have moved to other states, that the information would make them prohibited in other states as well.

 

[dblas]

DBLAST is a blast…in a very good way!

I try...

 

[esqappellate]

If they deny the En Banc, the State can request CERT from SCOTUS. I believe they have 30 days to do so from the ruling.

If the State decides not to persue CERT, then the HQL mandate goes into affect 7 days after the ruling.

Actually they have 90 days to seek cert in the SCT as measured from the denial of en banc or a decision in banc. And they can get that 90 days extended Via motion

 

[owldo]

Actually they have 90 days to seek cert in the SCT as measured from the denial of en banc or a decision in banc. And they can get that 90 days extended Via motion

Martin Luther King Jr., used the phrase in the form "justice too long delayed is justice denied" in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", smuggled out of prison in 1963, ascribing it to "one of our distinguished jurists". The broader public policy implications are a source of concern.

 

[dblas]

Actually they have 90 days to seek cert in the SCT as measured from the denial of en banc or a decision in banc. And they can get that 90 days extended Via motion

I thought I read somewhere in this therad it was 30 days, thanks for the correction Mark.

 

[Boondock Saint]

En banc has been granted. Hold on to your butts.

 

[Steel Hunter]

En banc has been granted. Hold on to your butts.

So now we get to see when 4th is going to schedule and how many months it takes to get the resulting decision. More hurry up and wait.

Thanks to those who are actively working this and other cases.

 

[rbird7282]

En banc has been granted. Hold on to your butts.

Of course it has. More waiting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk