Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:05 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,231
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL

Complaint here: http://ia360701.us.archive.org/1/ite...180772.1.0.pdf

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation and a Baltimore County, MD man today sued Maryland authorities in federal court because the man's handgun permit renewal was turned down on the grounds that he could not demonstrate "a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Joining SAF in the lawsuit is Raymond Woollard, who was originally issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family gathering in 2002. Woollard's permit was renewed in 2005, after the man was released from prison. That man now lives about three miles from Woollard. Defendants in the case are Terrence B. Sheridan is the Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and three members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein and Charles M. Thomas, Jr.

SAF and Woollard are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and Cary J. Hansel of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake of Greenbelt, MD.

The lawsuit alleges that "Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger' as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights." Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to "demonstrate cause" for the issuance of a carry permit.

"Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can't possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 07-29-2010 at 12:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:08 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 770
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

So this is like 4 states now? Nice. Very Nice.
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:08 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

When seconds count, police are only 2 1/2 hours away!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:14 PM
Maltese Falcon's Avatar
Maltese Falcon Maltese Falcon is offline
Ordo Militaris Templi
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 5,966
iTrader: 75 / 100%
Default

....I didn't realize when I joined CalGuns that I would also be getting informal ongoing training in criminal / civil case law and judicial procedures.

Can I get CEUs for this?

Yahoo for our side...go get them guys!

.
__________________
The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. Charles-Louis de Secondat (1689-1755) Baron de Montesquieu


In America, freedom and justice have always come from the ballot box, the jury box, and when that fails, the cartridge box.
Steve Symms, ex-U.S. Senator, Idaho

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:19 PM
CaliforniaCarry CaliforniaCarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Damn. How many cases are in progress now? 9? 10?

That's a new case every few days since McDonald. I'm glad I'm on the right team The Bradys and LCAV must be crapping their already-soiled panties right about now.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:37 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,231
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltese Falcon View Post
Can I get CEUs for this?
Soon, yes.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:40 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So now it's just a question of which horse crosses the finish line first. I can't wait to see what the opposition says in pathetic attempt to respond to it. Believe it or not MD is actually worse than CA is on the CCW issue. It acts as a squeeze on PA which threatens gun rights on the east coast. Getting rid of the MD problem is going to really smooth things out.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.

Last edited by yellowfin; 07-29-2010 at 1:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:48 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I remember a while back, Alan Gura said, "the 2nd amendment is alive and well, and it's coming to your town." WOOOT WOOOT!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-29-2010, 12:53 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Thumbs up

Awesome!!! We in the national gun rights community are TEARING IT UP!!!!!!
....................


Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-29-2010, 1:12 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MD's anti-shall-issue case law is a mess, I can't wait to read the filings.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-29-2010, 1:38 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 12,387
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Relentless!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-29-2010, 2:45 PM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fantastic.

I hope Gura files a new carry lawsuit every two weeks until the DC court finally releases their way overdue Palmer decision. That should make them realize this issue is not going away.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-29-2010, 3:50 PM
mosinnagantm9130's Avatar
mosinnagantm9130 mosinnagantm9130 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Places
Posts: 8,723
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodEyeSniper View Post
My neighbors think I'm a construction worker named Bruce.

Little do they know that's just my stripper outfit and name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperX View Post
I am currently cleaning it and I noticed when I squeeze the snake this white paste like substance comes out. What the heck is this crap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff L View Post
Don't D&T a virgin milsurp rifle. You'll burn in collector hell.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-29-2010, 4:00 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,017
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Outstanding!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-29-2010, 4:08 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Only NJ, RI, and HI left.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-29-2010, 4:37 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
Only NJ, RI, and HI left.
And not to forget about the territories as they are included in the McDonald ruling, and I imagine that Alan Gura will be collecting more souvenirs from those areas as well.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-29-2010, 4:49 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
Only NJ, RI, and HI left.
Plus MA and IL. I wonder who gets hit next. Maybe 1 state per circuit or all of them?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-29-2010, 7:52 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Plus MA and IL. I wonder who gets hit next. Maybe 1 state per circuit or all of them?
1 per circuit is usually enough.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-29-2010, 10:32 PM
gorblimey's Avatar
gorblimey gorblimey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,523
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry View Post
Damn. How many cases are in progress now? 9? 10?

That's a new case every few days since McDonald. I'm glad I'm on the right team The Bradys and LCAV must be crapping their already-soiled panties right about now.

This is short-term thinking. The demographics are such that the 5/4 balance of more reasonable folk to constitutional traitors will come to weigh heavily in the other direction. This all will be effectively undone in 20 years.

And I ask again: what the hell kind of a right is this, when the whim of a single robed stooge is sufficient to affirm it or send it crashing to the ground?

Truly, when the Founders were setting this thing up, they gave the judicial branch a bit too much influence. Though I imagine the anti-Federalists were hoping we'd shoot the D.C. bastards long before the "checks and balances" turned into a closed self-serving political mafia.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-29-2010, 10:56 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gorblimey View Post
This is short-term thinking. The demographics are such that the 5/4 balance of more reasonable folk to constitutional traitors will come to weigh heavily in the other direction. This all will be effectively undone in 20 years.
Ignore for a second your personal feelings on the politics and look at the example of Roe v. Wade. That was a 5-4 liberal decision that all liberals were worried would be undermined in 20 years by a majority conservative court. However, that hasn't come to be because by the time the conservative shift in the court occurred, stare decisis and all the case law had made Roe the defacto standard.

Such will it be for Heller and McDonald as long as our 5 make it for about 5 more years.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-29-2010, 10:58 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Ignore for a second your personal feelings on the politics and look at the example of Roe v. Wade. That was a 5-4 liberal decision that all liberals were worried would be undermined in 20 years by a majority conservative court. However, that hasn't come to be because by the time the conservative shift in the court occurred, stare decisis and all the case law had made Roe the defacto standard.

Such will it be for Heller and McDonald as long as our 5 make it for about 5 more years.

-Gene
THIS!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-29-2010, 11:43 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I doubt that many of the future district court cases will be heard by SCOTUS. They may appeal them to SCOTUS, but the court doesn't have to accept them. They left a lot of guidance in Heller and McDonald for the lower courts. Our super lawyers are systematically taking the lame state laws apart.
I wish I could help more, but living on Social Security doesn't leave much at the end of the month. I'm left sitting in the cheap seats cheering my butt off.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-30-2010, 1:15 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,679
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Such will it be for Heller and McDonald as long as our 5 make it for about 5 more years.
Have we got any contingency plans in place to cover the possibility that they don't make it that long?

I have no idea how easy or hard it'll be for the good guys to remain at the bench for that amount of time, nor do I know of any way to really assess that properly. But I'll take a stab at it anyway...


Scalia's 74, as is Kennedy. Thomas is 62. Alito is 60. Roberts is 55. So by my reckoning, at least two justices are at significant risk of not making it. Average retirement age for Supreme Court justices is 79 since 1970 (or so says Wikipedia, which does appear to cite a source for it), so both Kennedy and Scalia will be right at the average when the 5 year window is up. Assuming that there's a 50% chance for each of Kennedy and Scalia that they will retire within that 5 year window (since 79 is an average, this assumption seems reasonable on its face), it means we have a 75% chance of losing one of them within that window.

That suggests to me that it is absolutely imperative that we get someone we like in the Oval Office next term. Otherwise, based on the above, it's more likely than not that we will lose this war, unless we have other contingencies.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 07-30-2010 at 1:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-30-2010, 1:34 AM
gorblimey's Avatar
gorblimey gorblimey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,523
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Ignore for a second your personal feelings on the politics and look at the example of Roe v. Wade. That was a 5-4 liberal decision that all liberals were worried would be undermined in 20 years by a majority conservative court. However, that hasn't come to be because by the time the conservative shift in the court occurred, stare decisis and all the case law had made Roe the defacto standard.

Such will it be for Heller and McDonald as long as our 5 make it for about 5 more years.

-Gene

I sincerely hope that stare decisis will still mean something within the longer time frame, and that things will unfold as you describe, but how likely that is I am not sure.

It does seem that the next 20 years will be rather more interesting, in the Chinese proverb sense, than the last 20. Is one a valid template for the other? The fiscal situation is bleak, and the resulting concentration of power in D.C. (as the only entity with the printing press) does not bode well for states' rights and human rights.

However, I've been tending toward the view that our exalted betters will leave the gun issue somewhat alone after the good work you do plays out, and rather concentrate on the economic angle.

Though always armed, the US population has not seriously revolted for quite a while. The financial shenanigans of the Wilson, FDR, and Nixon administrations weren't met with bullets, nor did the appearance of Form 1040 in 1913, nor the breathtaking Wall St. handouts of recent times.

I think that the emergent preponderance of consensus among the ruling elites is that letting us have the guns will diffuse a lot of anger and encourage compliance with the economic (multifarious taxation) side of the situation.

In the meantime, continued evolution and proliferation of sensors, information processing, and ROVs will yield a situation where mere firearms are next to useless against an adversary with that level of technology, making 2A all bark and no bite insofar as fedgov is concerned.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-30-2010, 9:19 AM
Pont Pont is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silly Con Valley, CA
Posts: 194
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Have we got any contingency plans in place to cover the possibility that they don't make it that long?

I have no idea how easy or hard it'll be for the good guys to remain at the bench for that amount of time, nor do I know of any way to really assess that properly. But I'll take a stab at it anyway...


Scalia's 74, as is Kennedy. Thomas is 62. Alito is 60. Roberts is 55. So by my reckoning, at least two justices are at significant risk of not making it. Average retirement age for Supreme Court justices is 79 since 1970 (or so says Wikipedia, which does appear to cite a source for it), so both Kennedy and Scalia will be right at the average when the 5 year window is up. Assuming that there's a 50% chance for each of Kennedy and Scalia that they will retire within that 5 year window (since 79 is an average, this assumption seems reasonable on its face), it means we have a 75% chance of losing one of them within that window.

That suggests to me that it is absolutely imperative that we get someone we like in the Oval Office next term. Otherwise, based on the above, it's more likely than not that we will lose this war, unless we have other contingencies.
It's not *quite* that dire.

Even if we lose one of the Heller 5, the Supremes as a whole don't like to reverse themselves. It would be difficult for the anti-4+1 to argue against the remaining 4 that it's time to take a 2A case with the same scope as Heller/MacDonald again.

Assuming that like any government organization, what the Supreme Court cares most about is its own power. Lacking enforcement ability of their own, their power is severely diminished if they lose respect. Appearing wishy-washy loses them respect and they know it.

Last edited by Pont; 07-30-2010 at 9:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-30-2010, 11:53 AM
ZombieTactics's Avatar
ZombieTactics ZombieTactics is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Roseville area, or wherever they pay my confiscatory rates for things only I know how to do (lol)
Posts: 3,694
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
... "Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can't possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims." ...
This is a recipe for awesome.

They took their time and found the right plaintiff with the right particulars ... EPIC WIN PREDICTED.
__________________
|

I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective.

Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-30-2010, 12:01 PM
ed bernay ed bernay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pont View Post
It's not *quite* that dire.

Even if we lose one of the Heller 5, the Supremes as a whole don't like to reverse themselves. It would be difficult for the anti-4+1 to argue against the remaining 4 that it's time to take a 2A case with the same scope as Heller/MacDonald again.

Assuming that like any government organization, what the Supreme Court cares most about is its own power. Lacking enforcement ability of their own, their power is severely diminished if they lose respect. Appearing wishy-washy loses them respect and they know it.
I disagree. It is that dire. If we lose one of them, any case that goes to SCOTUS will water down the "right" affirmed in Heller and McDonald. DO NOT BE COMPLACENT PEOPLE. Donate $$ to SAF, CALGUNS, JFPO when you can and get active for the next election. The left wing SCOTUS justices don't care about what people think of them. If they did for example, Sotomayor wouldn't have been on the minority side in Mcdonald which was contrary to what she said during confirmation hearings. The left doesn't care about appearances, they care about obtaining results for their agenda. They have the media to protect them...how many mainstream media sources discussed Sotomayor's contradiction regarding Heller? 4 anti's + 1 nominated by a left winger = 5 anti's.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-30-2010, 12:58 PM
IGOTDIRT4U's Avatar
IGOTDIRT4U IGOTDIRT4U is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 10,861
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
So now it's just a question of which horse crosses the finish line first. I can't wait to see what the opposition says in pathetic attempt to respond to it. Believe it or not MD is actually worse than CA is on the CCW issue. It acts as a squeeze on PA which threatens gun rights on the east coast. Getting rid of the MD problem is going to really smooth things out.
I was gonna say, this is testing the waters for a CA challenge.
__________________
"Over-sentimentality, over-softness, in fact washiness and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people. Unless we keep the barbarian virtue, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Would you people please stop bashing "Elmer Fudd?" After all, he was an avid sportsman, hunter, and 2a supporter. -Ed in Sac
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-30-2010, 1:00 PM
IGOTDIRT4U's Avatar
IGOTDIRT4U IGOTDIRT4U is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 10,861
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Ignore for a second your personal feelings on the politics and look at the example of Roe v. Wade. That was a 5-4 liberal decision that all liberals were worried would be undermined in 20 years by a majority conservative court. However, that hasn't come to be because by the time the conservative shift in the court occurred, stare decisis and all the case law had made Roe the defacto standard.

Such will it be for Heller and McDonald as long as our 5 make it for about 5 more years.

-Gene
Anyone ever wonder if we now have leverage? Want to challenge Heller? Hey, we backed off of Roe all these years, hmmm, here's a new challenge to that.

I agree with the above. Get enough water under the bridge and it's almost a lock.
__________________
"Over-sentimentality, over-softness, in fact washiness and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people. Unless we keep the barbarian virtue, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Would you people please stop bashing "Elmer Fudd?" After all, he was an avid sportsman, hunter, and 2a supporter. -Ed in Sac
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-30-2010, 1:01 PM
Satex's Avatar
Satex Satex is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,440
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
When seconds count, police are only 2 1/2 hours away!
How so true. Unfortunately, I speak of personal experience.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-30-2010, 1:40 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IGOTDIRT4U View Post
I was gonna say, this is testing the waters for a CA challenge.
CA has two challenges already.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-30-2010, 2:22 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,017
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

I did a quick count and there are at least 6 challenges to CCW issuance policies in the states.

That's more cases than any other issue right now.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-30-2010, 2:36 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Ignore for a second your personal feelings on the politics and look at the example of Roe v. Wade. That was a 5-4 liberal decision that all liberals were worried would be undermined in 20 years by a majority conservative court. However, that hasn't come to be because by the time the conservative shift in the court occurred, stare decisis and all the case law had made Roe the defacto standard.

Such will it be for Heller and McDonald as long as our 5 make it for about 5 more years.

-Gene
I suspect thats why they didn't use the P or I clause for incorporation. Way too many cases out there that hinged on the Slaughterhouse ruling. Due process only disturbed a few previous cases.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-30-2010, 3:19 PM
huck's Avatar
huck huck is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mountain House, CA
Posts: 970
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I wonder why they chose this particular man as their case? It's a renewal - not a new permit. Seems like it could give the court an out. They could do make a ruling on renewing permits and not do anything about original issue permits.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-30-2010, 4:26 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,679
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
I suspect thats why they didn't use the P or I clause for incorporation. Way too many cases out there that hinged on the Slaughterhouse ruling. Due process only disturbed a few previous cases.
Yep. After all, why should they do the right thing when it's far easier to do the convenient thing?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-30-2010, 4:42 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huck View Post
I wonder why they chose this particular man as their case? It's a renewal - not a new permit. Seems like it could give the court an out. They could do make a ruling on renewing permits and not do anything about original issue permits.
I think they may get more plaintiffs, but even if they don't, this guy's a good candidate and his story shows the utter stupidity and arbitrariness of MD's system. He's issued a permit after the break in of his house, renewed the permit after the perp gets out of jail, now the perp lives close by, and he can't get his permit renewed.

What's also bad is the perp was just given probation for the break-in, violated the probation by attacking a police officer and another break-in at another house, and is now free. This perp is a repeat offender and shows the utter hypocrisy of the MD authorities. Soft on criminals, but they will not allow someone to protect himself outside his home. This guy had a permit for years and there was no "blood in the streets," because of him carrying.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-30-2010, 7:23 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huck View Post
I wonder why they chose this particular man as their case? It's a renewal - not a new permit. Seems like it could give the court an out. They could do make a ruling on renewing permits and not do anything about original issue permits.
Because he used the same justification for the initial permit and one renewal, but it was held not valid for his second renewal. MD allows CC or OC on your own property without a permit (I can open carry a C&L 1911 on my hip while cutting the grass on my 1/4 acre and the neighbors can't do anything about it if I stay on my side of the lines), the MSP is claiming since he has only been attacked on his own property he doesn't need to carry off his property (until his previous attacker strikes at another location).

ETA:
Looking at the timing, his initial issue and his first renewal occurred during our one-term Republican governor (who was rumored to have told the MSP to be lenient on permits, but never said anything publicly due to this state's hatred of handguns) and then his denial occurred under our current Democratic governor (former B'more city mayor who wants to push all sorts of restrictions, so he most likely told the MSP to be very strict) who's in the race for his life against the same Republican he defeated four years ago because his fiscal policies screwed up the state.

Last edited by Kharn; 07-31-2010 at 3:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-30-2010, 11:29 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huck View Post
I wonder why they chose this particular man as their case? It's a renewal - not a new permit. Seems like it could give the court an out. They could do make a ruling on renewing permits and not do anything about original issue permits.
Board of Regents v. Roth is not being used here. There is no need to. It's a simple straight forward carry case, in one of the most friendly court of appeals jurisdictions we have.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-20-2010, 12:57 PM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 333
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Motion to Dismiss

No big surprise today in MD, the State having until today 9/20 to respond to the initial Complaint, did so with a Motion to Dismiss.

1) SAF has no Standing
2) Plaintiff Woollard didn't exhaust all State avenues of redress before this Federal case, citing the 'Younger Abstention'...need to dig into that one a little more.

Just-updated docket with today's Motion:
http://ia360701.us.archive.org/1/ite...72.docket.html
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-20-2010, 1:52 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Deposition of every SAF member in Maryland would be fun (doesn't the AG's office have to send a lawyer to every single one?), I wonder if they can limit it to SAF members before a certain date. A lot of MD'ers signed up immediately after this suit was filed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:53 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.