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 03-05-2012, 7:19 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,907
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default MARYLAND HANDGUN REGULATION STATUTE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL (Woollard v Sheridan)

http://t.co/gl6eHmBq

GOOD READING.....

Quote:
"Because the ―good and substantial reason requirement is not reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, the Court finds this portion of the Maryland law to be unconstitutional. Woollard is entitled to summary judgment."
Quote:
"A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
__________________

Last edited by Librarian; 03-05-2012 at 12:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-05-2012, 7:48 AM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 333
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

YessireeBob...

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Maryland‘s requirement of a ―good and substantial reason‖ for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State‘s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court will, by separate Order of even date, GRANT Woollard‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012
/s/
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-05-2012, 7:57 AM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,741
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

"A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs"

How will this apply to so called 'good cause' here in California?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:00 AM
loather loather is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: escondido, ca
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This is spectacular news - the ruling is great, but the fact that it was a ruling on MSJ is even better. That means that courts in more oppressive places are starting to "get it."

The dominoes. They have begun to fall.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:01 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
YessireeBob...

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Maryland‘s requirement of a ―good and substantial reason‖ for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State‘s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court will, by separate Order of even date, GRANT Woollard‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012
/s/
Translation: Anticipate the legislature to tailor the requirement to the State's interest in public safety and crime prevention.

Superficially, i read this as 'good and substantial reason' = 'good cause' = enumerated right of self protection (that does not fall under the governements interest in public safety). Now, if we can get this to apply to California's 'good cause' requirement...
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:04 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Now the question will be as to whether Gansler will be arrogant/stupid enough to appeal it.
__________________
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:13 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DC was told not to appeal Heller and they did it anyway, screwing NYC, Chicago, etc, I suspect AG Gansler will do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:15 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 2,092
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

The findings on scrutiny (intermediate) and 14th amendment are somewhat troubling. I wonder if this ruling will be presented as additional information on any of the pending CA suits? (may not be relevant coming from a state court....)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:15 AM
hammerhead_77 hammerhead_77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 253
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Since this was a district, rather than appeals court, ruling is it harder for us to import it into california?

Paging hoffmang to the podium...
__________________

Be kind. Remember to spay and neuter liberals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt-45 View Post
Argue with me all you want but the "pussification" of America is not a positive thing.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:17 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

We won woolard? YES!! I expect briefs to be filed in every 2A case now citing this decision. This is the first REAL win for right to carry.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:17 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,943
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

WOW! I'm literally speechless!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:19 AM
HisDivineShadow's Avatar
HisDivineShadow HisDivineShadow is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Claremont, CA
Posts: 35
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
The findings on scrutiny (intermediate) and 14th amendment are somewhat troubling. I wonder if this ruling will be presented as additional information on any of the pending CA suits? (may not be relevant coming from a state court....)
This was US District Court. Helpful, but not binding precedent.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Member
SAF Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:19 AM
tiki tiki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Uranus
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
"This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court's historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as ―an individual right protecting against both public and private violence. Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment's protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ―self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be."
Nice!
__________________
"The problem with quotes found on the Internet is you have no way of confirming their authenticity."
-Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:20 AM
Left Coast Conservative's Avatar
Left Coast Conservative Left Coast Conservative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
Now the question will be as to whether Gansler will be arrogant/stupid enough to appeal it.
Here's hoping he does. Wouldn't it be cool to be provided with one half of a circuit court split by an arrogant opponent?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:25 AM
ShootinMedic's Avatar
ShootinMedic ShootinMedic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We.Are.Winning!

Just read the decision http://t.co/gl6eHmBq here. It's encouraging, because it sounds like their good cause requirement was just like ours. (I'm not up on other states laws)

I wonder how long until we get a similar ruling.

(IB4TwoWeeks)


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
... the POV of courts and legislators needs to be....if an item can have a lawful purpose then you can't criminalize the item, you can only criminalize unlawful acts committed with that lawful item.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:34 AM
RSC's Avatar
RSC RSC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: OC
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just amazing. I hope this one won't just fizzle away.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:35 AM
ElvenSoul's Avatar
ElvenSoul ElvenSoul is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 17,445
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This made my day! I hope we can build on this to get CCW's Issued?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:47 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,977
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great news. Puts a big smile on my face on a Monday morning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
We won woolard? YES!! I expect briefs to be filed in every 2A case now citing this decision. This is the first REAL win for right to carry.
Has anyone been keeping score of our loses (vs this one win)? If so, please post the number.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:49 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,943
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Strict Scrutiny was applied so says Partrick2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
The findings on scrutiny (intermediate) and 14th amendment are somewhat troubling. I wonder if this ruling will be presented as additional information on any of the pending CA suits? (may not be relevant coming from a state court....)
Patrick (Patrick2 here) Says this over at MD Shooters....... (post 4394)
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread...40649&page=220

Quote:
Strict Scrutiny, For The Win!


Strict Scrutiny was applied:

Quote:
Quote:
The Fourth Circuit is in accord. In Chester, the appellate court confronted the assertion of a Second Amendment right against indictment for the crime of firearms possession by domestic violence misdemeanants. “[W]econclude that intermediate scrutiny is more appropriate than strict scrutiny for Chester and similarly situated persons,” because “his claim is not within the core right identified in Heller—the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense.” Chester, 628 F.3d at __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508 at *26 (emphasis in original). The individual plaintiffs in this action are law-abiding, responsible citizens. Accordingly, the State cannot classify them with respect to the exercise of their Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense in a manner that fails strict scrutiny.



“The right to equal protection of the laws, in the exercise of those freedoms of speech and religion protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, has a firmer foundation than the whims or personal opinions of a local governing body.” Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 272 (1951). Likewise, with the exercise of fundamental Second Amendment freedoms. Defendants’ whims and personal opinions as to who should enjoy Second Amendment rights impermissibly classifies individuals in the exercise of these rights in a completely arbitrary, standardless fashion.




The practice thus fails all aspects of strict scrutiny analysis. There is no compelling state interest in depriving people of the means of self-defense. The state may have an interest in reducing gun violence and accidents, but it cannot presume that the exercise of a constitutional right will cause the sort of harm it is allowed to curtail. Defendants cannot point to the impact of their practice – the deprivation of constitutional rights – as their interest. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 120 (1991).
You all are reading too fast. Understandable.

Intermediate applies to those who are not law-abiding, per Chester. Because Ray is a law-abiding gentleman, his claims are elevated to strict scrutiny.
Patrick is offline Report Post Reply With Quote
...



__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:52 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Just read the decision. Though this is our first real victory for right to carry I have to say I don't like much of the decision. I understand he's kind of had his hands tied due to Masciandaro but he went over and beyond to mention things like banning carry in places where violence is most acute... Isn't that where you would need your gun the most? /facepalm.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-05-2012, 8:56 AM
JDoe JDoe is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,142
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvenSoul View Post
This made my day! I hope we can build on this to get CCW's LTC's Issued?
Fixed it for us.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:24 AM
Goosebrown's Avatar
Goosebrown Goosebrown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 346
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Nice. Good ruling, not as broad as one may hope, but explicit and poignant if it were to apply to California.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:26 AM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 614
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Patrick (Patrick2 here) Says this over at MD Shooters....... (post 4394)
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread...40649&page=220
... Patrick is quoting from gura's brief, I think, not the recent decision. The decision clearly used intermediate scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:29 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 13,904
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default



And, that's all I have to say about that!
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:40 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,619
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I am very pleased to see this. It is a wonderful ruling.



Wollard was won squarely on the 2A merits.

Two fundamental questions were presented to the court:

Quote:
This case requires the Court to answer two fundamental questions. The first asks whether the Second Amendment‘s protections extend beyond the home, ―where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.‖ Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. This question was left unanswered in Heller, and has not been authoritatively addressed in the Fourth Circuit‘s post-Heller decisions. Second, if the right to bear arms does extend beyond the home, the Court must decide whether Maryland‘s requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate ―good and substantial reason to wear or carry a handgun passes constitutional muster.
The first question's answer is yes they do. And the later questions was no it does not.

My only quibble with the ruling is that I think carry is part of the core 2A right and not ancillary. But I think only a higher court can make that determination once the historical and scholarly literature are presented and the court is fully briefed.

Something else I like is that Judge Niemeyer from the Masciandaro panel was quoted quite a bit in this Wollard decision. He was the judge who wanted to explore the 2A question in that case but was shut down by the other two judges on the panel. It would seem that Niemeyer's words due him great credit.
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 03-05-2012 at 9:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:44 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,359
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I am much happier for having read that decision

Happy Monday!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:46 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Hopefully the supreme court recognizes the right outside the home as fundamental and at least strict scrutiny applies.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:51 AM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 726
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
... Patrick is quoting from gura's brief, I think, not the recent decision. The decision clearly used intermediate scrutiny.
Agreed. I'm not thrilled with the application of intermediate scrutiny, but I must say I'm surprised that we got a "win" at the district level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by from pg 17
ii. Intermediate Scrutiny
As stated, Maryland‘s permitting scheme, insofar as it requires a "good and substantial reason" for a law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm outside his home, is subject to intermediate scrutiny.
EDIT: However, I'm also pleased to see that the Court doesn't believe that "good and substantial reason" meets even intermediate scrutiny.

Last edited by Big Ben; 03-05-2012 at 9:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:51 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Note to self: send more money to SAF. They're kicking butt.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:53 AM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 11,587
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Woo Hoo!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
I don't really care, I just like to argue.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-05-2012, 9:59 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I also thought the denial of prior restraint argument was really weak. One of his arguments was literally that when the prior restraint doctrine was conceived that they never knew that it would apply to 2nd Amendment cases... that's such childish and ridiculous reasoning. Also if he was citing Chester why did he not apply Strict Scrutiny as this would only apply to law abiding citizens given that the CCW laws already prevent the non law-abiding from acquiring CCWs? But the longer I think about it, it could be better that this case was decided in our favor on intermediate scrutiny levels. Because the other courts have been using intermediate scrutiny and denying our rights while this one used IS and we won. So this could provide the frame work for lower court decisions and we can hopefully get Strict Scrutiny clarified at the Supreme Court level.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:05 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,446
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

This will be cited in every carry case currently pending in the US. What this portends is a likely circuit split, or worst case, a 4th Circuit reversal which would ripen Wollard for a direct appeal to SCOTUS. However, I think this will bolster Peterson v. Denver Sheriff as well as Denver's requirements are similar and a second oral argument is next Monday.

I pretty much assume MD will appeal. We're looking very good for a cert grant next SCOTUS term. What's not clear is whether we will get it heard before the end of June 2013 or the end of June 2014 but both are clearly possible.

-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
  #33  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:11 AM
Coded-Dude's Avatar
Coded-Dude Coded-Dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,704
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Score one for the good guys! Awesome Monday morning news.
__________________
x2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadbolt View Post
watching this state and country operate is like watching a water park burn down. doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Team 6 showed up in choppers, it was so cash. Lit his house with red dots like it had a rash. Navy SEALs dashed inside his house, left their heads spinning...then flew off in the night screaming "Duh, WINNING!"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:12 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,619
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Hopefully the supreme court recognizes the right outside the home as fundamental and at least strict scrutiny applies.
Here is something to chew on... If SCOTUS states that carry is part of the core right then this decision in Wollard regarding scrutiny is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
I also thought the denial of prior restraint argument was really weak. One of his arguments was literally that when the prior restraint doctrine was conceived that they never knew that it would apply to 2nd Amendment cases... that's such childish and ridiculous reasoning. Also if he was citing Chester why did he not apply Strict Scrutiny as this would only apply to law abiding citizens given that the CCW laws already prevent the non law-abiding from acquiring CCWs? But the longer I think about it, it could be better that this case was decided in our favor on intermediate scrutiny levels. Because the other courts have been using intermediate scrutiny and denying our rights while this one used IS and we won. So this could provide the frame work for lower court decisions and we can hopefully get Strict Scrutiny clarified at the Supreme Court level.
It's water under the bridge... We won on the merits of the 2A claim and that is the real news here.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:31 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Has anyone been keeping score of our loses (vs this one win)? If so, please post the number.
The conflict consists of two battles. The first battle has been won. I know of no active cases contesting "in the home" or "individual right". We've taken that hill. Even the anti's accept their loss.

The second battle is "carry", and here it depends whether you are counting bottles or gallonage. If we use as our base the number of "on appeal" cases vs our "wons", the anti's are at the moment ahead. They have more bottles.

But if we base our position on the number of gallons won, we have Heller and McDonald, which are tanker trucks and are far more important than their bottles. Our tankers make possible litigation on "carry". Couldn't have "carry" unless we'd first earned "individual right". Imagine how paradigm-shifting the right to carry is to generations educated in public schools where even the sketching of a gun by a second grader is cause for suspension!

Heller. McDonald. Possible Hightower. Our tankers won't even notice the little plastic bottles crush beneath them.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:45 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gene,
Don't forget, MD's current D governor is term-limited from office in 2.5 years, the current AG (an elected position in MD), also a D, is the favorite for the primary (and baring a R backlash/get-out-the-vote drive, he's the favorite for the general as well). MD's union members may ignore their unions' endorsements if the NRA tells everyone he appealed this ruling to deny their carry rights.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:47 AM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,741
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Offcial SAF press release.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=395

Gura strikes again.

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:55 AM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middleton, ID
Posts: 6,697
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default good news

I just wish justice operated a little faster.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:05 AM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sheriff Hutchens, take note!
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners - @guntrust on most social nets
FREE gun training: http://guntrust.org
Click here for my latest article on CA gun trust planning (also my radio ads)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:06 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Beautiful. Definitely moving too slowly for my tastes. Acknowledge my natural right to self defense outside of my home, as well as in it, and either LOC or LTC in LA County (and preferably take the bullet buttons off).
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
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 3:50 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical