Jump to content

Woollard v. Gallagher (CA4) - Petition for Rehearing En Banc


skinnyb82

Recommended Posts

Something about the tempo of the case and what I can only guess would be that it's basically going from no issuance at all to, well, God knows what'll happen but Posner's suggests shall issue. That's just a guess. Illinois is like a clean slate, whereas other states have had carry bills around for a while.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Lisa is so confident that the carry ban is constitutional she should just petition. I'm willing to wait until the fall if we can put this issue to bed once and for all. Which is precisely why Lisa won't appeal. With the current composition of the court, it'd be the death knell for may issue or even shall issue without preemption. Chicago would be boned.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paraphrased..." The IL cases are more the speed of SCOTUS, but once they expire (no cert request)...Woollard." What that could possibly mean in context of the Court I have no idea but I believe I erred and misinterpreted the post. Rather it is Gura's preference, not the Court's.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope they have to be petitioned just like any other appellate court. I would be concerned if appellate courts could request cases actually. They could just say "hey we don't like that ruling, we wanna hear orals then overturn it." By "hear" I mean sleep through them or play on their iPads. It's part of the adversarial legal system. If the loser doesn't care or is pulling some "strategery" then the court cannot take action sua sponte.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woollard is a pretty good plaintiff.

 

 

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard lives on a farm in a remote part of Baltimore County, Maryland. On Christmas Eve, 2002, Woollard was at home with his wife, children, and grandchildren when an intruder shattered a window and broke into the house. The intruder was Kris Lee Abbott, Woollard’s son-in-law. Abbott, who was high on drugs and intent on driving into Baltimore city to buy more, was looking for his wife’s car keys. Woollard grabbed a shotgun and trained it on Abbott, but Abbott wrested the shotgun away. Woollard’s son restored order by pointing a second gun at Abbott. Woollard’s wife called the police, who took two-and a- half hours to arrive.

 

Abbott was convicted of first degree burglary and sentenced to three years’ probation. He was later incarcerated after he violated his probation by assaulting a police officer and by committing another burglary.

 

In 2003, Woollard applied for, and was granted, a handgun carry permit. He was allowed to renew the permit in 2006, shortly after Abbott was released from prison. In 2009, however, when Woollard again sought to renew his permit, he was informed that his request was incomplete. He was directed to submit evidence “to support apprehended fear". Because Woollard was unable to produce evidence of a current threat, his application was denied.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I like this case much more than Kachalsky. Woollard actually has a story. He's also a Navy vet. And as far as I know, the perp is his son-in-law, or probably former son-in-law by now. Kachalsky just wanted a carry permit, allegations of cronyism, etc. and while that is compelling, it's not even close to as compelling of a reason to grant writ as it is in this case. Plus the fact that CA4 overturned the district court judge's ruling, so that adds more fuel to the fire.

 

By the look of things, Gura is gonna wait and see if Madigan files a petition for writ, her deadline is May 23rd. If not, he's gonna file, Maryland will screw around which actually will help Woollard because when petition for writ is filed right before recess and the respondent doesn't waive response prior to recess, the odds of writ being granted go up exponentially when the Court comes back for the following term. Don't ask me why, I read some paper on it...more like glossed over it and picked up that interesting tidbit. If we see this go to SCOTUS, then I hope they put it on the calendar for spring 2014...could always hope for them to cram it into the fall calendar but beggars can't be choosers heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gura should NOT go and immediately file for cert with Woollard. He should wait to see what Madigan does with Moore, and also give the remaining cases(Drake in NJ and Peruta/Baker/Richards in the CA9 to play out) a chance to be decided and cement a real circuit split. Whether he waits till the last possible day or not the issue would be decided at the end of next term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gura should NOT go and immediately file for cert with Woollard. He should wait to see what Madigan does with Moore, and also give the remaining cases(Drake in NJ and Peruta/Baker/Richards in the CA9 to play out) a chance to be decided and cement a real circuit split. Whether he waits till the last possible day or not the issue would be decided at the end of next term.

 

He's gonna wait and see what Lisa does. If May 23rd comes and goes with no action, he's gonna file petition for writ. As I said, or as Gura has told people, Woollard is his clean up batter. He's a compelling defendant, it's a much better case than Kachalsky as far as the merits are concerned. And it involves CA4 overturning a district court. This was not the case in Kachalsky. And this while anti-gun thing is rapidly cooling down although Obama is trying to stir it up again after these two scumbags in Boston.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Lisa is so confident that the carry ban is constitutional she should just petition. I'm willing to wait until the fall if we can put this issue to bed once and for all. Which is precisely why Lisa won't appeal. With the current composition of the court, it'd be the death knell for may issue or even shall issue without preemption. Chicago would be boned.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

DC would be boned too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Lisa is so confident that the carry ban is constitutional she should just petition. I'm willing to wait until the fall if we can put this issue to bed once and for all. Which is precisely why Lisa won't appeal. With the current composition of the court, it'd be the death knell for may issue or even shall issue without preemption. Chicago would be boned.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

DC would be boned too.

 

Can't forget that liberal cesspool. Where they arrest veterans but not David Gregory.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Yup its docketed.

 

No. 13-42

Title:

Raymond Woollard, et al., Petitioners

v.

Denis Gallagher, et al.

Docketed: July 11, 2013

Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Nos.: (12-1437)

Decision Date: March 21, 2013

Rehearing Denied: April 16, 2013

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013)

Jul 9 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Moore was the case SCOTUS wanted to hear - it would have allowed them to make a broad pro-2A ruling.

 

They passed on hearing Kachalski - but that was when Moore was still in play.

 

I think Woollard is a great plaintiff and he has a good case. I hope SCOTUS will hear it.

the only question moore could of answered was does the right to self defense extend outside the home... they couldnt of answered may vs shall issue or anything else with moore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woollard is a much better case IMO. It's not a strict RTKBA case per se. It's a "right to self protection" case, what constitutes a danger like I dunno, your son in law, living 3 miles away, who burglarized your home on Christmas Eve then violated probation by burglarizing another house and assaulting a cop and subsequently sent to prison. According to the State of Maryland, that man is not a threat to someone until he either commits a forcible felony against a previous victim, or makes threats either verbally or in writing. Because violent criminals send letters of intent to their victims, "Dear so and so, I'm gonna kill you."

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they might well have preferred an IL case, because they would only have to rule on whether the 2A extends outside the home.

 

Woollard forces them into considering just how far that right extends, along with some equal protection things that could have significant effect in other areas. Gura seems to like the EP and it seems to me to be a very powerful one that the courts are terrified of because it has implications in so many areas where government arbitrarily gives one person preference over another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woollard is a much better case IMO. It's not a strict RTKBA case per se. It's a "right to self protection" case, what constitutes a danger like I dunno, your son in law, living 3 miles away, who burglarized your home on Christmas Eve then violated probation by burglarizing another house and assaulting a cop and subsequently sent to prison. According to the State of Maryland, that man is not a threat to someone until he either commits a forcible felony against a previous victim, or makes threats either verbally or in writing. Because violent criminals send letters of intent to their victims, "Dear so and so, I'm gonna kill you."

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

The old "Sideshow Bob" approach to murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Gura in Woollard v. Gallagher

 

"The question presented is:

 

Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self defense first prove a 'good and substantial reason' for doing so."

 

So basically they're gonna have to rule on carry outside the home too

 

woollard_petition.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spring at the earliest. The case will presumably be distributed to the Justices in September, then conferenced in October, cert granted, calendared for the Spring. Yeah that's a lot of conjecture haha. It's their last shot at addressing this isssue and IMO it is a MUCH better case because it addresses not only carry outside the home but discretionary may issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...