05FLHT Posted December 30, 2010 at 12:38 AM Share Posted December 30, 2010 at 12:38 AM In sum, there is no ongoing state proceeding that warrants abstention under the Younger doctrine. Accordingly, I will deny the Defendants‘ Motion to Dismiss on this ground.6 It looks like the equal protection (14A) claim needs some more work. Therefore, although I will grant Defendants‘ motion to dismiss Count II, I will permit Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint stating their equal protection claim with more particularity. And the wheels keep turning...Woollard:Maryland.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted December 30, 2010 at 04:35 AM Share Posted December 30, 2010 at 04:35 AM In sum, there is no ongoing state proceeding that warrants abstention under the Younger doctrine. Accordingly, I will deny the Defendants‘ Motion to Dismiss on this ground.6 It looks like the equal protection (14A) claim needs some more work. Therefore, although I will grant Defendants‘ motion to dismiss Count II, I will permit Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint stating their equal protection claim with more particularity. And the wheels keep turning... Reading through the entire ruling leads one to get the idea that the Judge is starting to lean favorably on the Plantiff's side and that's good for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted December 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM Author Share Posted December 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM Reading through the entire ruling leads one to get the idea that the Judge is starting to lean favorably on the Plantiff's side and that's good for us. At this point of the process the Judge looks at the aspects of the claim and accepts them as factual. The denied motion to dismiss is obviously good as the claim that a 'fundamental' Second Amendment is being violated can proceed. The SAF/Gura also are getting another chance to put a better 14A (equal protection) claim together. So overall a win/win for the SAF & Gura. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted March 22, 2011 at 07:13 PM Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 at 07:13 PM Thanks to Krucam on MDS - Defendant (Maryland) Opposition to Pltf (SAF/Gura) MSJ, Cross-MSJ This puppy is 50 pages full of fail.26 - Def Opp to Pltf MSJ and Cross-MSJ-1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted April 28, 2011 at 07:10 PM Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 07:10 PM MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENThttp://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.34.0.pdf It's full of all kinds of Gura-goodness (e.g. "Nonetheless, Defendants and their amici persist in ignoring the two words appearing in the Second Amendment after “keep.” Their denial is not well-grounded.") Here's the Conclusion:Defendants’ arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights must be enjoined. Defendants’motion for summary judgment should be denied. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should be granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 28, 2011 at 08:53 PM Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 08:53 PM If you don't read this whole thing ... at least read the summary of Gura's argument. I love the way he writes. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTDefendants’ brief, and those of their amici, are remarkable in their treatment of adversecontrolling precedent, namely, Heller, Chester, and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct.3020 (2010). Time and again, the briefs assert arguments flatly foreclosed by these precedents.Indeed, heavy reliance is placed on the dissenting opinions in these cases, and on the briefingproffered on behalf of the losing side. Respectfully, Justice Breyer was not in the majority inHeller, Judge Davis was not in the majority in Chester, and the amicus brief offered on behalf ofthe City of Chicago in McDonald, by self-described historians, contained an imagined history ofthe right to keep and bear arms that had been utterly rejected in Heller and not surprisingly,proved incompatible with the prevailing opinions in McDonald. Defendants expend great effort describing what they perceive as the uniquelyunacceptable harm that flows from handgun possession—an approach rejected in Heller andMcDonald. They suggest the availability of long arms ameliorates the impact of the handgunregulations, another approach foreclosed by Heller. They suggest Justice Breyer’s dissentingopinion in Heller was a “concurring” opinion that reflected the majority’s views with respect tohis interest-balancing approach, a topic that elicited exceptionally strong disagreement by themajority. Blithely disregarding Heller’s contrary instruction, Defendants suggest the content ofSecond Amendment rights must be determined by judicial evaluations of competing policyclaims. Wishing that the Second Amendment would not contain a right to carry arms, Defendantsignore the Supreme Court’s definition of the Second Amendment’s text, and improperly seek tolimit Heller and McDonald to their facts—an outcome also at odds with United States v. Miller,307 U.S. 174 (1939). Defendants repeatedly emphasize that they may ban all concealed carryingof handguns, but ignore both the qualified nature of that ability, and the fact that their carryinglaw goes much further, to virtually ban all handgun carry—which the same precedent condemnsas unconstitutional. Disregarding Heller, McDonald, and Chester, Defendants and their amici proposedisposing of this case using what amounts to, for all intents and purposes, the rational basis testthat these precedents prohibit. And they seek to avoid having their law treated like the priorrestraint which it undoubtedly is, because prior restraint has proven most suitable in FirstAmendment cases—ignoring what is at least a strong suggestion by the Supreme Court, and theunambiguous precedent of the Fourth Circuit—that First Amendment frameworks are suitable foruse in Second Amendment cases. That these have not been invoked by courts previously inSecond Amendment cases is merely a function of the fact that the Supreme Court has onlyrecognized the ability to sue state and local officials for Second Amendment violations since thispast June. It is far too early to declare the Second Amendment a dead letter, but it is never toolate to dispose of Maryland’s virtually complete infringement of the right to bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheepleNoMore Posted April 28, 2011 at 09:44 PM Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 09:44 PM Wow. He handed them their butts in a bag. He really shredded their arguments. Called them out for citing a minority opinion as reason to rule the opposite of the majority in the cite. I think that ruling will get cited frequently in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 5, 2012 at 04:31 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 04:31 PM Woollard has prevailed (from calguns): 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted March 5, 2012 at 04:40 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 04:40 PM This is great news. The tides are definitely turning. In the event we see IL's ban struck down in court, rulings like this are going to be strong ammunition against the anti-rights crowd who will want to enact may-issue laws that require "good cause", and all kinds of other hoops.It gives us an easy, clear, and definitive way to point to something and say "Nope, you can't do that and here's why". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAL Posted March 5, 2012 at 04:44 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 04:44 PM Great news indeed. If Maryland can get this kind of relief through the courts, there's no reason we can't also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiShooter Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:09 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:09 PM Sweet. I m really beginning to wonder if this fuss about handgun registration has something to do with them expecting HB148 to pass or be forced to allow concealed carry (so they're doing something they are hoping they can pass and call it a "win" when they talk to their crazed anti-self-defense audience. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:23 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:23 PM Sweet. I m really beginning to wonder if this fuss about handgun registration has something to do with them expecting HB148 to pass or be forced to allow concealed carry (so they're doing something they are hoping they can pass and call it a "win" when they talk to their crazed anti-self-defense audience. ) ............................you think? House Bill 148 will become the law of Illinois this legislative season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:23 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:23 PM How binding is this particular court's decision to Maryland as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:25 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 05:25 PM Sweet. I m really beginning to wonder if this fuss about handgun registration has something to do with them expecting HB148 to pass or be forced to allow concealed carry (so they're doing something they are hoping they can pass and call it a "win" when they talk to their crazed anti-self-defense audience. ) A while ago I emailed all the anti HB148 reps basically telling them that either we get a permit system via HB148 or we get open and concealed carry with no permitting system at all via Shepard and Moore. I never got any response except for one cookie cutter reply from Barrios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpius Posted March 5, 2012 at 06:13 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 06:13 PM I would think this could also be applied to Chicago's registration, permit, and fees. “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Judge Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 5, 2012 at 06:32 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 06:32 PM How binding is this particular court's decision to Maryland as a whole? It is in the District Court, so is not binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAL Posted March 5, 2012 at 07:11 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 07:11 PM How binding is this particular court's decision to Maryland as a whole? It is in the District Court, so is not binding. A good write-up on the decision is here: OnlyGunsandMoneyBlog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted March 5, 2012 at 11:42 PM Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 11:42 PM Good news! :Drunk emoticon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanks2mcdonald Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:57 AM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:57 AM Sweet. I m really beginning to wonder if this fuss about handgun registration has something to do with them expecting HB148 to pass or be forced to allow concealed carry (so they're doing something they are hoping they can pass and call it a "win" when they talk to their crazed anti-self-defense audience. ) I agree. My guess is the legislators in IL are loading up bills on both sides with the gun registration being a key way to at least say to anti-gun advocates that they are at least tracking guns. Allows them to come away with something. I am not opposed to gun registration. I have nothing to hide. I am sure it's being tracked somewhere anyway. The confiscation issue doesn't matter to me because if it comes to that point, there will be much bigger issues to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 6, 2012 at 05:57 AM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 05:57 AM I agree. My guess is the legislators in IL are loading up bills on both sides with the gun registration being a key way to at least say to anti-gun advocates that they are at least tracking guns. Allows them to come away with something. I am not opposed to gun registration. I have nothing to hide. I am sure it's being tracked somewhere anyway. The confiscation issue doesn't matter to me because if it comes to that point, there will be much bigger issues to worry about. Registration is an invasion of privacy and it is not needed. Current laws already facilitate police to track the source of a gun provided the transfers were done within the requirements of the law. Gun registration laws will suffer the same weakness. It will require people to follow the law. All gun control laws must be defeated. No compromises. No ifs, ands, or buts. Each new control law is one step closer to obliterating the second amendmant. I would hope you reconsider your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted March 6, 2012 at 08:37 AM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 08:37 AM A friend of mine had a visit from the ATF several years ago. He was one of the legal owners of IIRC a shotgun that was later used in a robbery. He bought and later sold it legaly and three or four owners later it fell into bad company. There was no problem for my friend when he still had the required FOID info. Guns can be traced now no reason for more layers of !* for legal gun owners. No new laws! No compromize! Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmefford Posted March 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM How binding is this particular court's decision to Maryland as a whole? It is in the District Court, so is not binding. Since this a US Court ("IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND") wouldn't it carry some weight on the state as a whole, assuming that the decision was not appealed? Regards, Drd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted March 6, 2012 at 12:28 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 12:28 PM How binding is this particular court's decision to Maryland as a whole? It is in the District Court, so is not binding. Since this a US Court ("IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND") wouldn't it carry some weight on the state as a whole, assuming that the decision was not appealed? Regards, DrdAs a practical matter it has little meaning just yet as MD is appealing it. It is another step forward though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted March 6, 2012 at 01:15 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 01:15 PM It has weight, but is not binding on any other court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted March 6, 2012 at 01:36 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 01:36 PM Sweet. I m really beginning to wonder if this fuss about handgun registration has something to do with them expecting HB148 to pass or be forced to allow concealed carry (so they're doing something they are hoping they can pass and call it a "win" when they talk to their crazed anti-self-defense audience. ) I agree. My guess is the legislators in IL are loading up bills on both sides with the gun registration being a key way to at least say to anti-gun advocates that they are at least tracking guns. Allows them to come away with something. I am not opposed to gun registration. I have nothing to hide. I am sure it's being tracked somewhere anyway. The confiscation issue doesn't matter to me because if it comes to that point, there will be much bigger issues to worry about. </sarcasm >- Me neither! </sarcasm off> Nope, I'll register my gun just as soon as they tell me exactly how many guns are held by the gangbangers and show me a 10 year study PROVING that firearm registration actually reduced crime and helped to solve more than 50% of the crimes committed using a registered gun. On second thought, that (gangbanger registration) will never happen. You see, the court has held that a criminal, being forbidden to own a gun, isn't bound by registration laws because if he registered a gun that he owned illegally, it would violate his 5th amendment right to not be forced to self incriminate. So, all the good guys register their guns, the criminals don't have to because of the 5th amendment, but the registration laws are used to violate my 2nd amendment rights. Think on that before you say your "not opposed to gun registration." Read history. ALL confiscation schemes have been preceded by a registration program. The 4473 at the FFL's office is bad enough. They can and have been used to track guns that were used in crimes. How about we quit trying to prevent crime by regulating THINGS and we start serving out real punishment to the PEOPLE that break the law?? AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krm3051 Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:40 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:40 PM Sweet. I m really beginning to wonder if this fuss about handgun registration has something to do with them expecting HB148 to pass or be forced to allow concealed carry (so they're doing something they are hoping they can pass and call it a "win" when they talk to their crazed anti-self-defense audience. ) I agree. My guess is the legislators in IL are loading up bills on both sides with the gun registration being a key way to at least say to anti-gun advocates that they are at least tracking guns. Allows them to come away with something. I am not opposed to gun registration. I have nothing to hide. I am sure it's being tracked somewhere anyway. The confiscation issue doesn't matter to me because if it comes to that point, there will be much bigger issues to worry about. </sarcasm >- Me neither! </sarcasm off> Nope, I'll register my gun just as soon as they tell me exactly how many guns are held by the gangbangers and show me a 10 year study PROVING that firearm registration actually reduced crime and helped to solve more than 50% of the crimes committed using a registered gun. On second thought, that (gangbanger registration) will never happen. You see, the court has held that a criminal, being forbidden to own a gun, isn't bound by registration laws because if he registered a gun that he owned illegally, it would violate his 5th amendment right to not be forced to self incriminate. So, all the good guys register their guns, the criminals don't have to because of the 5th amendment, but the registration laws are used to violate my 2nd amendment rights. Think on that before you say your "not opposed to gun registration." Read history. ALL confiscation schemes have been preceded by a registration program. The 4473 at the FFL's office is bad enough. They can and have been used to track guns that were used in crimes. How about we quit trying to prevent crime by regulating THINGS and we start serving out real punishment to the PEOPLE that break the law?? AB AMEN!!!!!!!!!!! TO abolt243. Any gun is nothing more than a tool! In the wrong hands a hammer or screwdriver are deadly weapons. What's next? Will I have to register my Snap On Tools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago guy Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:57 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:57 PM We are preaching to the choir here. This is the message we need to spread to the fence sitters or other "mildly negative toward guns" crowd. It's a waste to try to convince the extreme antis such as my rep. Ann Williams. (Though I keep trying.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmefford Posted March 6, 2012 at 06:13 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 06:13 PM We are preaching to the choir here. This is the message we need to spread to the fence sitters or other "mildly negative toward guns" crowd. It's a waste to try to convince the extreme antis such as my rep. Ann Williams. (Though I keep trying.) Get a big enough meeting together in her district and she will come around. Don't give up just yet. Votes count! Ooops! This is Chicago we are talking about. They count over and over...... Good luck! Regards, Drd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted March 6, 2012 at 06:29 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 06:29 PM I'm just speculating here... But I really don't think you're going to find a lot of die-hard anti-rights gun-grabbers in Williams' district. I think that's her personal agenda. My guess is that people keep electing her for other reasons, and they don't feel strongly enough about protecting their right to self defense (especially since they live in a pretty solidly white upper/upper-middle class enclave with low crime rates). So when they hear about her crusades to end legal gun ownership, they shrug and say "ok, whatever." Like with most anti-rights politicians, she's not doing it because her constituents *want* it, but because they don't despise it enough to do anything to stop her. So like most things, you need to get enough people in the neighborhood riled up enough to make her worry about her footing in the next primary. It may be an uphill battle, but it's never impossible (except maybe in oak park and/or san francisco). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted March 6, 2012 at 09:54 PM Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 09:54 PM And if SCOTUS refuses the case, the ruling stands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.