Jump to content


Photo

Maryland's motion to dismiss denied (Woollard)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
43 replies to this topic

#1 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 29 December 2010 - 06:38 PM

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...

Attached Files


NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#2 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,890 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 29 December 2010 - 10:35 PM

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.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#3 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 30 December 2010 - 05:45 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.
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#4 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 22 March 2011 - 01:13 PM

Thanks to Krucam on MDS - Defendant (Maryland) Opposition to Pltf (SAF/Gura) MSJ, Cross-MSJ

This puppy is 50 pages full of fail.

Attached Files


NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#5 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 28 April 2011 - 01:10 PM

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://ia700101.us.a...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.


ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#6 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 28 April 2011 - 02:53 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 ARGUMENT
Defendants’ brief, and those of their amici, are remarkable in their treatment of adverse
controlling 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 briefing
proffered on behalf of the losing side. Respectfully, Justice Breyer was not in the majority in
Heller, Judge Davis was not in the majority in Chester, and the amicus brief offered on behalf of
the City of Chicago in McDonald, by self-described historians, contained an imagined history of
the 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 uniquely
unacceptable harm that flows from handgun possession—an approach rejected in Heller and
McDonald. They suggest the availability of long arms ameliorates the impact of the handgun
regulations, another approach foreclosed by Heller. They suggest Justice Breyer’s dissenting
opinion in Heller was a “concurring” opinion that reflected the majority’s views with respect to
his interest-balancing approach, a topic that elicited exceptionally strong disagreement by the
majority. Blithely disregarding Heller’s contrary instruction, Defendants suggest the content of
Second Amendment rights must be determined by judicial evaluations of competing policy
claims.

Wishing that the Second Amendment would not contain a right to carry arms, Defendants
ignore the Supreme Court’s definition of the Second Amendment’s text, and improperly seek to
limit 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 carrying
of handguns, but ignore both the qualified nature of that ability, and the fact that their carrying
law goes much further, to virtually ban all handgun carry—which the same precedent condemns
as unconstitutional.

Disregarding Heller, McDonald, and Chester, Defendants and their amici propose
disposing of this case using what amounts to, for all intents and purposes, the rational basis test
that these precedents prohibit. And they seek to avoid having their law treated like the prior
restraint which it undoubtedly is, because prior restraint has proven most suitable in First
Amendment cases—ignoring what is at least a strong suggestion by the Supreme Court, and the
unambiguous precedent of the Fourth Circuit—that First Amendment frameworks are suitable for
use in Second Amendment cases. That these have not been invoked by courts previously in
Second Amendment cases is merely a function of the fact that the Supreme Court has only
recognized the ability to sue state and local officials for Second Amendment violations since this
past June. It is far too early to declare the Second Amendment a dead letter, but it is never too
late to dispose of Maryland’s virtually complete infringement of the right to bear arms.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#7 SheepleNoMore

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 08

Posted 28 April 2011 - 03:44 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.
Ladd Everitt called the proposal to no longer require a concealed-carry permit "crazy. You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public"

Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

#8 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,280 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:31 AM

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."

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#9 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:40 AM

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". :woohoo:
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#10 FAL

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 11

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:44 AM

Great news indeed. If Maryland can get this kind of relief through the courts, there's no reason we can't also.
NRA Life Member / ISRA Member

#11 ChiShooter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:09 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. )

#12 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,890 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:23 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. )



............................you think?

House Bill 148 will become the law of Illinois this legislative season

Edited by BudMan5, 05 March 2012 - 11:23 AM.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#13 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:23 AM

How binding is this particular court's decision to Maryland as a whole?

Edited by Davey, 05 March 2012 - 11:23 AM.


#14 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:25 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. )


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.

#15 Skorpius

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:13 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.”
Posted Image
NRA / ISRA

#16 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,280 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:32 PM

How binding is this particular court's decision to Maryland as a whole?


It is in the District Court, so is not binding.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#17 FAL

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 11

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:11 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
NRA Life Member / ISRA Member

#18 Druid

    Matt Wilson

  • Members
  • 1,027 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 05 March 2012 - 05:42 PM

Good news! :Drunk emoticon:

#19 Thanks2mcdonald

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:57 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.

#20 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:57 PM

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.

#21 sctman800

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,510 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:37 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.
Kristofferson wrote it and Janis sang it "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

#22 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:35 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
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#23 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 06 March 2012 - 06:28 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

As a practical matter it has little meaning just yet as MD is appealing it. It is another step forward though.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#24 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,113 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:15 AM

It has weight, but is not binding on any other court.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#25 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,304 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:36 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.




</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
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#26 krm3051

  • Members
  • 48 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:40 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.




</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?

#27 chicago guy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 08

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:57 AM

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.)

#28 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:13 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
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#29 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:29 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).

Edited by mstrat, 06 March 2012 - 12:31 PM.

ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#30 TFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,934 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:54 PM

And if SCOTUS refuses the case, the ruling stands?
~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
I predicted that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
Based on the restrictions on carry in Chicago/Cook County, I was right.

...doing just enough to keep them out of Federal Court...