53 replies to this topic

[Bud]

Woollard v. Sheridan

A Maryland resident sued concerning Maryland's "good and substantial reason to issue a concealed carry permit...............and won!

Decision is from the Federal District Court of Maryland.

This is another huge win for the Second Amendment Foundation

The Court said:

"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. "

"A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered ―reasonably adapted‖ to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland's goal of ―minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them,‖ id. at 40, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly. "

"At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government's to make. 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."  

Edited by BudMan5, 05 March 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[samy12386]

Never thought I'd be jealous of Maryland. Can someone with more knowledge tell us if this will effect us at all?

[kurt555gs]

Finally. "May issue" states are going to be scrambling on how discriminate peoples rights after this.

[NakPPI]

It's huge.
1.  Second Amendment applies outside of the home
2.  Arbitrarily prohibiting gun possession outside of the home is unconstitutional.

We would win our cases based on this ruling... Too bad it's the wrong circuit.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Jeffrey]

NakPPI, on 05 March 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

It's huge.
1.  Second Amendment applies outside of the home
2.  Arbitrarily prohibiting gun possession outside of the home is unconstitutional.

We would win our cases based on this ruling... Too bad it's the wrong circuit.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Pardon my ignorance to the way the system works, but why does the circuit affect them but not us?

[abolt243]

NakPPI, on 05 March 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

It's huge.
1.  Second Amendment applies outside of the home
2.  Arbitrarily prohibiting gun possession outside of the home is unconstitutional.

We would win our cases based on this ruling... Too bad it's the wrong circuit.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

While this may not be used by the judges in our circuit when/if our cases get there, could it not be cited when we reach SCOTUS?

[NakPPI]

A court can cite whatever it likes within the rules, but the weight of the opinion is based on the level and circuit. So, in this case the decision is from a parallel court in a different circuit.

Remember, judge Myerscough's opinion cited cases in New Jersey, so our judges could easily cite this case.

Now if this case were to be affirmed by the 4th Circuit, it would be more meaningful.

Obviously SCOTUS is the top. I've always said that Woolard was a better case than the two cases that SCOTUS declined to hear last year.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[kurt555gs]

I'll bet this gives Bloomberg an upset stomach.

* Carthago delenda est *

[Skorpius]

"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."

I hope this can be referenced with regards to Chicago's permit, registration, and fee.

[JackTripper]

With some luck, Maryland will appeal and lose, granting us relief here.

[Jeffrey]

NakPPI, on 05 March 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

A court can cite whatever it likes within the rules, but the weight of the opinion is based on the level and circuit. So, in this case the decision is from a parallel court in a different circuit.

Remember, judge Myerscough's opinion cited cases in New Jersey, so our judges could easily cite this case.

Now if this case were to be affirmed by the 4th Circuit, it would be more meaningful.

Obviously SCOTUS is the top. I've always said that Woolard was a better case than the two cases that SCOTUS declined to hear last year.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

I'd assume this will be repealed and potentially end up in SCOTUS?

[JackTripper]

Never mind my comment. Next stop would be the 4th circuit

[Getzapped]

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.

I love this!!  I hope this helps our cause!

[Federal Farmer]

Jeffrey, on 05 March 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Pardon my ignorance to the way the system works, but why does the circuit affect them but not us?

There are 11 regional circuit courts and the DC Circuit court.  Each covers a set geography.  IL, WI, and IN make up the 7th Circuit.  Within our circuit, there are several District Courts.  Decisions in a District Court are not binding in the circuit (or, I believe) even within that District (though I may be wrong on this).  They can be cited within the circuit or even in another circuit or at SCOTUS.

A decision in a given circuits Court of Appeals is binding within that circuit.  A decision by SCOTUS is binding across all circuits.

It is essentially a top-down hierarchy.  Appeals bubble up and decisions bind down.

[wilessiuc]

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to hear the issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home. Circuits are split as to the answer, and the Supreme Court loves to hear those types of cases. However, we are probably at least 2-3 years away from this happening. This makes the 2012 election crucial. If Obama wins, he almost certainly will have anywhere from 1-3 nominations to make to the Court. Another Sotomayor or Kagan and you can imagine how the Court will rule.

[TyGuy]

wilessiuc, on 05 March 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to hear the issue ... This makes the 2012 election crucial.

+infinity

I can't let myself consider what will happen if the President wins another term.

[Ranger]

Ditto.  For the second amendment, this will likely be one of the most important presidential elections ever and it will have ramifications that will last decades.  Pro second amendment supporters need to gain the Presidency and Senate and hold the house.  If that happens, we'll continue to see many improvements in our second amendment status.  If it doesn't, we're in trouble.

[Jeff Johnson]

I'm not disagreeing about the importance of the next election, but the NRA says the very same thing every election.

[abolt243]

Jeff Johnson, on 05 March 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

I'm not disagreeing about the importance of the next election, but the NRA says the very same thing every election.

Because with a 5-4 court, it's true for every election.  We're one heartbeat from a Liberal court, every day.  Not to mention the hundreds of judges that are appointed to lower courts in the Federal system.  Like Sue Myerscough.

AB

[milq]

Not that I'm a fan of the guy, but Rush L. is talking about this decision right now and about the upswing in gun sales prior to the election. He really hasn't added his own opinion, other than he's very surprised to hear this coming from Maryland.

[RINGKINGS]

I think this is especially interesting and important coming from Maryland (a very left leaning area in general)........if this decision came from the circuit that settles cases in say, Oklahoma or Arizona it wouldnt be so surprising.
Also, citing this case could be a powerful argument that Illinois must either allow our 2nd Amendment rights through either OPEN and/or CONCEALED carry ...their choice... but they cannot summarily deny the right..... im guessing the powers that be in Illinois cringe at the idea of OPEN carry which makes this decision a powerful tool added to our toolbelt in the fight to obtain a permitting system for CONCEALED carry.

Personally, i have been a member of the NRA for years but i think its time to join or at least contribute to the SAF.......they pick their cases very well and have an excellent batting average winning those cases.

Edited by RINGKINGS, 05 March 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[abolt243]

RINGKINGS, on 05 March 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think this is especially interesting and important coming from Maryland (a very left leaning area in general)........if this decision came from the circuit that settles cases in say, Oklahoma or Arizona it wouldnt be so surprising.
Also, citing this case could be a powerful argument that Illinois must either allow our 2nd Amendment rights through either OPEN and/or CONCEALED carry ...their choice... but they cannot summarily deny the right..... im guessing the powers that be in Illinois cringe at the idea of OPEN carry which makes this decision a powerful tool added to our toolbelt in the fight to obtain a permitting system for CONCEALED carry.

Personally, i have been a member of the NRA for years but i think its time to join or at least contribute to the SAF.......they pick their cases very well and have an excellent batting average winning those cases.

Been a member for some time now.  SAF is one of the plaintiffs in Moore vs. Madigan, along with Illinois Carry.

[Federal Farmer]

RINGKINGS, on 05 March 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think this is especially interesting and important coming from Maryland (a very left leaning area in general)........if this decision came from the circuit that settles cases in say, Oklahoma or Arizona it wouldnt be so surprising.
Also, citing this case could be a powerful argument that Illinois must either allow our 2nd Amendment rights through either OPEN and/or CONCEALED carry ...their choice... but they cannot summarily deny the right..... im guessing the powers that be in Illinois cringe at the idea of OPEN carry which makes this decision a powerful tool added to our toolbelt in the fight to obtain a permitting system for CONCEALED carry.

Personally, i have been a member of the NRA for years but i think its time to join or at least contribute to the SAF.......they pick their cases very well and have an excellent batting average winning those cases.

SAF is a major and important player in the litigation arena.  NRA plays well there too, but their major power is in elections and legislation.  

Both are important functions.

[Sigma]

Dumb question, what if this ruling came down before Meyers cough wrote her foolishness?

Whenever Saf scores a win I send em 2 bucks since i'm already a member.

[wilessiuc]

Sigma, on 05 March 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Dumb question, what if this ruling came down before Meyers cough wrote her foolishness?

Wouldn't have mattered. Different courts, different jurisdictions. Only court that has jurisdiction over both is the US Supreme Court.

[oneshot]

Love it.

[ming]

Maryland has announced it plans to appeal.  Not much of a surprise there.

Edited by ming, 05 March 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Yas]

Dear Monique Davis

Dear Emil Jones III


Alan Gura is one step closer to SCOTUS again.... Pay attention.

[xmikex]

Skorpius, on 05 March 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

"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."

I hope this can be referenced with regards to Chicago's permit, registration, and fee.

That needs to go on a poster at IGOLD this year.



also here's a map of the how the US Federal Court of appeals and Federal District Courts are set up:

[Tvandermyde]

My understanding is this judge ruled that the law of good cause could not survive an intermediate scrutiny standard. If that fails intermediate, Illinois complete  ban on carry can't survive rational basis. . .

This is big, not to mention the beyond the home issue, sounds an awful lot like what we argued today at the task force in Chicago