The matter of fact is that his now deceased son in law may not have made overt threats of violence after being released from prison but that the absence of any verbalized threat is not indicative of a threat (speaking in absolutes). He may have been a moron for violating his probation by burglarizing another home and assaulting a LEO, but that doesn't mean he's stupid enough to actually send Raymond Woollard a letter stating his intent to harm Mr. Woollard or a phone call. He was clearly dangerous, in prison or free, as indicated by his actions prior to his suicide. Attacking his ex-wife, attacking his parents, and then committing suicide. The suicide puts to rest the issue of mental stability as in he was not mentally stable, at all, and clearly VERY dangerous.
Gallagher's brief in opposition slays me, it truly does. As codified in § 5-306(a) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, permit will be granted to those who demonstrate a “good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Further, the State vaguely defines "apprehended danger" but rules out a "vague threat" or the possibility of becoming a crime victim when applicants supply "personal protection" as their "good and substantial reason." The state factors in, well, a bunch of subjective garbage and "'takes the applicant’s entire situation into account' when determining whether a good and substantial reason exists."
CA4 is chock full of liberal appointees and the three-judge panel that heard and decided Woollard is no exception. Judge King a Clinton appointee and Judges Diaz and Davis are Obama appointees. At one point during orals, Judge Davis actually said that the Court should, and I'm gonna cut right through the semantics, kick it up to SCOTUS because it's above the Court's pay grade. The panel then applied rational basis under the guise of intermediate scrutiny using a two-pronged test which is missing one of the two prongs. The second prong, "does it satisfy the applicable level of scrutiny" was only considered and that "
the good-and-substantial-reason requirement burdens conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection." "With the scope of the requirement in mind, the court examined evidence presented by the State ... that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement protects citizens and inhibits crime in numerous ways, including by decreasing the availability of handguns to criminals via theft, lessening the risk that basic confrontations will turn deadly, and reducing escalations of routine police encounters with citizens into high-risk situations." In other words, law-abiding citizens with permits and concealed firearms are a danger to society. Therefore the "good and substantial reason" cuts down on guns on the street because criminals steal guns from permit holders (right outta the holster), permit holders might shoot criminals so we can't have that, and permit holders might shoot cops and we can't have that even though it RARELY happens. I was not aware that the Second Amendment has a clause in it requiring an American citizen (who is a veteran) be violently victimized by a criminal, attempting to kill said citizen in the commission of a forcible felony, then said scumbag going to prison for jacking a cop, threaten one's life upon his release from prison, all before being permitted to exercise the individual right to keep and bear arms.
In this beautifully crafted piece of garbage brief, Gallagher argues that SCOTUS should deny cert petition because "
the law at issue does not ban the carry of handguns outside the home, deny individuals the use of handguns for self-defense, or limit individuals’ carrying of non-handgun firearms anywhere." Oh really? So, discretionary may issue, that's fine as long as you've survived a violent crime and someone is still leaving voicemails threatening to kill you. Alternatively, you can carry a taser or pepper spray, I mean that's not the crux of the argument here but hey whatever let's throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks, right? Oh, and "
[T]he court of appeals’ decision upholding Maryland’s law is consistent with the decisions of each of the handful of other courts to have reviewed similar laws, with the sole exception of the district court decision it reversed, and with the decisions of other courts that have struck down substantially more restrictive laws." Striking down the un-cited but we all know what you're talking about State of Illinois flat-ban on carry, now that's OK, but don't you dare strike down a discretionary may issue system that requires applicants to survive a violent crime or be in an occupation requiring a concealed firearm and then we might grant a permit until the guy who tried to kill you stops writing you letters saying "I'm gonna kill you when I get outta the joint."
Edited by skinnyb82, 18 September 2013 - 05:47 PM.
Given all that's happened, it looks like it's still proceeding. I just got ahold of the response filed by Gallagher, so by the looks of things, we'll get an up or down on 10/15 if the case distribution schedule is accurate and it's conferenced on 10/11. Gura has also indicated that cert petition will be filed in Drake v. Filko (CA3) and Kwong v. Bloomberg (CA2). This is gonna be an interesting SCOTUS term. The SAF Amicus Brief was provided to MD Shooters by Alan Gura, pulled it from there so thank you MD Shooters 
woollard_petition.pdf 401.61KB
238 downloads
