

The original cert petition filed in Woollard v. Gallagher:

SAF's Amicus Brief:

Respondent's Brief in Opposition (BIO):

Posted 18 September 2013 - 02:11 PM
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:21 PM
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:27 PM
short answer, this case may decide constitutionality of New York style "may issue CCW" if all the stars align and we hold our mouths right.What's all that mean to those of us no familiar with those cases? And in just regular English please.
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:32 PM
Edited by Bud, 18 September 2013 - 03:35 PM.
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:33 PM
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:44 PM
― Tiffany Madison―
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:45 PM
It won't get tossed due to that one guy dying?
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:47 PM
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:50 PM
― Tiffany Madison―
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:54 PM
It won't get tossed due to that one guy dying?
While it would have made a better case IMO if the suspect was still alive the point is that the plaintiff was denied a permit at the time he needed it most, proving that Maryland's system is faulty and that may issue denies a citizen the most basic right of self defense. This is further proven by the fact the suspect DID attack the plaintiff again recently. Yes he took his own life shortly thereafter but the plaintiff was still in grave danger and should have been able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights and protected himself and his family.
Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:20 PM
It won't get tossed due to that one guy dying?
While it would have made a better case IMO if the suspect was still alive the point is that the plaintiff was denied a permit at the time he needed it most, proving that Maryland's system is faulty and that may issue denies a citizen the most basic right of self defense. This is further proven by the fact the suspect DID attack the plaintiff again recently. Yes he took his own life shortly thereafter but the plaintiff was still in grave danger and should have been able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights and protected himself and his family.
Just to be clear, the plaintiff was his father-in-law, who WAS NOT attacked this time. The now-deceased person attacked his estranged wife (again) and his OWN parents.
Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:23 PM
Denying Woollard's renewal was arbitrary and capricious.
Maryland's reasoning behind not renewing Woollard's permit was twofold:
1) Threats have a limited shelf life, Woollard hadn't been attacked for several years, so there's no threat.
2)Woollard was attacked in his home, Woollard can carry w/o a permit, so he doesn't need a CCP (the assumption here is that Abbott would only attack Woollard again in Woollard's home)
It's hard to say what will happen now, it really all just depends on the Supreme Court.
Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:00 PM
― Tiffany Madison―
Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:30 PM
SCOTUS didn't say self defense is not limited to the home - Judge Posner in Moore said the right to self defense is not limited to the home.
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor
Utah CCW Instructor
Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:47 PM
Edited by skinnyb82, 18 September 2013 - 05:47 PM.
Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:22 PM
― Tiffany Madison―
Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:49 PM
If this Court believes that this is an improper
way to evaluate laws burdening fundamental rights,
“it will need to say so more plainly.”
Edited by C0untZer0, 24 September 2013 - 06:05 PM.
― Tiffany Madison―
Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:12 PM
What a great reply Gura puts together for Woollard:
Woolard_reply_brief.pdf 87.89KB 478 downloads
We should all be thankful for Judge Posner, the ramifications of the Moore decision are wide-felt and Gura lets CA4 know how out of line they are...
I'm happy that he calls out CA4 for their trickery of using rational basis and calling it some level of scrutiny:If this Court believes that this is an improper
way to evaluate laws burdening fundamental rights,
“it will need to say so more plainly.”
In their decision, CA4 placed the Second Amendment into some non-core-right-limbo, undeserving of strict scrutiny.
I certainly hope that there are at least 5 judges at the Supreme Court who will take the Woollard case - just for that reason alone. Courts can't shuffle the amendments around and put some in the "core" pile while putting others in the "non-core" pile to suit their predilection for judicial activism.
.
Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:54 PM
Edited by skinnyb82, 24 September 2013 - 07:05 PM.
Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:16 PM
Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:45 PM
Hitler did say it was chilly down there.I find it so ironic the Gura is sighting the Illinois Supreme Court to HELP RTC laws. Aguilar win is probably a lot bigger than most of us realize. Thank you Aguilar.
Posted 25 September 2013 - 01:12 PM
Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:34 PM
― Tiffany Madison―
Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:47 PM
Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:41 PM
"Rational basis review" simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason offered as its justification.
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment secures a fundamental right. McDonald, 177 L. Ed. 2d at 921 (plurality opinion) & 938 (Thomas, J., concurring). “[C]lassifications affecting fundamental rights are given the most exacting scrutiny.” Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988) (citation omitted). Under this analysis, the government carries the burden of proving the constitutionality of the challenged law. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 898 (2010).
The Seventh Circuit has applied intermediate scrutiny in Second Amendment cases, which
requires that there be a “strong showing” that the regulation is “substantially related to an
important governmental objective.” Skoien, at *10, and Defendant is correct that the circuit has
done so only in the dangerous persons categorical area, reserving other levels of scrutiny for other
types of Second Amendment cases.
Nonetheless, the City invokes the work of noted UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler
relating to standards of review. This reliance is badly misplaced. Regardless of whether the cited
article truly reflects the City’s position, it predates Heller’s rejection of rational basis, and
McDonald’s finding that the Second Amendment secures a fundamental right, as well as the
Seventh Circuit’s opinions applying intermediate review.
Edited by C0untZer0, 25 September 2013 - 03:45 PM.
― Tiffany Madison―
Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:37 AM
Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:40 AM
Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:13 AM
Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:33 AM
Case distributed for conference, here we go....
"Sep 25 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 11, 2013."
Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:45 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm assuming that means it was given to all the SCOTUS judges so they can look it over and then come to a decision on whether to hear it or not?
What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users