Woollard v. Gallagher (CA4) - Petition for Rehearing En Banc

[C0untZer0]

SCOtUS likes to operate by giving broad direction to the lower courts.

 

Unfortunately judges like Williams, King, Davis, Hamilton and others either don't get it or refuse to take direction. IMO Judge Posner and Judge Legg do follow the directives of SCOTUS.

 

I think a majority of supreme court justices would have liked to make a broad ruling in Moore and the circuits take care of things like may issue / good cause / fees - Kachalski, Woollard, Kwong. But the circuits aren't playing along - the obstinate ******** !

[skinnyb82]

This is why cert should be granted...Gura is so persuasive, I highly doubt that we will ever see another attorney of this caliber who specializes in 2A and con law, at least not in my lifetime.

 

"Maryland’s 'good and substantial reason' would not have survived had the lower court truly acknowledged, as does the Seventh Circuit, the right to bear arms. This Court should grant certiorari to resolve the lower courts’ significant and widespread confusion on this critical point."

 

He points out that Maryland's law fails all levels of scrutiny since it denies a fundamental right, you cannot balance a Constitutional right with discretionary garbage...

 

"Maryland’s 'good and substantial reason' requirement should fail intermediate, or any other level of scrutiny, simply because that law denies the ability to carry defensive handguns the status of a right. If a

right – determined through interpretation – exists, the state cannot 'balance' it away no matter how strongly it asserts the right to be ill-advised."

 

"As the right to bear arms stands among 'the freedoms which the Constitution guarantees,' id., Maryland’s 'good and substantial reason' requirement is among the impermissible 'illusory "constraints"' on licensing discretion amounting to 'little more than a high-sounding ideal.'"

 

Citing an Indiana decision on discretionary issuance, proper reason (methinks Raoul pulled the OLD OLD OLD law)

 

"Directly on-point, Indiana’s intermediate appellate court utilized prior restraint principles to reject a licensing official’s claim that a 'proper reason' requirement allowed him discretion to deny handgun

carry license applications. The official lacked 'the power and duty to subjectively evaluate an assignment of "self-defense" as a reason for desiring a license and the ability to grant or deny the license upon the basis of whether the applicant ‘needed’ to defend himself.” Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339, 1341 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).

 

And then he takes blatant shot right across the bow of CA4, Judges King, Davis and Diaz and attacks the may issue system

 

"The issue is not that Petitioners 'do not like' the purported standards. App. 41a n.11. Petitioners 'do not like' the purported standards because they are unconstitutional. Respondents have no way of predicting whether, when, or where Woollard or anyone else would suffer a criminal attack, nor does any standard limit their discretion to issue or withhold handgun carry permits."

 

Gura cites that the Second Amendment is, well this is just witty haha....

 

"The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right 'to contact [the state police] immediately' if one suffers 'document[ed] threats or incidents' or 'receive[ s] threats.' App. 109a. It guarantees the right to 'carry weapons in case of confrontation.' Heller, 554 U.S. at 592."

 

Points out the Court's reliance on case law regarding carry and defense actions outside the home in Heller...

 

"Moreover, there is Heller’s exposition of early state constitutional arms-bearing provisions, 554 U.S. at 584-86, which were often applied to secure the carrying of handguns in public;¹⁴ its reliance upon authorities referencing defensive actions outside the home;¹⁵ and its discussion of time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of handguns.¹⁶"

 

Brilliance....

 

"And because carrying weapons in case of confrontation is a 'right,' the police’s opinions about the desirability of doing so are unimportant. If our legal system required that individuals prove a 'good and substantial reason' to attend church, or to have an abortion, it could not seriously be claimed that the law secures a 'right' to free religious exercise or terminate a pregnancy."

[TyGuy]

He's probably my second favorite lawyer right after Bob Loblaw.

 

[bob]

This is why cert should be granted...Gura is so persuasive, I highly doubt that we will ever see another attorney of this caliber who specializes in 2A and con law, at least not in my lifetime.

 

Gura's legacy might well be in his ability to communicate complicated legal principles in a way that is readily understood by most people, while also being suitable for the legal system. Sound bites have always been a critical part of the process of changing people's minds about this kind of thing. the founding fathers understood that, probably as well as modern politicians.

[C0untZer0]

CATO Amici for Woollard cert.pdf

 

The Cato Institute's amicus brief is a good read, it basically calls out the dishonesty of our judiciary in using rational basis - even when they call it one kind of scrutiny or other.