Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
According to he Baltimore Sun, even if the case is appealed, all feel it will stand as ordered:

Constitutional lawyers said Tuesday that a recent
federal court decision overturning a portion of
Maryland's gun-control law will likely be upheld
on appeal and called the ruling groundbreaking
given the liberalism of the state from which it came.

The decision, made public Monday, relaxed state
requirements for carrying a gun and broadly
interpreted the Second Amendment's "right to bear
arms" as extending beyond the home. The analysis
surprised some, who were used to seeing states
like Maryland, which has a restrictive approach
to gun rights, limit firearm use and possession.

"The cases that have dealt with this question in
the recent years have almost all come out of the
high-regulation states," said Eugene Volokh, a
professor at the University of California Los
Angeles School of Law. Those states "also tend to
have high-control judges ... [who] have said it
doesn't extend outside the home."

The Maryland attorney general's office has said
it will appeal the decision, but a spokesman
declined to outline the potential grounds or
provide a timeline for next steps. Some attorneys
who study constitutional law said any challenge
to the ruling would face an uphill battle.

"The idea here is that if this is a
constitutional right, like all the other
constitutional rights, then you shouldn't need
the government's permission to exercise it," said
Randy E. Barrett, a professor at Georgetown
University Law Center in Washington. "I think
that the basic theory ... is an extremely
powerful one, that would give it a good shot at any court of appeals."

Before the ruling, Maryland was among a handful
of states that follow a "may issue" policy for
gun-carry permits, leaving the distribution of
such licenses up to the discretion of local
authorities after basic criteria are met. In
addition to proving that they weren't dangerous
felons or addicts, Maryland applicants were
required to show that they had a "good and
substantial reason" for carrying a gun, and it
was up to the superintendent of Maryland's state
police to determine if an applicant's rationale passed muster.

Last year, the state police received 5,216
applications for carry permits, and denied about
5 percent of them, most — 179 out of 251 —
because officials rejected the "good and
substantial" reasoning, according to a spokesman.

The federal decision, signed Friday by U.S.
District Judge Benson E. Legg, struck down that
requirement and effectively shifted Maryland to a
"shall issue" policy, like a majority of states,
which automatically issue gun-carry permits once
basic safety conditions are met.

"The reason there are very few rulings like this
is because there are very few states like
Maryland ... that would ever impose a rule like"
the "good and substantial reason," said Michael
I. Krauss, a professor at the George Mason
University School of Law in Arlington, Va.

Maryland wasn't so alone a couple of decades ago.
But over the past 10 to 15 years, states have
moved to the "shall issue" system, leaving fewer
than a dozen states with discretionary
restrictions. Other "may issue" states include
Alabama, which still approves most applications;
California; Connecticut; Delaware; and New York,
according to gun rights groups.

The recent federal ruling grew from a Baltimore
County man's lawsuit, claiming the state
inappropriately denied a renewal to his carry
permit. Raymond Woollard's son-in-law broke into
his home one Christmas Eve and terrorized the
family, according to court records, leading
Woollard to apply for a gun-carry permit in 2003
and to renew the license in 2006. But a 2009
renewal was denied, because Woollard couldn't show a continuing threat.

Woollard filed a lawsuit in federal court, and
won when Legg, who was nominated to his position
by Republican President George H.W. Bush, found in his favor.

"I don't think it's going to go down as either
the greatest bit of judicial wisdom or the
worst," said Mark Graber, a professor at the
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore.

Graber found at least one flaw in the ruling that
could provide grounds for appeal, but he doesn't
expect the decision to be overturned. The 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2010 ruling
that the Second Amendment likely extends outside
the home, he said, and the U.S. Supreme Court may
not be ready to take on the issue.

"The [high] court doesn't usually take the first
case that comes along," Graber said. "The court
likes to see a number of these cases bubble up
.. to get a sense of the full range."

Still, Graber expects the state's attorney
general's office to claim Legg erred in his
opinion by asserting that the "good and
substantial" requirement was no more restrictive
than randomly excluding some applicants, and
therefore didn't help the state achieve a goal of reducing illegal gun use.

"That's not quite right," said Graber, who admits
he's anti-gun. "What the law tries to do is
create the best ratio possible between legitimate
use of guns and illegitimate use."

Others suggested that appeal grounds may include
arguments that the right to bear arms in fact is
limited to the home by definition and that the
government's interest in preventing gun violence outweighs the entitlement.

"The appeal is obviously that the judge got the
laws wrong," George Mason's Krauss said. "But I believe he got it right."

__._,_.___
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
According to he Baltimore Sun, even if the case is appealed, all feel it will stand as ordered:

Constitutional lawyers said Tuesday that a recent
federal court decision overturning a portion of
Maryland's gun-control law will likely be upheld
on appeal and called the ruling groundbreaking
given the liberalism of the state from which it came.

The decision, made public Monday, relaxed state
requirements for carrying a gun and broadly
interpreted the Second Amendment's "right to bear
arms" as extending beyond the home. The analysis
surprised some, who were used to seeing states
like Maryland, which has a restrictive approach
to gun rights, limit firearm use and possession.

"The cases that have dealt with this question in
the recent years have almost all come out of the
high-regulation states," said Eugene Volokh, a
professor at the University of California Los
Angeles School of Law. Those states "also tend to
have high-control judges ... [who] have said it
doesn't extend outside the home."

The Maryland attorney general's office has said
it will appeal the decision, but a spokesman
declined to outline the potential grounds or
provide a timeline for next steps. Some attorneys
who study constitutional law said any challenge
to the ruling would face an uphill battle.

"The idea here is that if this is a
constitutional right, like all the other
constitutional rights, then you shouldn't need
the government's permission to exercise it," said
Randy E. Barrett, a professor at Georgetown
University Law Center in Washington. "I think
that the basic theory ... is an extremely
powerful one, that would give it a good shot at any court of appeals."

Before the ruling, Maryland was among a handful
of states that follow a "may issue" policy for
gun-carry permits, leaving the distribution of
such licenses up to the discretion of local
authorities after basic criteria are met. In
addition to proving that they weren't dangerous
felons or addicts, Maryland applicants were
required to show that they had a "good and
substantial reason" for carrying a gun, and it
was up to the superintendent of Maryland's state
police to determine if an applicant's rationale passed muster.

Last year, the state police received 5,216
applications for carry permits, and denied about
5 percent of them, most — 179 out of 251 —
because officials rejected the "good and
substantial" reasoning, according to a spokesman.

The federal decision, signed Friday by U.S.
District Judge Benson E. Legg, struck down that
requirement and effectively shifted Maryland to a
"shall issue" policy, like a majority of states,
which automatically issue gun-carry permits once
basic safety conditions are met.

"The reason there are very few rulings like this
is because there are very few states like
Maryland ... that would ever impose a rule like"
the "good and substantial reason," said Michael
I. Krauss, a professor at the George Mason
University School of Law in Arlington, Va.

Maryland wasn't so alone a couple of decades ago.
But over the past 10 to 15 years, states have
moved to the "shall issue" system, leaving fewer
than a dozen states with discretionary
restrictions. Other "may issue" states include
Alabama, which still approves most applications;
California; Connecticut; Delaware; and New York,
according to gun rights groups.

The recent federal ruling grew from a Baltimore
County man's lawsuit, claiming the state
inappropriately denied a renewal to his carry
permit. Raymond Woollard's son-in-law broke into
his home one Christmas Eve and terrorized the
family, according to court records, leading
Woollard to apply for a gun-carry permit in 2003
and to renew the license in 2006. But a 2009
renewal was denied, because Woollard couldn't show a continuing threat.

Woollard filed a lawsuit in federal court, and
won when Legg, who was nominated to his position
by Republican President George H.W. Bush, found in his favor.

"I don't think it's going to go down as either
the greatest bit of judicial wisdom or the
worst," said Mark Graber, a professor at the
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore.

Graber found at least one flaw in the ruling that
could provide grounds for appeal, but he doesn't
expect the decision to be overturned. The 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2010 ruling
that the Second Amendment likely extends outside
the home, he said, and the U.S. Supreme Court may
not be ready to take on the issue.

"The [high] court doesn't usually take the first
case that comes along," Graber said. "The court
likes to see a number of these cases bubble up
.. to get a sense of the full range."

Still, Graber expects the state's attorney
general's office to claim Legg erred in his
opinion by asserting that the "good and
substantial" requirement was no more restrictive
than randomly excluding some applicants, and
therefore didn't help the state achieve a goal of reducing illegal gun use.

"That's not quite right," said Graber, who admits
he's anti-gun. "What the law tries to do is
create the best ratio possible between legitimate
use of guns and illegitimate use."

Others suggested that appeal grounds may include
arguments that the right to bear arms in fact is
limited to the home by definition and that the
government's interest in preventing gun violence outweighs the entitlement.

"The appeal is obviously that the judge got the
laws wrong," George Mason's Krauss said. "But I believe he got it right."

__._,_.___
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
+1

Thanks Steve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
+1

Thanks Steve.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
 

·
Winter is coming
Joined
·
3,569 Posts
lynyrd said:
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
I believe so. I do think that eventually we will win, but it will take some time and resource.
Keep the faith though!
 

·
Winter is coming
Joined
·
3,569 Posts
lynyrd said:
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
I believe so. I do think that eventually we will win, but it will take some time and resource.
Keep the faith though!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,713 Posts
lynyrd said:
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
Anything that gives us a chance is better than nothing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,713 Posts
lynyrd said:
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
Anything that gives us a chance is better than nothing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
lynyrd said:
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
MAybe, maybe not. Tht outcome of the Baltimore appeal could and I say could, although it does not have to, weigh in on the Westchester appeal even though it is different court jurisdicitons. IF there is still a difference between the decisions, it will be on the way to SCOTUS to settle it. Time frame? no one knows. It could be fairly fast or it could drag. Since the matter is almost identical to NY, if the appeal court in Westchester deceided that the Judgein the Westchester case did not address the facts as she should have and such as was addressed here, they could rule in our favor. There is no second guessing with this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
lynyrd said:
Even if this holds water we in New York, especially NYC and Long Island are still looking at years with legal challenges in this state before we could actually benefit from any of this no?

Paul
MAybe, maybe not. Tht outcome of the Baltimore appeal could and I say could, although it does not have to, weigh in on the Westchester appeal even though it is different court jurisdicitons. IF there is still a difference between the decisions, it will be on the way to SCOTUS to settle it. Time frame? no one knows. It could be fairly fast or it could drag. Since the matter is almost identical to NY, if the appeal court in Westchester deceided that the Judgein the Westchester case did not address the facts as she should have and such as was addressed here, they could rule in our favor. There is no second guessing with this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
I am cautionly optimistic. The lack of sound logic and reason to support these restictions is being made more and more clear through these court decisions. I'm hoping intellectual honesty will someday prevail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
I am cautionly optimistic. The lack of sound logic and reason to support these restictions is being made more and more clear through these court decisions. I'm hoping intellectual honesty will someday prevail.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,828 Posts
I'm no lawyer, but theoretically, doesnt this ruling in FEDERAL COURT basically nullify all states "may issue" policies?  You apply for a carry, get denied, and challenge it in court, citing this ruling in Federal Court....done deal, no?  I mean, unless appealed or overturned by a higher court, may issue policy is now a direct violation of a constitutional right according to the federal government.  
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,828 Posts
I'm no lawyer, but theoretically, doesnt this ruling in FEDERAL COURT basically nullify all states "may issue" policies?  You apply for a carry, get denied, and challenge it in court, citing this ruling in Federal Court....done deal, no?  I mean, unless appealed or overturned by a higher court, may issue policy is now a direct violation of a constitutional right according to the federal government.  
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,287 Posts
Its only precident in the federal district where the case took place. Maryland is the 4th and we are the 2nd.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,287 Posts
Its only precident in the federal district where the case took place. Maryland is the 4th and we are the 2nd.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
It seems to me that state and local governments will disregard this because there's no accountability like they did in Florida when they basically said to the local governments "end this now or we'll come after you personally". It's been my experience working in regulatory compliance with the FAA that the government will pick and choose those laws they wish to enforce.

Paul

BillyBonds said:
I'm no lawyer, but theoretically, doesnt this ruling in FEDERAL COURT basically nullify all states "may issue" policies? You apply for a carry, get denied, and challenge it in court, citing this ruling in Federal Court....done deal, no? I mean, unless appealed or overturned by a higher court, may issue policy is now a direct violation of a constitutional right according to the federal government.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
It seems to me that state and local governments will disregard this because there's no accountability like they did in Florida when they basically said to the local governments "end this now or we'll come after you personally". It's been my experience working in regulatory compliance with the FAA that the government will pick and choose those laws they wish to enforce.

Paul

BillyBonds said:
I'm no lawyer, but theoretically, doesnt this ruling in FEDERAL COURT basically nullify all states "may issue" policies? You apply for a carry, get denied, and challenge it in court, citing this ruling in Federal Court....done deal, no? I mean, unless appealed or overturned by a higher court, may issue policy is now a direct violation of a constitutional right according to the federal government.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top