SAF, et al., Sues MD over Concealed Carry Process

Craig_AR · Nov 15, 2020

On November 13, 2020, a group of plaintiffs, listed below, sued the Maryland Attorney General and Secretary of State Police for injunctive relief over the requirement for concealed carry "that they have a “good and substantial reason” to do so."
The full filing is Case 1:20-cv-03304-DKC Document 1 Filed 11/13/20, found on the saf.org web site.
The filing identifies "Plaintiffs ERIC CALL, CHRISTOPHER MEHL, KYLE HARRISON, FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC. (“FPC”), SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION (“SAF”), MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INC. (“MSI”), and CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (“CCRKBA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)"
I am posting this in Legal so folks can read the actual legal document. I would not be surprised if Moderators tightly control the discussion, or even close the thread until pleadings and statements from the court are available.
In the meantime, maybe we could have a discussion thread on the topic in General?

Frank Ettin · Nov 16, 2020

Thank you, Craig.

This looks like a good opportunity to look at the litigation process.

I urge everyone to read the complaint that Craig kindly linked to. That is how a lawsuit gets started. It might be of interest to some of you.

I’m making it an early evening, so I’m done for today. I’ll check in on the thread tomorrow.

Spats McGee · Nov 16, 2020

And if anyone reading this is mostly unfamiliar with how civil rights litigation works: Spats McGee’s Primer on Civil Rights Litigation and Qualified Immunity

In this case, we have a federal challenge to MD's handgun licensing structure, so it would qualify as "civil rights litigation." Since QI is an individual defense, and these defendants are named in their official capacities only, we shouldn't see any QI arguments.

CapnMac · Nov 16, 2020

This struck my eye in reading the filing.

19. On information and belief, due to the onerous nature of Defendants’ Regulatory Scheme, only a tiny fraction of a percent of Maryland citizens are able to obtain permits to carry handguns, and indeed, most people simply never apply because it is well known throughout the State that the “good and substantial reason” standard effectively renders the process an exercise in futility for all ordinary law-abiding citizens, thus further chilling and denying exercise of the right

This appears to hinge upon proving a negative, which seems a logically weak argument. Now, in the larger compliment of arguments, it is only a part, and a somewhat small part. But it seems ill-advised to have something the Defense might latch on to.

Unless it's something that can be dealt with in the forensics of the process.

rbernie · Nov 16, 2020

I don't think their argument hinges on that; the meat-n-potatoes would seem to be Section II, e.g.

20. Before October 2020, Plaintiff Call submitted a completed application for a permit to carry a handgun to Defendant Jones, the Secretary of State Police.
21. Plaintiff Call does not have any concrete evidence of specific threats to his safety. He does, however, desire to carry a handgun in public for the purpose of self-defense, and he included with his application a statement that he had “good and substantial reason” to carry a pistol. He is a military engineer whose personal and family information has been disclosed to the public in a data breach, and he fears that being in the military makes him and his family a target.
22. Plaintiff Call possesses all of the qualifications to obtain a Handgun Carry Permit that are enumerated in section 5-306(a)(1)–(5) of the Public Safety article of the Maryland Code. He is on active duty in the armed forces, and he has completed basic and advanced firearms qualifications. He also has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Virginia.
23. Nevertheless, on or around October 15, 2020, Plaintiff Call received notice from Defendant Jones that he had been denied a handgun carry permit for lack of “good and substantial reason” under the Regulatory Scheme.
24. Plaintiff Call lawfully owns a handgun and intends and desires to exercise his right to keep and bear arms by carrying on his person a loaded, operable handgun for lawful purposes, including self-defense, outside his home, in case of confrontation, throughout the State of Maryland. Plaintiff Call would carry a handgun for self-defense when he is in public, including when he is traveling back and forth to base, were it not for Defendants’ enforcement of Maryland’s ban on the public carrying of handguns. In light of Defendants’ denial of his application, however, Plaintiff Call continues to refrain from carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense in Maryland.

tommy.duncan · Nov 16, 2020

I lived in southern Maryland until 1997. You had to be touched on the shoulder by God himself to get a CCW.

Good luck!!

Virginia has been flowing down the same tube though.

CapnMac · Nov 17, 2020

rbernie said:
their argument hinges

Ah, to be clear, I was exercising an old habit from competitive forensics, to consider all of one's arguments for weak points that one's opponent might "attack."

The filing is pretty clear on how the argument hinges on the the prevention of exercise of a right that ought be considered incorporated via McDonald.

Now, in a debate, such things can be handy, as a way to steer things back to center by refuting the refutation of an apparent "weak" argument. In this case, they have corporeal entities who have been damaged, therefore the number of denied permits is an actual integer.

JTHunter · Nov 17, 2020

Craig - thanks for posting. Considering how the Illinois State Police (ISP) has been "stonewalling" applications for both FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) and CCW permits for the last year, it will be interesting to follow the outcome of this case.
Please keep us updated as best you can. :thumbup:

SAF, et al., Sues MD over Concealed Carry Process

Craig_AR

Contributing Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

Spats McGee

Moderator

CapnMac

Member

rbernie

Contributing Member

tommy.duncan

Member

CapnMac

Member

JTHunter

Member

Similar threads