Saf sues in maryland over handgun permit denial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
591
Location
New York NY
BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation and a Baltimore County, MD man today sued Maryland authorities in federal court because the man's handgun permit renewal was turned down on the grounds that he could not demonstrate "a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Joining SAF in the lawsuit is Raymond Woollard, who was originally issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family gathering in 2002. Woollard's permit was renewed in 2005, after the man was released from prison. That man now lives about three miles from Woollard. Defendants in the case are Terrence B. Sheridan is the Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and three members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein and Charles M. Thomas, Jr.

SAF and Woollard are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and Cary J. Hansel of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake of Greenbelt, MD.

The lawsuit alleges that "Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger' as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights." Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to "demonstrate cause" for the issuance of a carry permit.

"Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can't possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
 
Sounds a lot like NJ permit system, which states the following on the application "Each person applying for a Permit to Carry and Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a need to carry a firearm in the
State of New Jersey.
"
 
It could also set a dangerous precedent, if the defendants win.

With the wording of both the Heller and McDonald, this looks to be a slam dunk. They have pretty much said that the Feds and State have to show a fairly compelling reason to be able to infringe upon a person's 2A rights. In this case the state is trying to say that the person has to demonstrate a reason to be able to exercise that 2A right.
 
I don't know about a slam dunk. After all Heller was about handguns in the home. No mention about concealed carry outside the home. We could lose this one easily. But hopefully we will win this one. Cause if we do lookout states that have only may issue or even no issue CCW.
 
I expect Maryland to settle, rather than allow discovery. "Common knowledge" is that connections and political donations buy permits. If this is blantantly, Maryland would want to hide the information at any cost.

If it does go to court, expect to be astounded by the number of "lost documents".

God bless Gura and SAF.
 
Dominus
Member



Join Date: December 28, 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 161 Great news. I wonder when the next hearing is?

One of the Mdshooters members has a PACER account and will be posting the proceedings as they happen I think.

Expect it to go slow at first, with a ton of stalling.......
 
This is incredible news. I'm so glad to see this come about.

At the same time, it is a shame that the average citizen needs help from a larger organization to enable said average citizen to exercise a fundamental right.
 
Update from the SAF:

BELLEVUE, WA – A generous $10,000 contribution to the Second Amendment Foundation’s continuing legal efforts to roll back onerous gun laws across the country, including the state of Maryland, has been announced by Maryland Shall Issue (MSI), a grassroots gun rights organization.

“We are grateful and humbled by the Maryland Shall Issue contribution,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This single donation will greatly support our on-going legal battles to restore lost gun rights, one lawsuit at a time.”

In an e-mail announcement to its members, MSI noted, “This is one of the times where we must stand up as a community and demonstrate our commitment to supporting those that are supporting us. In this case, we want to support the SAF.”

On July 29, SAF filed a lawsuit in Maryland on behalf of Baltimore County resident Raymond Woollard, challenging the denial of his gun permit renewal in 2009 on the grounds that he could not demonstrate “a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”

“Although our lawsuit complaint cannot be amended,” Gottlieb announced, “we are making Maryland Shall Issue an honorary plaintiff. We simply cannot amply express our gratitude to MSI members for their generosity.”

MSI held a general members’ meeting on Sunday in Annapolis to announce the contribution. Traditionally, the organization has asked for member donations only once each year, during membership renewals in September.

“Maryland’s contribution comes at a critical time for us,” Gottlieb stated. “We will use this money wisely, to get the biggest legal bang for every buck.”


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
-END-
 
This will be a test case. Neither Heller nor McDonald addressed the issue of C.C. The 2nd Amen. has not yet been extended to the "bear" portion of the 2A. While Gura is a zealous advocate of the 2nd, he has no precedent to fall back upon (as far as the federal constitution goes. I dunno about state grounds.)
Now, I'm not a gambling man, but I'd put $2.00 on this case losing, unless it wins on the Maryland Constitution. The Federal Constitution does not (yet) cover the right to carry. If, and it's a big "if", this case makes it beyond the (federal) Circuit Court, SCOTUS first off does not have to hear the case. Secondly, if SCOTUS does decide to hear the case, all will hinge upon Justice Kennedy. (The swing vote on the Court) And he is a moderate, not a conservative, so I would imagine (and this is just because I've read many of his opinions over the years) that he won't go so far as to say state C.C. restrictions are unconstitutional. Then we are dealt a bad blow. One that will take many years to recover from, if ever.
Kennedy may couch his opinion in terms familiar to conservatives, namely the 10th Amen. ("states' rights) We don't want this. (Duh) Our best bet is for SCOTUS not to hear the case (it takes 4 justices to hear a case on cert.), but rather to let the status quo continue (under McDonald) and let additional evidence accrue showing that state C.C. laws reduce violent crime.
SCOTUS has historically not moved very far in front of public opinion. They need to take a "breather" after incorporating the 2nd under McDonald. Let the public see that people owning guns is no biggie. And also let them see that the vast majority of the states have C.C. laws and society has not yet fell apart. When people are adjusted to this, then we go for the "bear arms" part of the 2nd. Incremental steps are the way to go, pushing too fast, too soon, is a way to get set back generations, not just years.
Remember, school desegregation didn't happen overnight. From 1954 (Brown) until 1969 (Alexander), was 15 years. In actual practice, it still took another 5 years. And that was a clear case of civil rights violation, not an amorphuos conception as we have here.
I know, I know, but we can yell & scream about "rights" all we want, but it still comes down to the swing-vote on the Court, Justice Kennedy.
Just sayin' there is such a thing as political reality. I hope I'm mistaken, but if I had to bet money I say this case is a loser if based upon federal grounds.
 
We need a suit like that here. I can't wait to see what happens... I hope it works out. Civil rights shouldn't end when a person leaves their home.
 
SAF Sues in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against Westchester County, New York and its handgun permit licensing officers, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied because applicants cannot show "good cause."

[LINK]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top