pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
CA4 Woollard loss in Maryland, and now SCOTUS too
#1
This SUCKS!

"Good and substantial" as rational for a permit in Maryland, was upheld, reversing the previous decision.

http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads...ollard.pdf

"In summary, although we assume that Appellee Woollard’s
Second Amendment right is burdened by the good-andsubstantial-
reason requirement, we further conclude that such
burden is constitutionally permissible. That is, under the
applicable intermediate scrutiny standard, the State has demonstrated
that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement is
reasonably adapted to Maryland’s significant interests in protecting
public safety and preventing crime.
C.
Because we conclude that the good-and-substantial-reason
requirement is constitutional under the Second Amendment as
applied to Appellee Woollard, we also must reject the Appellees’
facial challenge. See Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 474. As
the Supreme Court has explained, "a person to whom a statute
may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge
that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied
unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the
Court." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 (1973);
see also Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 168 (2007) ("It
is neither our obligation nor within our traditional institutional
role to resolve questions of constitutionality with respect to
each potential situation that might develop.")
ABuck, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#2
Next stop, full panel.
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
Reply
#3
billamj;90053 Wrote:Next stop, full panel.

Can Gura petition SCOTUS right away, or does he have to request the En banc first?

Either way is going to cause even more delaying (or even denying if it's delayed enough for O to have another SCOTUS appointment) of a fundamental right. I guess the libs don't see how dangerous it is to start applying "good and substantial" to exercise a fundamental right.
ABuck, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#4
ABuck;90137 Wrote:
billamj;90053 Wrote:Next stop, full panel.

Can Gura petition SCOTUS right away, or does he have to request the En banc first?

Either way is going to cause even more delaying (or even denying if it's delayed enough for O to have another SCOTUS appointment) of a fundamental right. I guess the libs don't see how dangerous it is to start applying "good and substantial" to exercise a fundamental right.

IIRC he has to go full bank before it is eligible to be elevated.
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
Reply
#5
It looks like Gura is going to file for a Writ Of Certiorari straight to SCOTUS.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kachals...-03-26.pdf

"VI. This Court’s Intervention Is Urgently Needed.
Were this petition granted, this case would be heard and decided in the October, 2013 Term, as would a forthcoming petition arising from Woollard v. Gallagher, No. 12-1437, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5617 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2013). As Respondents noted, the Third and Ninth Circuits have already heard argu- ment on the subject as well. Barring any unusual delays, certiorari petitions arising from these cases
13
would most likely be due in time to have those cases heard and decided this term as well.
Thus, if this Court is to consider discretionary handgun licensing regimes, the upcoming term is the term in which to do so."


AWESOME Conclusion from Mr. Gura in the KACHALSKY Reply brief.

"CONCLUSION
Heller and McDonald are largely symbolic and
pointless if lower courts may persist in following the
alternative historical narrative rejected in those
cases, if no one may exercise Second Amendment
rights without police permission, and if – lofty paeans
to “heightened” or “intermediate” scrutiny notwithstanding
– any law broadly restricting or even abolishing
Second Amendment rights is sustained upon
any legislator’s or police officer’s assertion that it
serves the public good.
The only thing worse than explicitly refusing to
enforce an enumerated constitutional right would be
to declare a right “fundamental” while standing aside
as lower courts render it worthless. Few outcomes
could promote as much cynicism about our legal
system. If this Court is unprepared to overrule Heller,
it should reverse decisions such as that entered by
the lower court here.
Petitioners respectfully pray that the Court grant
the petition."
ABuck, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#6
Quote:...the State has demonstrated that the good-and-substantial reason requirement is reasonably adapted to Maryland’s significant interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime.

That's fucking bull shit. That right there tells you they are nothing but anti-2A liberals. Fucking constitutional trampling assholes.
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#7
Philadelphia Patriot;91720 Wrote:
Quote:...the State has demonstrated that the good-and-substantial reason requirement is reasonably adapted to Maryland’s significant interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime.

That's fucking bull shit. That right there tells you they are nothing but anti-2A liberals. Fucking constitutional trampling assholes.

You got that right. Liberal elitist assholes that refuse to "allow" use of a fundamental right.

Here is something I posted in the other forum.

Well, CA4 agreed with MD, that you must demonstrate "G+S" need for the right, before they grant you that right. Scary stuff, as that sounds more like a privilege to me.

This sucks for so many reasons. The core of the decision reeks of elitism. The 3 liberal judges basically rejected Gura's arguments, rejected and reversed Judge Legg's previous decision, and just accepted Maryland's arguments about public safety.

Judge Legg, in his decision said;
"A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."

The timing of the decision sucks also. MD is right now in a fight for more restrictions on firearms. The very anti law makers are sure to see this as a win for them. But this ruling took almost a full year. To basically just parrot what the state presented. That could have happened a hell of a lot sooner than this. It makes a person wonder if the decision wasn't made a long time ago, and held up. Delay, delay, delay, and hope that if, or when, it gets to SCOTUS, there is one more O appointment there to uphold it.
ABuck, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#8
I doubt there will be a new justice in obama's term unless a dem wants to retire so try not to have a stroke over it. Next this loss is not a big deal at all, this will probably be fast tracked now and that's a great thing for us, that is until we read how incredibly vague SCOTUS will be when they rule.

ABuck;91748 Wrote:
Philadelphia Patriot;91720 Wrote:That's fucking bull shit. That right there tells you they are nothing but anti-2A liberals. Fucking constitutional trampling assholes.

You got that right. Liberal elitist assholes that refuse to "allow" use of a fundamental right.

Here is something I posted in the other forum.

Well, CA4 agreed with MD, that you must demonstrate "G+S" need for the right, before they grant you that right. Scary stuff, as that sounds more like a privilege to me.

This sucks for so many reasons. The core of the decision reeks of elitism. The 3 liberal judges basically rejected Gura's arguments, rejected and reversed Judge Legg's previous decision, and just accepted Maryland's arguments about public safety.

Judge Legg, in his decision said;
"A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."

The timing of the decision sucks also. MD is right now in a fight for more restrictions on firearms. The very anti law makers are sure to see this as a win for them. But this ruling took almost a full year. To basically just parrot what the state presented. That could have happened a hell of a lot sooner than this. It makes a person wonder if the decision wasn't made a long time ago, and held up. Delay, delay, delay, and hope that if, or when, it gets to SCOTUS, there is one more O appointment there to uphold it.
Reply
#9
ABuck;91689 Wrote:It looks like Gura is going to file for a Writ Of Certiorari straight to SCOTUS.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kachals...-03-26.pdf

"VI. This Court’s Intervention Is Urgently Needed.
Were this petition granted, this case would be heard and decided in the October, 2013 Term, as would a forthcoming petition arising from Woollard v. Gallagher, No. 12-1437, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5617 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2013). As Respondents noted, the Third and Ninth Circuits have already heard argu- ment on the subject as well. Barring any unusual delays, certiorari petitions arising from these cases
13
would most likely be due in time to have those cases heard and decided this term as well.
Thus, if this Court is to consider discretionary handgun licensing regimes, the upcoming term is the term in which to do so."


AWESOME Conclusion from Mr. Gura in the KACHALSKY Reply brief.

"CONCLUSION
Heller and McDonald are largely symbolic and
pointless if lower courts may persist in following the
alternative historical narrative rejected in those
cases, if no one may exercise Second Amendment
rights without police permission, and if – lofty paeans
to “heightened” or “intermediate” scrutiny notwithstanding
– any law broadly restricting or even abolishing
Second Amendment rights is sustained upon
any legislator’s or police officer’s assertion that it
serves the public good.
The only thing worse than explicitly refusing to
enforce an enumerated constitutional right would be
to declare a right “fundamental” while standing aside
as lower courts render it worthless. Few outcomes
could promote as much cynicism about our legal
system. If this Court is unprepared to overrule Heller,
it should reverse decisions such as that entered by
the lower court here.

Petitioners respectfully pray that the Court grant
the petition."

Bam. "You said it, now prove you meant it."
I am not a lawyer.
Reply
#10
Gura is going step by step, and seeking En Banc.


.pdf   PetforRehearing.pdf (Size: 146.83 KB / Downloads: 0)


Not a lot of time to read it all right now, but it looks like another homerun from him.

"Should the panel decision stand, this court’s imprimatur will remain on adoption of the lowest standard of proof ever applied to permit an
encroachment on a fundamental constitutional right. If the government may infringe on our fundamental rights relying only on hotly-contested anecdotes and statistics which are rejected by many social scientists to the effect that a right is a bad idea, then we have no meaningful rights."

Also;

"Individuals exercising the right to bear arms may be unpopular in
some circles, but they do not deserve to have their rights generally
violated on the theory that they are incipient criminals or somehow
lesser citizens. Black had the better argument, and its rejection by the
panel here signals a need to carefully revisit the panel’s decision.

CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment is a
fundamental right. If permitted to stand, the panel’s opinion will have
precedential value where other fundamental rights are concerned.
Future political leaders and future courts might well rely on this
precedent to curtail other rights. Three police officials could certainly
be found to file hearsay affidavits citing questionable statistics and
dubious anecdotes about Miranda warnings, the right to a speedy trial,
due process, the abortion issue, our freedoms of assembly and speech, and myriad other rights. If permitted now, this approach will chip away at our liberties over time, until precious few, if any, survive. To avoid starting us down such a dangerous path, this court should accept the case for rehearing en banc. All of our fundamental rights are at stake."


He "gets it" that this eventually could lead to a rationing, and outright denial, of our other fundamental rights.

Even with a strong appeal such as this, I'd still expect this to be another long drawn out process. While Woollard and many others wait.
ABuck, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  In 5-4 Decision SCOTUS Says Straw Purchaser Laws ArcticSplash 13 1,757 06-17-2014, 06:37 AM
Last Post: DeadEye
  SCOTUS wont Prohibit Police from No Knock raids on Gun Owners middlefinger 13 1,832 03-12-2014, 08:22 PM
Last Post: mingomom
  Maryland House bill would link gun, criminal registries Jon Doe 1 652 03-05-2014, 11:51 AM
Last Post: bluetrane2028
  Since April 17 Loss, Democrats Have Been Obsessed with Gun Control Pocketprotector 7 1,340 06-25-2013, 08:42 AM
Last Post: halftrack
  Beretta leaving Maryland Spacemanvic 19 2,123 05-23-2013, 04:41 PM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.