Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Amicus brief before SCOTUS re MD permits

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628

    Amicus brief before SCOTUS re MD permits

    Note referenced case:

    Raymond Woollard, et al. v. Denis Gallagher, et al.



    Gun Owners of America

    GOA Backing Case Before the Supreme Court
    Victory would put additional “teeth” in the Heller case

    This week, GOA and its foundation filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of striking down Maryland’s ban on the carrying of handguns by ordinary citizens unless they first demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to law enforcement.
    You can help support this legal challenge by clicking here.

    While the federal district court in Maryland had decided the case in Raymond Woollard’s favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, using a “balancing test” to come to conclude that Maryland may override the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the name of public safety.

    Both lower courts used a judicially-created balancing test, coming to opposite conclusions, thus demonstrating the illegitimacy of subjective, judge-made tests.

    GOA’s position is simple: the Founding Fathers determined that Americans have the right to bear arms both inside the home and out, regardless of how “compelling” the state’s desire to infringe their right.

    As the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case, the Second Amendment means what it says -- the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Our brief in Woollard v. Gallagher reminds the Court of the absolute nature of the right, leaving no room for federal judges to “balance” away the guarantee, no matter how strict or loose the test may be.

    Your contribution to Gun Owners Foundation tremendously helps us to support good causes like this Woollard case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    This case was not a previously budgeted item for GOF, so any support that you can lend will tremendously help.

    Gun Owners Foundation exists to protect gun owners around the country from overzealous prosecutors and to use the ensuing legal challenges as opportunities to strike down anti-gun restrictions.

    Thank you for your help.

    Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
    Please forward this e-mail to friends and family
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-17-2013 at 04:41 AM. Reason: Format
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Help: link to brief available? Maybe not, just asking.

    The MD case ... need to show cause ... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    I got cause...look down the barrel of my gun to find it !

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Help: link to brief available? Maybe not, just asking.

    --snip--
    http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/fi...her_Amicus.pdf
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Hooray ! Someone who tires to explain the Heller I decision (not that well written IMO) to counter their brain-dead analysis (state of MD).

  5. #5
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.
    Well, we will know where we stand ... and then to prepare

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.
    Exactly, we have to fight for the unfettered right to carry. If a license is required, it is a de facto privilege, even if it is conceptually or de jure a right.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Exactly, we have to fight for the unfettered right to carry. If a license is required, it is a de facto privilege, even if it is conceptually or de jure a right.
    The court may just rule that ... we'll know one way or the other .. at least what the court thinks ... does not change our rights

  9. #9
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.
    The permit is required to carry handguns openly or concealed. A loss by the plaintiff at this level based solely on the privilege to be issued a license to carry concealed, would seem to make the issue of open carry without a license allowing concealment even more likely to prevail in the end.

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    The permit is required to carry handguns openly or concealed. A loss by the plaintiff at this level based solely on the privilege to be issued a license to carry concealed, would seem to make the issue of open carry without a license allowing concealment even more likely to prevail in the end.
    The bold red is the only right that should be argued at this point in time. A license of any type establishes a privilege and not a right.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's rare when you can get Wolf, Eye and I all to agree on the same point.

    Stop arguing for a privilege!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    "Right to keep and bear" is more/less a given...the SCOTUS pretty much has to decide the way Posner did in Moore v. Madigan or admit/decide that the 2A isn't really a right at all.

    Conceal/Open is a "time/place/manner" restriction which is almost assuredly going to be Constitutionally valid if/when decided by another case...since any law mandating concealment would not be denying an individual the right to carry open. The worst-case would be to categorize home/public distinction as a time/place/manner restriction rather than the denial of the right to bear which it is.

    The home/public distinction is pretty much only valid in the 4A search and seizure context and that's based on privacy/exigency grounds not necessarily public safety. You still have 5A/6A protections in and out of the home as well as voting rights and free-speech rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •