Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14

After the Opp is filed, they will then schedule it for Friday conference. During that time, Gura will have a chance to file a Reply in support of the Petition. I look for a Friday conference in April
 
Within 7 days of the opposition filing, I expect the Brady Campaign and the LCAV (or whatever they are calling themselves, now) to file the usual amicus briefs.
 
LCAV stopped pretending that they're against violence, their new name more accurately refects their work, which ignores violent acts as long as they are not committed with a gun.
 
They're the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence these days. They recently sent a memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee advising how all of the proposed gun-control legislation currently on the table supposedly comports with the Heller and McDonald decisions.

They present themselves very well and merit watching.
 
Last edited:
Um, folks? I'm well aware of whom these elitist San Francisco attorneys are and what they are for. I'm also aware of the name change... To reinvent themselves. Just as Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI), co-opted Sarah Brady and reinvented themselves as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In other words, I was being snarky.
 
Tom Servo said:
They're the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence these days. They recently sent a memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee advising how all of the proposed gun-control legislation currently on the table supposedly comports with the Heller and McDonald decisions.
Click to expand...

That's a disturbing trend that I'm seeing across the anti- web presence. Torturted interpetations of Heller that are contrived to make the various proposed assualt weapon bans kosher.

Scary stuff, to me atleast.
 
Why wouldn't they torture it?


They can get 4-5 years before the laws hit the SCOTUS. By then they can shore up the defenses, have the public extol the laws virtues and basically wait. Even if they lose there is always the "tax" avenue.
 
Very disappointing, to say the least. But as one poster at Maryland Shooters put it: this was going to the Supreme Court anyway, so I'll wait until we lose there before I sharpen my pitchfork.
 
The Woollard panel did the same exact thing that the Kachalsky panel did. They put a dress on rational basis and called it intermediate scrutiny.
 
I trust Gura's wisdom and track record, so if he thinks Kachalsky is a better case to bring, I'm behind him. That said, I thought Woollard was a more compelling plaintiff.

I agree with Al. This isn't any form of "intermediate" scrutiny I would imagine:

The State has clearly demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement advances the objectives of protecting public safety and preventing crime because it reduces the number of handguns carried in public. That is, limiting the public carrying of handguns protects citizens and inhibits crime
Click to expand...

Their claim is that refusal to issue carry permits carries the following benefits:

  • Decreasing the availability of handguns to criminals via theft
  • Lessening "the likelihood that basic confrontations between individuals would turn deadly"
  • Averting the confusion, along with the "potentially tragic consequences" thereof, that can result from the presence of a third person with a hand-
    gun during a confrontation between a police officer and a criminal suspect
  • Curtailing the presence of handguns during routine police-citizen encounters
  • Reducing the number of "handgun sightings" that must be investigated
  • Facilitating the identification of those persons carrying handguns who pose a menace

...because we all know that these are huge issues in places like Arizona or Georgia.
 
This clearly was rational basis in a dressed up form. CA4 simply ignored all the real-world experience of the shall-issue states in favor of the speculation of MD and it's politically appointed LEOs. I'd guess that with all the conflicting stats from the pro and anti carry sides at the very least you have a wash and under true intermediate scrutiny the court should favor the individual right over the state.
CA4 and CA2 both were wishy washy about the inside/outside the home, it seems they didn't want to make a definitive call on it. Hopefully SCOTUS takes that as an open invitation.
 
I cannot wait to see this drivel disemboweled by Gura. Better yet, by Scalia. If there is any justice in the world, and if the SCOTUS holds to its reasoning, Kachalsky and Woolard will be the ignominy of these judges for the rest of their days. It is truly shameful in my opinion.

We hew to a judicious course today, refraining from any assessment of whether Maryland’s good-and-substantial- reason requirement for obtaining a handgun permit implicates Second Amendment protections. That is, we merely assume that the Heller right exists outside the home and that such right of Appellee Woollard has been infringed. We are free to make that assumption because the good-and-substantial- reason requirement passes constitutional muster under what we have deemed to be the applicable standard — intermediate scrutiny
Click to expand...
It doesn't get much more convoluted than that.
 
Last edited:
When I read the opinion I thought King missed his calling. He should have been a poet or an author.

Considering how hard he tried to come up with any excuse not to hear this case, and how flowery the prose of the opinion, it seems he doesn't much like applying an analytical mind to logically working out decisions that comport with the constitution and precedent, but he sure loves to wax poetic when he gets to write something !!!
 
Unbelievable

After reading what the 4CA misrepresents as a ruling based on law my head just won't stop spinning.:eek:

It takes a great deal of chutzpa(?) to issue this BS. They actually had the audacity to claim intermediate scrutiny and then simply apply (I'm being generous here) Rational basis. They even went so far as to claim that the court has no business interfering with the legislature. If this is true (& in the 4CA I'm afraid it is) then we're doomed. Checks & balances be damned. And we don't have the force of arms to rid ourselves of these worthless dictators.

The structure of the republic is one of soverigns and servants. ONLY the soverigns can bear arms in their own lands. NEVER the servants. But Md (& NYS, Cali, Ill, Hawaii....) politicians and these worthless courts willfully reverse the arrangement. The officals make themselves the soverigns and the people are the servants. This is NOT a republic but a dictatorship. As Chairman Mao said: "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

The final insult is that the 4CA ruled that the core holding in Heller is the right to bear arms in one's home. That is NOT the core holding in Heller. The core holding in Heller is that all men have the right to self-defense. The right to bear arms is in support of the right to life, the right to survival. This is a natural, pre-existing, fundamental right. Nowhere in any of the 2CA or 4CA rulings or petitions is this fact ever stated. It needs to be. The state claims it is too dangerous for a man to survive in public. I've never heard such crap.

It is also unfortunate that no one has ever brought up cases like Warren v DC. It is established legal precedent that the state has no duty to "serve & protect" any individual citizen. The duty is only to the public as an entity "at large". This, coupled with no right to self-defense in public means the state disputes your right to survive in public. If it weren't so appalling it would be hillarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top