Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14

"I don't agree that registration and permitting or licensing are the same. Registration is merely providing information for future reference. Licensing or permitting entails an approval process where a standard must be met or the permit or license can be denied.

That's a significant distinction when the subject matter is a fundamental civil right.

By changing the standard or approval process, the government can suppress (or ease) the ability to exercise the right. If the standard is unnecessarily burdensome then it is unconstitutional. With registration, little burden is placed on a right by merely identifying oneself and filling out a form."

If failing to register, results in punishment or the inability to exercise a right, then its really a license requirement, no matter what it is called.
 
If unlicensed OC was not available, I cannot see how they can properly have licensed Criminal Carry wherein they have expensive requirements and fees.
 
CC: Criminal Carry, or if you like Concealed Carry. While not everyone that conceals is a criminal, all criminals conceal.
 
hermannr said:
CC: Criminal Carry, or if you like Concealed Carry. While not everyone that conceals is a criminal, all criminals conceal.
Click to expand...
I carry whenever I legally can, and I most often carry concealed. Are you calling me a criminal or otherwise disparaging my character?

I suggest that you abandon this line of discussion here.
 
First tidbit in the news (local ABC affiliate): Man assaults family, commits suicide in Hampstead

What has this to do with the case in hand? Perhaps you can figure it out with an article from the Baltimore Sun: Man at center of Maryland handgun law challenge dead after Baltimore County barricade - baltimoresun.com

Meanwhile, the SCOTUS docket is now showing that the respondents have filed their opposition brief. This means that Gura will now have a chance to make his reply brief, and you can bet that this news story will play a small part in that reply (what happened is only tangentially relevant).
 
"Tangentially related?" Maybe, but useful nonetheless . . . . That sounds utterly heartless, so let me clarify. This is a tragic event from which the family may never recover. From a "legal tactics" perspective, it's useful in a demonstrative sense: as to why vesting discretion in law enforcement to determine who may and may not arm themselves is a bad idea.

Here's my thinking: Didn't the sheriff deny Woolard's application because Woolard "hadn't demonstrated an immediate need" (or some such language) for a firearm or a CCL? Isn't Dawn, the estranged wife whom Abbot assaulted likely Woolard's daughter? The police thought that Woolard had failed to show that this very person posed enough of a threat to allow Woolard to arm himself. Yet a couple of years down the road, Abbot has assaulted his wife, beaten his parents, and taken his own life. His mother is reported to have been transported to a hospital for serious injuries. Had he decided to take his anger out on Woolard, who knows?
 
Well, I'm glad that Mr. Woollard is alright, although I feel sad for Abbott's victims.

Sad as the case is, I think it is a valid demonstration that violence cannot always be predicted with enough foresight to go through the administrative timeline for licensing, nor can law enforcement always predict who will have a "need" for self-defense.
 
Did MD come out and say Abbott was no threat? Perhaps they implied it, but if someone has the quote then that would look really really bad.
I remember Md's reasoning behind not renewing Woollard's permit was twofold: threats have a limited shelf life, Woollard hadn't been attacked for several years, so there's no threat.
The other, which was really stupid, was that Woollard was attacked in his home, so it just goes to figure Abbott would necessarily attack in the home again(where Woollard can carry w/o a permit).
 
The case should be judged on the record now before the court--to consider new evidence at this late date creates difficulties, hence this traumatic end to Mr. Abbot's violent life will warrant no more than a footnote, if that.
 
All the new developments (Aguilar, and suicide of Abbott) are well covered by Gura. I love this zinger: Respondents
claim that the lower court “put the State to its burden,
and determined that the State had satisfied that
burden.” BIO 14. Some burden: “t is the legislature’s
job, not ours, to weigh conflicting evidence and
make policy judgments.” App. 38a (citation omitted).

He also points out MD's "93.7%" approval rate is a farce, as the state stopped disclosing numbers of permits issued after 2011. After the District court win, applications went up 25%-obviously because people thought they now had a chance to actually get the permit.
 
Tom, the results of a conference are generally made the following Monday. Since this Mon. is a holiday (Columbus Day), I don't expect we will know until after 10:00 am on Tuesday, when the orders are posted.
 
Dammit.

Grrrrrrrrrrr.

OK, this is getting annoying. Very...dang...annoying.

Arg.

Ghaaaa.

So now we get to see what the 9th is going to do next? They've likely been holding Peruta and Richards to see what The Supremes were gonna do, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top