You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Decision in Woollard v. Sheridan
The Maryland District Court has just handed down a decision [pdf] in the Woollard case granting the plaintiff summary judgement.
If you need to brush up on the case, we had a thread here when it was first argued.
From the opinion:
Judge Legg maintains that the right to carry outside the home is only covered by intermediate scrutiny, but this is a step forward.
While declining to address Woollard's Equal Protection claim, Judge Legg did leave us with this signpost:
We couldn't get a "bear arms" case before the Supreme Court this session, and some folks think it was because the Court doesn't want to address the issue through criminal appeals (which is what Williams and Masciandaro were). Heller and McDonald were "pure" cases, in which the plaintiff was a law-abiding citizen arguing that their rights were being diminished by unjust laws. In that vein, I have high hopes for Woollard as such a case.
The Maryland District Court has just handed down a decision [pdf] in the Woollard case granting the plaintiff summary judgement.
If you need to brush up on the case, we had a thread here when it was first argued.
From the opinion:
The Court finds that Maryland’s requirement of a “good and substantial reason” for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State’s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Judge Legg maintains that the right to carry outside the home is only covered by intermediate scrutiny, but this is a step forward.
The Supreme Court’s choice of phrasing connotes that the
restrictions it termed “presumptively lawful” pass muster under a heightened standard of review. It would likely not have used the modifier “presumptively” if those restrictions were subject, not to any form of elevated scrutiny, but only to the rational basis review that all laws are presumed to satisfy. If this is correct, and laws limiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places are indeed implicated by the Second Amendment’s protections, then those protections necessarily
extend outside the home, at least to some degree.
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home. The signposts left by recent Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit case law all point to the conclusion that Woollard’s “claim to self-defense—asserted by him as a law-abiding citizen . . .
—does implicate the Second Amendment, albeit subject to lawful limitations.” [pp. 12-13]
While declining to address Woollard's Equal Protection claim, Judge Legg did leave us with this signpost:
A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered “reasonably adapted” to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland’s goal of “minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them,” is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly. Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. [p. 20]
We couldn't get a "bear arms" case before the Supreme Court this session, and some folks think it was because the Court doesn't want to address the issue through criminal appeals (which is what Williams and Masciandaro were). Heller and McDonald were "pure" cases, in which the plaintiff was a law-abiding citizen arguing that their rights were being diminished by unjust laws. In that vein, I have high hopes for Woollard as such a case.
an interesting SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) alert
Excuse me if someone has already posted this.
MARYLAND RULING A HUGE VICTORY'
FOR SECOND AMENDMENT, SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA - A federal court ruling in Maryland, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond the home and that citizens may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" for obtaining a concealed carry permit, is a huge victory, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
The alert itself goes om in greater detail, and seems to quote from the District Court judges ruling. Read it for yourselves.
Excuse me if someone has already posted this.
MARYLAND RULING A HUGE VICTORY'
FOR SECOND AMENDMENT, SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA - A federal court ruling in Maryland, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond the home and that citizens may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" for obtaining a concealed carry permit, is a huge victory, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
The alert itself goes om in greater detail, and seems to quote from the District Court judges ruling. Read it for yourselves.
Here is a link to the story:
http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/03/05/DC64486
This case has been discussed in the past on TFL here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=425906
Sounds good to me.
http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/03/05/DC64486
This case has been discussed in the past on TFL here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=425906
Sounds good to me.
It's never over. But a win is a win.
The day after the 28th amendment gets passed with the text
"Citizens may buy, keep, carry and use all guns of any type whereever and whenever they desire"
you can bet the campaign to repeal it will begin. Sponsored by the usual suspects.
We won't give up, why should we expect them to??
The day after the 28th amendment gets passed with the text
"Citizens may buy, keep, carry and use all guns of any type whereever and whenever they desire"
you can bet the campaign to repeal it will begin. Sponsored by the usual suspects.
We won't give up, why should we expect them to??
CowTowner said:I wonder if the state will appeal or did we really get a win?
The case is a limited win if it is not appealed. If the case if appealed, it has the potential to go to the Supreme Court and be a big win.
Question..This is federal district court...for Maryland...does this case need to be appealed up one level to affect Washington DC? Or two levels?
I am wondering because of DC's sudden willingness to modify it's firearm law because of "pending court rulings" and the spotlight Emily Miller has put on their firearm's laws?
Edit to add second question: Do you think that DC will put political pressure on MD to try keep it from being appealed?
I am wondering because of DC's sudden willingness to modify it's firearm law because of "pending court rulings" and the spotlight Emily Miller has put on their firearm's laws?
Edit to add second question: Do you think that DC will put political pressure on MD to try keep it from being appealed?
It was a Federal court ruling on the constitutionality of a provision in a Maryland State law. It could apply the the entire US, but likely each State with laws and provisions similar to Maryland would have to be challenged separately.
Some of the lawyer types on TFL can correct me but I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it.
Some of the lawyer types on TFL can correct me but I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Question..This is federal district court...for Maryland...does this case need to be appealed up one level to affect Washington DC? Or two levels?
It would need to be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States to affect D. C. As it stands now, it mainly impacts this specific case; but it is progress.
I am wondering because of DC's sudden willingness to modify it's firearm law because of "pending court rulings" and the spotlight Emily Miller has put on their firearm's laws?
I think that has more to do with D.C.'s lawyers pointing out obvious problems in the D.C. law - and I am sure there were some practical difficulties with implementation as well. The crazier D.C. makes their laws, the easier it is for us to pick which one to attack and clarify the boundaries of the Second Amendment in our favor. D.C. likely decided to abandon some of the rules that were clearly not going to pass muster and avoid costly litigation/giving us that opportunity.
Edit to add second question: Do you think that DC will put political pressure on MD to try keep it from being appealed?
I think D.C. has plenty to worry about on there own; but I am sure the defendants in these various suits are communicating and discussing strategy.
Armorer-at-Law
New member
Another nice quote from the decision:
At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. 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 law at issue only affects Maryland, so the desicion only applies to Maryland. MD is in the 4th Circuit, so an appeal would go there. DC has its own federal district court and it own court of appeal circuit (DC Circuit). An appeal to the US Supreme Court would still only affect the Maryland law at issue, but the analysis would then have persuasive value to courts throughout the US.Question..This is federal district court...for Maryland...does this case need to be appealed up one level to affect Washington DC? Or two levels?
True, but it could set up precedent if Judge Legg's opinion is used in other suits.The case is a limited win if it is not appealed.
That's what I'm really hoping for. If you read the background on Woollard's situation, it's hard not to be sympathetic. Furthermore, he's not appealing a criminal conviction, he's just a guy whose very safety is endangered by an unjust law. This one has good odds of being heard.If the case if appealed, it has the potential to go to the Supreme Court and be a big win.
I've been watching this and the other carry cases very closely. Given how predictably the others seemingly have marched through the process, with loss after loss for the plaintiffs in the lower courts (Hightower, Muller, Kachalsky, Moore, Richards, Peruta, etc.), I was frankly ASTONISHED by this judgement. I would be equally astonished if MD just gave up... I can't believe they will, any more than Chicago and others of that... breed.
However... during the interim, is anything likely to happen for the people of MD in terms of the right to carry? I'm guessing not, if only because any right acknowledged now would be stripped away again if the appeal was lost, which just seems ridiculous... but a lot of this seems ridiculous to me anyways, so I have no way to know.
Any thoughts from the legal cognoscenti here?
Dan
However... during the interim, is anything likely to happen for the people of MD in terms of the right to carry? I'm guessing not, if only because any right acknowledged now would be stripped away again if the appeal was lost, which just seems ridiculous... but a lot of this seems ridiculous to me anyways, so I have no way to know.
Any thoughts from the legal cognoscenti here?
Dan
I agree csmsss.
It should be understood that this was going to be appealed, regardless of who won. However... There is currently a bill before the MD legislature that would make MD a "shall issue" state and if passed (and signed into law), would moot any further action in the courts.
However unlikely this might have been before this decision, it now requires its legislatures to rethink their positions. They can kill the proposed bill and take their chances in the Circuit Court. That can be real risky at this time, because a decision there will affect more than just MD. Then there is the SCOTUS to consider....
Think chess, not checkers.
It should be understood that this was going to be appealed, regardless of who won. However... There is currently a bill before the MD legislature that would make MD a "shall issue" state and if passed (and signed into law), would moot any further action in the courts.
However unlikely this might have been before this decision, it now requires its legislatures to rethink their positions. They can kill the proposed bill and take their chances in the Circuit Court. That can be real risky at this time, because a decision there will affect more than just MD. Then there is the SCOTUS to consider....
Think chess, not checkers.
Awesome to read the news today - found it first on volokh in a post by david kopel today and have been following comments. Living in Illinois after the awful initial decision in one of the carry/bear lawsuits here - it was a real lift to finally see a lawsuit with a positive outcome - gives me hope that a case will reach the USSC before the composition is changed and that a ruling verifying the right to carry/bear arms is rendered.
Maryland law unconstitutional
fox news is reporting that a Federal Judge has ruled Marylands carry law unconstitutional.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...les-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/
Judge Legg is quoted as saying "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...un-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oI2eroXo
good news. Probably the Illinois, California and all other restrictive Federal Judge rulings are going to SCOTS.
fox news is reporting that a Federal Judge has ruled Marylands carry law unconstitutional.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...les-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/
Judge Legg is quoted as saying "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...un-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oI2eroXo
good news. Probably the Illinois, California and all other restrictive Federal Judge rulings are going to SCOTS.
I really wanted this to be the one to go before the Supreme Court, and it looks like that's a possibility.That can be real risky at this time, because a decision there will affect more than just MD. Then there is the SCOTUS to consider.
The MD Attorney General has 30 days to appeal, so we'll wait to see what happens. If he appeals, it goes to the 4th Circuit.
Here's the fun part: Judge Legg uses a couple of recent 4th Circuit opinions to justify his decisionn. If the 4th wants to reverse, that puts them in an awkward position.