MD gun law found unconstitutional

[baldeagle]

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/0 ... es.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The judge stated that

a requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun infringes their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

.
This is the fruit of Heller v. DC.

[The Annoyed Man]

You beat me to it. Good news.

[RoyGBiv]

Just saw this good news and came over here to spread the word...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... itutional/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eagles are faster than rainbows today.

"May Issue" - unconstitutional....

[texanron]

OUTSTANDING!!

[AEA]

It is good news! But now they will just outlaw all handgun sales in MD. Or, some other circumvention.........

[RHenriksen]

Yep, this looks like a BIG lever. How many hops to get to SCOTUS, assuming MD appeals?

[Kythas]

According to the judge:

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.

This may well be the most common sense thing a judge has ever stated. This is great news.

[RHenriksen]

According to the judge:

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.

This may well be the most common sense thing a judge has ever stated. This is great news.

I was thinking the same thing. Ted Nugent would be proud.

[hi-power]

And also:

"In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment's protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and 'self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be,'" Legg wrote.

I like this guy a lot so far!

[chasfm11]

So, in separate threads today:

1. A win for the GGs in MD
2. A win for the GGs in D.C. with the change of the process to own a pistol

On to IL. It is about time for the trumpeters to surround Jericho (oops, I mean Chicago) and sound their horns. Those walls, too, need to come tumbling down.

[C-dub]

Get ready Mayor Emmanuel. Here comes the Second Amendment.

[MeMelYup]

Sounds like a Judge that should be considered for the Supreme Court.

[drjoker]

come election time, I'm going to write a check to judge U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg's re-election campaign!

[codeguy]

Yep, this looks like a BIG lever. How many hops to get to SCOTUS, assuming MD appeals?

The typical pattern of appeals would be this, assuming that whomever loses at each stop along the way wants to carry on the fight:

• Motion for rehearing in the federal district court in Maryland. This seems unlikely here, given the unambiguous ruling and the fact that it was on legal, rather than factual, grounds. Motions for rehearing are common when the losing party thinks that the court overlooked an important fact. Here, the entire argument appears to be about the law, not details of what happened to trigger the lawsuit, so this step seems unlikely.
• Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which could decide the case outright (most likely) or remand it (send it back) to the district court for a new decision there.
• Motion for rehearing or for rehearing en banc at the Fourth Circuit. Rehearing en banc means a hearing by the entire court, rather than by a three-judge panel. This is usually done if the party that lost on appeal thinks that the broader court is more favorable to its position than the three judges on the panel. This is fairly common.
• Petition for certiorari (pronounced roughly sir-shur-AR-ee, often called "cert" for short) to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can grant certiorari (agree to hear the case) or not (refuse to hear the case). The Court grants certiorari in only 1-2% of cases. A lot of very smart people spend a lot of time trying to read the tea leaves as to whether the Court will grant certiorari on a given case, so I will not try to guess about that here. If four Justices of the Supreme Court want to hear a given case, the Court will grant certiorari; if not, it will not.
• If the Court grants certiorari, it may or may not allow non-parties such as the NRA to file briefs. It also may or may not grant oral argument; many cases are decided based solely on the written briefs. The Supreme Court may also decide the case outright (most likely) or may send it back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in light of a recent decision in another case or a new law. In very rare instances, the Court sends cases all the way back to the district court.
• Technically, a party who loses in the Supreme Court may ask for rehearing by the Supreme Court, but this is rare and is usually denied unless something big has happened since the first decision, like a major new federal or state law or an amendment to the United States Constitution or the state constitution in question. Even then, the Court's decision in a case is based on -- and theoretically limited to -- the question before it at the time that it granted certiorari. So, even if new issues come up, rehearing would be exceptional. More likely, any new issues would be worked out in the lower courts and brought back to the Supreme Court on a new petition for certiorari, if necessary.

This is just a rough sketch of the process; there are lots of other minor steps along the way, and some cases go up and down some or all of the way more than once. I hope it helps.

Please note: I am an attorney, but nothing in the above is or should be taken as any kind of legal advice. If you need legal advice, seek out a competent attorney in your area.

Best,
codeguy

[Kythas]

So, in separate threads today:

1. A win for the GGs in MD
2. A win for the GGs in D.C. with the change of the process to own a pistol

On to IL. It is about time for the trumpeters to surround Jericho (oops, I mean Chicago) and sound their horns. Those walls, too, need to come tumbling down.

And now a win in Colorado allowing concealed carry on college campuses.

http://kdvr.com/2012/03/05/court-studen ... on-campus/