Thursday, March 24, 2011

SAF CCW case progress

The lawsuit brought by Alan Gura in MD continues apace.  The suit is to change MD from a May-Issue to Shall-Issue state.  And the response by the State defendent, with amicus brief by the Brady's, has been released. 

Now Alan gets to respond twice, to both briefs.  So twice the Gura goodness

And I can't wait til April 15th when his response is due in.  There are so many holes in the State's case...  It will be entertaining.

Luckily, the judge isn't cottoning to the State's delaying tactics, and the stuff is going very briskly through the system.  It could be decided by August. 

The state also might posit that there is no restriction for residents to carry a long gun, that isn't on the restricted list, for self defense in public in most places.  So I am going to the park with my Garand slung on this evening. 

Ok, no I'm not.  The county has it's own laws that'll have to be struck down (and they've been losing to pre-emption challenges over time and will probably continue to).  Plus, I think we have a good chance this case will proceed in our favor and right quickly.  And I don't want to be the test case now. 

But still... it is a shocking revelation from the State, some of the things the AG conceded to try to preserve May Issue CCW.  Stuff like 'we can't let potential victims carry to defend themselves from pistol toting criminals because the victim might injure third party people defending themselves, so it's a safety issue' and specifically "Statutes Regulating Handgun Possession Only Outside of the Home Do Not Fall Within the Scope of the Second Amendment Right".  Lots of gems in there.  The State is conceding a lot in their dance to keep may-issue.  I wonder if they think they are losing?


Ian Argent said...

How does this compare to the NJ brief in teh similar case up here?

(SAF is playing Eminence Grise up here in the Garden State as well, though they apparently are tapped out on Alans to lend)

Anonymous said...

NJ arguments are a lot simpler but amount to "The law is constitutional because we say so and the NJ courts agree". Once one of these cases (Pureta, Woollard, etc) reaches the SCOTUS and our rights outside the home are defined, NJ will fall.

Recognizing the right to self defense in MD (which is what Gansler effectively conceded), but not the right to the particular item will actually be of use to NJ and I'm sure the next brief will mention that.

Once your right to self defense has been established, the argument is over the device and in Heller the SCOTUS said because handguns are of such value for self defense, you can't divorce the right to carry a long gun from a handgun.

Anonymous said...

Easier, quicker to just move to Virginia!


New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Sell my house in MD? You think that can happen before August? Ha!

Bubblehead Les. said...

Going to Breda's SAF Reception in Pittsburgh? You'll be able to get the latest on MD straight from the Horse's mouth then.

Matthew said...

An awful lot of that brief is apparently only supported by declarations by law enforcement officials.

Combine that with the two non-studies done by VPC and there isn't a lot of meat to back up the state if the judges apply any sort of factual review.