Oh I forgot

Alan Gura DID have something coming out.  Monday.  Two days ago.  That Woolard case I mentioned.

And THIS case may be the one where I anticipate the last response from State on 18 May, then it goes to the judge. Williams and Woolard are kinda similar so I am constantly crossing my wires on these 2 cases.  But this William case is a motion for summary judgment (not a writ of cert.) before the US District Court.

Ooo, that is some juicy take down, there.  You really should read that link.  Some Gura quotes in response to the State AG, Gansler:

"This is not constitutional analysis. It is the unchecked imposition of Defendants’ personal policy preferences."

"Defendants expend great effort describing what they perceive as the uniquely unacceptable harm that flows from handgun possession—an approach rejected in Heller and McDonald. They suggest the availability of long arms ameliorates the impact of the handgun regulations, another approach foreclosed by Heller. They suggest Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion in Heller was a “concurring” opinion that reflected the majority’s views with respect to his interest-balancing approach, a topic that elicited exceptionally strong disagreement by the majority. Blithely disregarding Heller’s contrary instruction, Defendants suggest the content of Second Amendment rights must be determined by judicial evaluations of competing policy claims."  [I added the emphasis]

"If courts could affirm any governmental decision based upon social science or policy assessments, the Constitution would be a dead letter."

"Nonetheless, Defendants and their amici persist in ignoring the two words appearing in the Second Amendment after 'keep.' Their denial is not well-grounded."

"the general rule that all concealed carrying may be banned so long as open carrying is permitted, and vice-versa."  [Wouldn't it be odd if Maryland banned all conceal carry but OC became the norm?  I'd have to get more holsters.]

"Defendants suggest that their handgun restrictions pass Second Amendment analysis because Maryland law 'permit[s] . . . anyone who can lawfully possess a long gun to wear and carry it, concealed or openly, anywhere the holder of a handgun carry permit could carry a handgun.'" [Yay!  The State Attorney General says I can go just about anywhere with my loaded M1A slung over my shoulder.  I'm gonna go to the Aquarium, and then Fogo De Chao in dowtown Baltimore...]

"Some of Brady’s other claims are simply incredible. In particular, the unsupported assertion that '[c]ourts have always looked with a more wary eye on laws that impose restrictions on broad classes of people than laws that require individual determinations,' Brady could not be more erroneous. Perhaps Brady refers to the earliest origins of schemes such as Maryland’s, where the police’s individual determination of one’s suitability to have a gun permit was code for Jim Crow."

"Defendants and their amici maintain that even if there exists a constitutional right to carry handguns for self-defense in public, it would be permissible for them to deny that right to anyone who does not prove, to their satisfaction, a sufficient need to do so. The argument is basically incongruent with the very concept of rights."



Now THAT was more fun to read.