MD Appeals Court Overturns Woolard

[Revelationechc]

**BREAKING** Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturns MD fed court decision that "may-issue" carry law is unconstitutional!

Today, the Fourth Circuit reinsta...ted "may-issue" carry laws that were struck down in a lower court. To be sure, this is an issue that will be resolved at the U.S. Supreme Court where we're confident that the Second Amendment will be found to protect the right of all law-abiding people to keep and carry guns in public for self-defense. At least one case is pending cert grant now, so stay tuned for more legal news on carry rights and related litigation.

To read the Fourth Circuit's opinion, visit http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/woollard/Opinion-CA4-2013-03-21.pdfSee More

 

[GunGrey]

Nice

 

[JRyan]

Someone smarter than me... any application here?


edited for me being a dumbass and replying before reading it.

 

[Stryker]

Good. Someone smarter than me... any application here?

If it makes it way to the supreme court at some point, where 'May-Issue' is struck down - that would have to kill hit here in MA as well right? One can only hope?

 

[showmofffarm1]

Good to hear

 

[Quiet]

How is that good? The ruling that was overturned found "may issue" to be unconstitutional, no?

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on having "good and substantial reason" to do so.

Necessary to the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D. Md. 2012).

Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second Amendment.

 

[Dexion1619]

I Think what they mean by "Good" is that it will head to the SCOTUS. The Hope, is that may Issue will be found Un-Constitutional by the SCOTUS, which would get rid of it across the board. At least I think that is what they meant.

 

[Hustler One]

How is that good? The ruling that was overturned found "may issue" to be unconstitutional, no?

Correct, people don't know how to read anymore I guess.

 

[Quiet]

Wow. I'd rather have 50 state wins than have disagreeing opinions and then flip a coin at the Supreme Court.

 

[GunGrey]

This means it's going to the SCOUTUS.....it's a good thing

 

[Hoover]

This is the next issue for SCOTUS. I think this issue was just heard in the 3rd circuit, decision is coming soon.

 

[xcom]

Someone smarter than me... any application here?


edited for me being a dumbass and replying before reading it.

We are in the First Circuit which already essentially ruled this way (i.e., no right to carry and upheld MA law). This only applies in the 4th Circuit (MD and the like) What is good about it is that now there is a split in the circuit courts (I believe) and that almost makes it a requirement that the SCOTUS takes it up in order to settle the split.

 

[Palladin]

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/woollard/Opinion-CA4-2013-03-21.pdf

active link, the other goes to FB link.....blocked at work

 

[Chantry]

Ugh, why can't they speak in plain English. Off to the Supreme Court we will go

Analysis here by better qualified people then me http://www.volokh.com/

 

[xcom]

The way I read it is that the standards that MD used to justify a “good and substantial reason” requirement for the gun owner prove the need for self defense as a reason for a carry permit was unconstitutional and that a person's 2nd Amendment right extends outside of his home. This is a win, it changes MD's "may issue", in which only the rich, famous or politically well connected could get a permit, to essentially shall issue.

I see it that the Circuit court overturned the carry outside of the home and seems to have rejected the lower court.


KING, Circuit Judge:
The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pro-
nouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is imper-
missibly burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantial-
reason requirement.
See
Woollard v. Sheridan
, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s

conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment

 

[Garden12]

A lot of people are saying that SCOTUS will take up the 2nd circuit case. SAF filed an appeal to SCOTUS, and 20 AG's wrote an amicus brief in support of SAF position. I think Comm2a filed an amicus brief in this case too. On SAF facebook page, they are billing it as "may issue" vs "shall issue" for every state.

SAF Press Release :: TWENTY STATE ATTYS, SEVERAL OTHERS FILE BRIEFS SUPPORTING SAF APPEAL

20 U.S. states, CATO, others file briefs to Supreme Court supporting SAF's Kachalsky carry case | Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition

 

[Hoover]

If SCOTUS takes it up, with the current judges, I see a win for us. Kennedy, the swing justice is more libertarian than anything else. He will rule for gun rights.

Scalia said he's softening up Kagan, he has taken her hunting. I feel good about any gun issue with SCOTUS with this panel.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Real issue is whether intermediate scrutiny applies to bearing of arms outside the home or strict scrutiny. Should be interesting to watch.

To me it's kinda like saying you have a right against unwarranted search and seizure in your home but no such right when out in the public. Failed logic in my view.

Hopefully SCOTUS will apply strict scrutiny and agree with the DC.

Note this branch of the 4th circuit was in a Baltimore court - translation, full of liberal judges.

 

[Quiet]

The difference between the MD law and the MA law is that while they are both "may issue" states, in MD the point of contention is an applicant must have "Good and Substantial Reason" and MA has the "Suitable Person"

The bad part about this is that MD had already decided that May Issue was perfectly fine for outside the home under a doctrine of "intermediate scrutiny" , whereas inside the home a law must pass "strict scrutiny". They decided that the district court made a mistake in not applying their intermediate scrutiny standard. For the sake of argument they granted that the 2A conferred a right to carry outside the home.

Under this theory of "intermediate scrutiny," both the MA and the MD differing approaches to "May Issue" laws would be OK.

MD law doesn't prohibit carrying, it limits it to people who 1) have a business, 2) are LEO, 3) are prison guards, DAs and other assumed risk people, and 4) people who can show that they have a legitimate fear of harm. These, the court found to be not overly broad and suitably tailored.

It boils down to this: The appelate court said that even if the 2A granted a right to carry outside the home, the government can impose any limitations that are reasonably tailored to meet the government's objectives of a safer society, regardless of whether the court believes that the law will accomplish the goal.

Don't shoot the messenger. ;-(

 

[Baystatesuks]

The difference between the MD law and the MA law is that while they are both "may issue" states, in MD the point of contention is an applicant must have "Good and Substantial Reason" and MA has the "Suitable Person"

The bad part about this is that MD had already decided that May Issue was perfectly fine for outside the home under a doctrine of "intermediate scrutiny" , whereas inside the home a law must pass "strict scrutiny". They decided that the district court made a mistake in not applying their intermediate scrutiny standard. For the sake of argument they granted that the 2A conferred a right to carry outside the home.

Under this theory of "intermediate scrutiny," both the MA and the MD differing approaches to "May Issue" laws would be OK.

MD law doesn't prohibit carrying, it limits it to people who 1) have a business, 2) are LEO, 3) are prison guards, DAs and other assumed risk people, and 4) people who can show that they have a legitimate fear of harm. These, the court found to be not overly broad and suitably tailored.

It boils down to this: The appelate court said that even if the 2A granted a right to carry outside the home, the government can impose any limitations that are reasonably tailored to meet the government's objectives of a safer society, regardless of whether the court believes that the law will accomplish the goal.

Don't shoot the messenger. ;-(

The problem with the court's analysis is there is a presumption that you cannot get a license until you can show otherwise. It should be the other way around when a BOR issue is present - the citizen is presumed to be able to exercise their right until the state/govt can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[xcom]

The difference between the MD law and the MA law is that while they are both "may issue" states, in MD the point of contention is an applicant must have "Good and Substantial Reason" and MA has the "Suitable Person"

The bad part about this is that MD had already decided that May Issue was perfectly fine for outside the home under a doctrine of "intermediate scrutiny" , whereas inside the home a law must pass "strict scrutiny". They decided that the district court made a mistake in not applying their intermediate scrutiny standard. For the sake of argument they granted that the 2A conferred a right to carry outside the home.

Under this theory of "intermediate scrutiny," both the MA and the MD differing approaches to "May Issue" laws would be OK.

MD law doesn't prohibit carrying, it limits it to people who 1) have a business, 2) are LEO, 3) are prison guards, DAs and other assumed risk people, and 4) people who can show that they have a legitimate fear of harm. These, the court found to be not overly broad and suitably tailored.

It boils down to this: The appelate court said that even if the 2A granted a right to carry outside the home, the government can impose any limitations that are reasonably tailored to meet the government's objectives of a safer society, regardless of whether the court believes that the law will accomplish the goal.

Don't shoot the messenger. ;-(

This is spot on. The fight is over the level of scrutiny applied. In Intermediate scrutiny the law being challenged must further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest in order to be upheld (this is what is applied to time of day restrictions on speech that do not get to content).[SUP][/SUP][SUP][/SUP] Strict scrutiny, the higher standard of review which requires narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.

 

[Quiet]

The problem with the court's analysis is there is a presumption that you cannot get a license until you can show otherwise. It should be the other way around when a BOR issue is present - the citizen is presumed to be able to exercise their right until the state/govt can demonstrate otherwise.

The court addressed it. In fact the district court (that was reversed on the issue at hand) even refused to bring 1A legal precendent of "prior restraint" into the 2A and invoking the 14A.

 

[xcom]

The court addressed it. In fact the district court (that was reversed on the issue at hand) even refused to bring 1A legal precendent of "prior restraint" into the 2A and invoking the 14A.

That's crap. Granted, I love Heller and McDonald but they (SCOTUS) did leave a mess to clean later (which they always do).

 

[GunGrey]

Knuckle dragger and terraformer?

They usually are pretty good for laying it out.

 

[Quiet]

In front of the Supremes, the argument should go like this:

It is impossible to hold that defense of Hearth and Home could possibly be more important than the right to defend oneself from harm. In fact, many states have legislated that a person has a right to defend themself and not to defend their property.

Therefore, given Heller and strict scrutiny for protection of hearth and home, the same level of scrutiny should be applied outside the home.


Then go on for about 200 pages backing up that argument.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Knuckle dragger and terraformer?

They usually are pretty good for laying it out.

That's who I am waiting for.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Knuckle dragger and terraformer?

They usually are pretty good for laying it out.

I won't be able to read the decision for a while. It's disappointing though because the district court gave us such a good opinion. Mrrs. Wollard and Gura have 90 to decide to appeal. I'm not sure what they'll do or how they might proceed given they're still waiting for a possible cert grant in Kachalsky. We also have Moore out there - a win in IL. The state may petition SCOTUS on that too.

 

[Garden12]

I just looked up who appointed the Judges, two of the judges in this case were appointed by Obama, Judge Davis and Judge Diaz. The other one, Judge King was appointed by Clinton.

 

[cekim]

While I am "glad” that this will only speed the movement of this issue to SCOTUS, my concern of late is the advocacy for a 4th type of scrutiny making the academic rounds. I am not sure what they call it, but I call it "historic scrutiny", which is basically the idea that if we have been trampling your rights long enough, we can keep doing it. No logic, reason or liberty need apply... Just keep stomping the jack boots the same way and that's fine evidently.

 

[theGringo]

Scalia said he's softening up Kagan ...

That just conjured up an awful image in my mind's eye.