For those not familiar with what I referenced earlier, Here are the 4 criteria that the State of Maryland must satisfy, in order to get their Stay (pulled directly from Alan Gura's brief on the merits of issuing the injunction - doc #59):
Consideration of a motion for stay under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 62(c) requires the Court to balance “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (emphasis added); Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1970). “Defendants, as movants, have the heavy burden of establishing that the aforementioned factors weigh in favor of a stay.” Cayuga Indian Nation v. Vill. of Union Springs, 317 F. Supp. 2d 152, 155 (N.D.N.Y. 2004).
In regards items 2 and 3, the State tried to insist that they couldn't properly process the applications because they had no way of knowing who would actually merit a "wear and carry" permit. Because of that, the public would be harmed when they revoked all the permits.
This is a self-made crisis. Under the G&S rules, those required to have the permit for their jobs, are in fact sponsored by the companies they work for. It would take little to no effort to construct the proper database to single out those that are security guards, retired police, prosecutors, judges, etc., from the ordinary Joe.
As regards the revocation of a permit and the (former) permittee not returning the permit, it is easy enough to discover. They do this with drivers licenses, no? So were is the public harm?
Items 2, 3 and 4 are so transparent as to be a slap in the face to Judge Legg.
And, as I said, no where does the State even try to show that they could succeed on the merits, at appeal. I'm sure that Alan Gura will point this all out, in his response.
There is virtually nothing the State can do to rebut this. What happens next is the mere formality of the process.