The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 10, 2013, 11:08 PM   #326
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermannr
CC: Criminal Carry, or if you like Concealed Carry. While not everyone that conceals is a criminal, all criminals conceal.
I carry whenever I legally can, and I most often carry concealed. Are you calling me a criminal or otherwise disparaging my character?

I suggest that you abandon this line of discussion here.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 04:32 PM   #327
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
First tidbit in the news (local ABC affiliate): Man assaults family, commits suicide in Hampstead

What has this to do with the case in hand? Perhaps you can figure it out with an article from the Baltimore Sun: Man at center of Maryland handgun law challenge dead after Baltimore County barricade - baltimoresun.com

Meanwhile, the SCOTUS docket is now showing that the respondents have filed their opposition brief. This means that Gura will now have a chance to make his reply brief, and you can bet that this news story will play a small part in that reply (what happened is only tangentially relevant).
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 04:50 PM   #328
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
"Tangentially related?" Maybe, but useful nonetheless . . . . That sounds utterly heartless, so let me clarify. This is a tragic event from which the family may never recover. From a "legal tactics" perspective, it's useful in a demonstrative sense: as to why vesting discretion in law enforcement to determine who may and may not arm themselves is a bad idea.

Here's my thinking: Didn't the sheriff deny Woolard's application because Woolard "hadn't demonstrated an immediate need" (or some such language) for a firearm or a CCL? Isn't Dawn, the estranged wife whom Abbot assaulted likely Woolard's daughter? The police thought that Woolard had failed to show that this very person posed enough of a threat to allow Woolard to arm himself. Yet a couple of years down the road, Abbot has assaulted his wife, beaten his parents, and taken his own life. His mother is reported to have been transported to a hospital for serious injuries. Had he decided to take his anger out on Woolard, who knows?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 07:11 PM   #329
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,310
Well, I'm glad that Mr. Woollard is alright, although I feel sad for Abbott's victims.

Sad as the case is, I think it is a valid demonstration that violence cannot always be predicted with enough foresight to go through the administrative timeline for licensing, nor can law enforcement always predict who will have a "need" for self-defense.
raimius is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 11:25 PM   #330
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Thanks go to Kharn (a member of CalGuns) for procuring the opposition brief by MD.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 13-42 Woollard Brief in Opposition.pdf (109.3 KB, 21 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 05:15 AM   #331
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
Did MD come out and say Abbott was no threat? Perhaps they implied it, but if someone has the quote then that would look really really bad.
I remember Md's reasoning behind not renewing Woollard's permit was twofold: threats have a limited shelf life, Woollard hadn't been attacked for several years, so there's no threat.
The other, which was really stupid, was that Woollard was attacked in his home, so it just goes to figure Abbott would necessarily attack in the home again(where Woollard can carry w/o a permit).
press1280 is offline  
Old September 23, 2013, 10:25 PM   #332
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 206
The case should be judged on the record now before the court--to consider new evidence at this late date creates difficulties, hence this traumatic end to Mr. Abbot's violent life will warrant no more than a footnote, if that.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old September 24, 2013, 04:33 PM   #333
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
With the reply brief, the cert stage is now complete. Thanks to Krucam (MDShooters and here) for the file.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 13-42_reply_brief.pdf (87.9 KB, 26 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 24, 2013, 05:22 PM   #334
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
All the new developments (Aguilar, and suicide of Abbott) are well covered by Gura. I love this zinger: Respondents
claim that the lower court “put the State to its burden,
and determined that the State had satisfied that
burden.” BIO 14. Some burden: “[I]t is the legislature’s
job, not ours, to weigh conflicting evidence and
make policy judgments.” App. 38a (citation omitted).


He also points out MD's "93.7%" approval rate is a farce, as the state stopped disclosing numbers of permits issued after 2011. After the District court win, applications went up 25%-obviously because people thought they now had a chance to actually get the permit.
press1280 is offline  
Old October 3, 2013, 08:39 PM   #335
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
All the filings are now available at SCOTUSblog, as Woollard is cited as a case to be watched for the Oct. 11th conference.

Woollard v. Gallagher : SCOTUSblog
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 11, 2013, 08:45 PM   #336
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Well, today came and went without anything being mentioned one way or another. I guess we'll have to wait for next Friday.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 11, 2013, 09:14 PM   #337
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Tom, the results of a conference are generally made the following Monday. Since this Mon. is a holiday (Columbus Day), I don't expect we will know until after 10:00 am on Tuesday, when the orders are posted.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 08:42 AM   #338
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Orders have just come out - Cert Denied.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 08:43 AM   #339
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 362
Al, you beat me by one minute.

Here's the doc for all those interested.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...13zor_4g25.pdf

What else do we have in the pipe line to send to SCOTUS in regards to may issue?
Davey is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 08:53 AM   #340
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,292
Dammit.

Grrrrrrrrrrr.

OK, this is getting annoying. Very...dang...annoying.

Arg.

Ghaaaa.

So now we get to see what the 9th is going to do next? They've likely been holding Peruta and Richards to see what The Supremes were gonna do, right?
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 09:36 AM   #341
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 164
no relief for the citizens of may issue states except to move or wait at least a few more years and hope.
heyjoe is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 10:26 AM   #342
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
After reading all the briefs and amici, it seemed unimaginable that this wasn't ripe enough.

This is extremely disappointing. I only hope to God they are just waiting for the three cases out of the ninth circuit to be sure that all the issues are addressed when they finally take this up.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 11:28 AM   #343
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 362
Maybe they first want to rule on whether or not this is a right to carry in public at all. I imagine the IL cases would have been perfect.

Was the Wollard case going after the may issue law or carrying in public in general?
Davey is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 12:15 PM   #344
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,292
Quote:
Was the Wollard case going after the may issue law or carrying in public in general?
Mainly may-issue, but Gura also pointed out that without a permit OC is banned too. Same as will come up in California if we appeal from there.

What the hell? Are the circuits going to be allowed to write "bear arms" out of the constitution completely, same as they came up with "collective right" not too long after the ink was dry on Miller? But there's already a circuit split, and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has gone the other way (following the 7th and a right to bear).

What the heck is going on here? What else is in the pipeline? The DC case?

Are the US Supremes waiting for a case where gunnies win a "bear arms" case at the circuit level and then a state government appeals in the fashion that Illinois didn't?
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 12:25 PM   #345
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
They've denied cert to Kachalsky, and now to Woollard, despite a clear circuit split. I have to wonder if they're not simply trying to avoid deciding the issue.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 12:27 PM   #346
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim March
What the heck is going on here? What else is in the pipeline? The DC case?
Next up is Drake: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=434336
speedrrracer is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 05:02 PM   #347
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
I have to disagree, we do not yet have a circuit split. PR was their lower court, and CA7 dealt with a total carry ban. The other opinions like Kachalsky,exc. are weaseling out of confining the right to the home on paper, but in reality they are. I believe they're trying hard to avoid a split at all costs.
If we win with Richards/Peruta, we'll have split with Drake,Woollard, and Kachalsky.
If Palmer ever gets to the DC Circuit and we lose, it'll split with Moore. Those scenarios may be the key.
press1280 is offline  
Old October 16, 2013, 11:51 AM   #348
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 52
If anyone has an opinion, please chime in...

What is the possibility that Justice Kennedy is the wrench in the works for this issue, i.e. carry rights? I'd heard that he doesn't approve of it, so there would go our "majority". If the other 4 Justices from Heller and McDonald know he'd "defect" in a carry rights case, would they try to derail a cert petition? Does this kind of "politicking" go on in their deliberations, or is this theory totally off the mark?

It would REALLY suck if it's true, because that would mean we'd get a bad SCOTUS ruling if the issue is ever forced...

Dan
Dan F is offline  
Old October 16, 2013, 01:00 PM   #349
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Quote:
What is the possibility that Justice Kennedy is the wrench in the works for this issue
Pretty good, actually. I'd also worry about Roberts. He and Kennedy might be on board for the shotgun under the bed, but not so comfortable with folks carrying pistols in public. That the Founders meant to protect individual ownership of arms is easily proven. Their intentions on carry are a bit trickier to discern.

Another possibility is that Scalia wants to pull back from the brink a bit, as he's mentioned a couple of times in the recent past. We can also expect serious resistance from Ginsburg, and Breyer (especially Breyer) on the issue. They've made statements indicating they refuse to accept the Heller decision and that the 2nd Amendment is a militia clause and nothing more.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 16, 2013, 01:00 PM   #350
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
Dan, absolutely there's politickin going on in case selection. I saw that scenario discussed during the DOMA/Prop 8 stuff. I only saw the article once, and one of the actual lawyer/court fans will have to correct anything I misremember but:

They decide on their cases in a conference. I think it's actually called In Conference. And there are apparently RULES and rules for how they should vote for or against cert. And the reporter suggested one of the judges may have played a little fast and loose with the lower case rules when voting for Cert, and the Court may have to somehow reverse granting cert thought a process I don't remember the name of.

Again, this was all speculation on the part of the reporter, and whatever he thought was going to happen somehow didn't.

But it does answer the question that yes, there is some level of politicking going on as far as case selection- at the very least in so far as judges won't grant cert in a case they want to "win" if they aren't pretty sure they've got a shot at "winning" the decision. It's better to leave it reviewable, than grant cert and have to find a way to tap dance around stare decisis.
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18515 seconds with 10 queries