View Single Post
Old March 16, 2012, 10:29 PM   #66
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,549
The plaintiff in Woollard has filed their response to the States motion for Clarification and Motion to Stay:

Some Gura Goodies(TM):
But regardless of what the State “generally” does, or whether a declaratory judgment “can have the same practical effect as an injunction” (emphasis added), at least for now, it is apparent that Defendants are still enforcing the “good and substantial reason” requirement pending the outcome of their motion for a stay. Woollard has still not received his renewal handgun carry permit. And on information and belief, based upon numerous reports from individuals who have applied for handgun carry licenses in the wake of the Court’s decision, lack of a “good and substantial reason” is holding up the process. But Plaintiffs are legally entitled to injunctive relief.
- Page 3-4
Defendants vigorously contested the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, but never questioned Plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive relief — because there was never any doubt that Plaintiffs would be entitled to an injunction as a matter of law if the challenged provision were held unconstitutional.
- Page 5
Having prevailed on the merits of their claim, Plaintiffs have nothing left to prove with respect to their entitlement to injunctive relief.
- Page 6
Defendants suggest that this Court’s decision would leave them with a dangerously inadequate handgun carry permitting scheme, a circumstance so dire and unusual that it warrants, essentially, the suspension of a fundamental constitutional right. Not so. The Court’s decision places Maryland firmly in the national mainstream with respect to the right to carry handguns, and still leaves the state with the Fourth Circuit’s most restrictive regulatory landscape on the topic.
- Page 8
In short, Marylanders now enjoy a handgun carry licensing scheme that is, in its core structure, profoundly ordinary. It was the unconstitutional statute struck down by the Court, not the Court’s decision, that effected a dangerous and unusual legal regime out of step with prevailing American practice. This is hardly the stuff of emergency stays or uncharted threats to public safety.
- Page 9
"The terms offered by Plaintiffs are fairly straightforward. First, the Defendants shall refrain from enforcing the unconstitutional law at issue in this case. Second, the Defendants shall not resurrect the forbidden practice encompassed in that law, under the guise of some other authority. And finally, Woollard should have his permit renewed, because it was only rejected for an unconstitutional reason, and Defendants never offered any other reason for denying the permit renewal. It is far too late in the day for Defendants to suggest that Woollard could be disqualified for some other reason independent of the issue in the litigation. Def. Br., 3/7/12, p. 6. Presumably, were Woollard disqualified on other grounds, Defendants would have raised that defense earlier. Of course, Defendants do not articulate exactly how Woollard might no longer be eligible for the permit they had already once renewed"
- Page 12
"Maryland has long opted to license the carrying of handguns, openly or concealed. If Maryland authorities truly wish to require all handgun carry permit holders to carry their handguns openly, Def. Br., 3/7/12, pp. 12-13, that option is not foreclosed by the Court’s opinion, and no stay need be obtained to effectuate that policy choice. Maryland’s legislature remains open for business, and indeed, is in session as of this writing through April 9, 2012. See (last visited March 13, 2012). Moreover, Maryland law already allows Defendant Brown to limit the scope of permits to open or concealed carry. Md. Public Safety Code Ann. § 5-307(b). This provision enables Brown to adopt additional restrictions, which may or may not be constitutional depending on their terms. In any event, no stay is required to enable Defendant Brown to conjure handgun permit restrictions."
- Page 14-15

Every time I think that Alan Gura has just outdone himself, he goes and does it again!

The State will probably file their reply sometime next week (they sought expedited briefing, so they have to file pretty darn quick). Judge Legg may or may not ask for orals. I suspect not. Final Ruling could come within 2 weeks.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03877 seconds with 7 queries