The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied

Al Norris · October 9, 2010, 09:53 PM

This is the case that challenges Maryland's Carry permit law that requires applicants demonstrate "good and substantial reasons." Filed 28 July, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. It is an SAF/Alan Gura case.

In the initial complaint, there are 2 claims. First, that MD cannot require by statute, that its citizens must prove their "good and substantial reason" for the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Second, by demanding that citizens demonstrate cause for the permit, it violates the 14th's equal protection clause. The relief sought is a permanent injunction against the statutes, Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii). The 8 page complaint can be read, here.

On 09-20-2010, MD filed a Motion To Dismiss (MTD). The motion made three claims. 1)The State claimed Younger's abstention (the plaintiff did not avail himself of all state remedies before filing his federal claim); 2) The SAF has no standing; and 3) The complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The 21 page MTD can be read, here.

Thursday, 10-07-2010, Alan Gura filed his response in opposition to the MTD. The 19 page response can be read, here.

Mr. Gura spends very little time explaining why the state is wrong about the SAF having no standing (part II of the response) and even less time demonstrating that MD is wrong about the complaint not stating a proper claim for relief (part III of the response). The answers are straight out of a 1A textbook on civil procedure.

Where Gura spends most of his time, is in part I, where he deals with the States claim for the Younger Abstention. The abstention is a rarely used exception to the Federal Courts jurisdiction. In demolishing this claim of the State, Gura uses fairly ordinary language which makes it plainly obvious, for even a laymen, what this is about and why it is not relevant to this case.

It is not lost on me, that Gura is taking this opportunity to "instruct and educate" the States attorneys on how not to file an MTD (this is legal humor, at its best).

October 9, 2010, 09:53 PM	#1
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14 This is the case that challenges Maryland's Carry permit law that requires applicants demonstrate "good and substantial reasons." Filed 28 July, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. It is an SAF/Alan Gura case. In the initial complaint, there are 2 claims. First, that MD cannot require by statute, that its citizens must prove their "good and substantial reason" for the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Second, by demanding that citizens demonstrate cause for the permit, it violates the 14th's equal protection clause. The relief sought is a permanent injunction against the statutes, Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii). The 8 page complaint can be read, here. On 09-20-2010, MD filed a Motion To Dismiss (MTD). The motion made three claims. 1)The State claimed Younger's abstention (the plaintiff did not avail himself of all state remedies before filing his federal claim); 2) The SAF has no standing; and 3) The complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The 21 page MTD can be read, here. Thursday, 10-07-2010, Alan Gura filed his response in opposition to the MTD. The 19 page response can be read, here. Mr. Gura spends very little time explaining why the state is wrong about the SAF having no standing (part II of the response) and even less time demonstrating that MD is wrong about the complaint not stating a proper claim for relief (part III of the response). The answers are straight out of a 1A textbook on civil procedure. Where Gura spends most of his time, is in part I, where he deals with the States claim for the Younger Abstention. The abstention is a rarely used exception to the Federal Courts jurisdiction. In demolishing this claim of the State, Gura uses fairly ordinary language which makes it plainly obvious, for even a laymen, what this is about and why it is not relevant to this case. It is not lost on me, that Gura is taking this opportunity to "instruct and educate" the States attorneys on how not to file an MTD (this is legal humor, at its best).