Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Laughed a bit at police officers "upholstered" firearms

Yeah -- upholstry makes them softer and kinder, I guess!

Also noted that Gura talks about "immediate scrutiny." Guess that means you have to look at it right now!

[maestro pistolero]

Fantastic brief as always. Airtight, IMO.

Besides those already mentioned (which I missed), I found a couple minor typos.

2D at page 34 :

D. DEFENDANTS CANNOT ESTABLISH A SHOWING OF IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THE STAY WERE DENIED.
Defendants contend that they will suffer irreparable injuries in the absence of a stay of the district court’s ruling. Defendants offer three agreements in support of this contention:

Bolded should be arguments.


Page 24:

In Masciandro, the Court determined that immediate scrutiny is the proper standard of review for issues related to the Second Amendment.

Bolded should be Masciandaro

[maestro pistolero]

Lots of disappointed folks in MD today.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=88287

[Tom Servo]

They're still winning on the merits, and the path of this case isn't all that different from the one that Heller and McDonald took.

[Willie Sutton]

Any opinions from our resident "I'm a Lawyer but I'm not your Lawyer" sorts on how this fits in with your expectations and how things are "best guess" likely to proceed, with us fully understanding that it's just going to be an educated "gut check best guess"?


Willie


.

[Al Norris]

Well, I'm not an attorney in any shape or form. What appears to have happened is that the motions panel simply took the easy way out and gave the matter a pass (to the merits panel).

The only good thing is that the case is now on an expedited path.

Upon consideration of the filings relative to the motion to stay pending appeal, the court grants the motion. The court further directs that this case be expedited and tentatively calendared for oral argument during the October, 2012 session of court, October 23-26, 2012.

Entered at the direction of Judge King with the concurrence of Judge Gregory and Judge Davis.

While I knew that this might happen, I'm disappointed nonetheless.

[SilverBulletZ06]

On the one hand I am disappointed with the fact the stay was removed.

On the other hand I am happy that the panel decided that this is obviously a vital decision and it should not waste time waiting for a hearing. I personally believe that this is due to the stay being removed by Judge Legg.

[Al Norris]

There are currently 2 3 amicus briefs that were filed today, for the Plaintiff/Appellee.

One is from the NRA and the other is from Buckeye Firearms. Both should be on point and relatively good reads (meaning I have yet to read them).

ETA: I've added a third brief to this post. There are 9 briefs that have been filed as I write this.

[Al Norris]

Here are the next three briefs.

[Al Norris]

And the final three briefs.

You will note that there are 2 briefs from the NRA. The first brief is from the NRA Civil Defense Fund and the second is from the NRA Inc. itself. This is possible because legally, each of these NRA organizations are separate corporations and therefore separate entities.

I had pretty much read the first two briefs I uploaded, before I went back to work. then I came home and found another 4 over at MDShooters. Grabbed them. I went and looked at PACER, because of the time interval between then and now and there were another 3 briefs there. So I grabbed them and shared them, both here and at MDShooters. This means that there are 7 more briefs to read....

If anyone gets done before I do, please post your comments (and let us all know which brief you are commenting upon, please).

Whether you know it or not, to have this many amicus briefs (12 total) filed in an appellate case is unusual, to say the least.

[Al Norris]

And finally, to set this all in perspective; Order of appearance of all briefs as listed on the Docket:

1. Doc 67-2 (and also as listed as Doc 77 & 81):
   
   

   Brief Amicus Curiae Of NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund In
   Support Of Appellees Urging The Court To Affirm The
   District Court Ruling

2. Doc 72:
   
   

   Brief Amicus Curiae Buckeye Firearms Foundation Inc.

3. Doc 78:
   
   

   Brief of the
   International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association,
   International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors,
   Inc., Prof. Clayton Cramer, and the Independence Institute,
   as Amici Curiae in support of Appellees and in favor of affirmance

4. Doc 79:
   
   

   Brief Of The Commonwealth Of Virginia
   And The States Of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
   Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico,
   Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West
   Virginia, And The Commonwealth Of Kentucky
   As Amicus Curiae
   In Support Of Appellees Urging Affirmance

5. Doc 80:
   
   

   Brief Amicus Curiae Of
   Professors Of Law, History,
   Politics, And Government
   In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees
   And In Support Of Affirmance

6. Doc 82:
   

   Brief Amicus Curiae Of The California Rifle
   And Pistol Association Foundation,
   Virginia Shooting Sports Association, And
   Center For Constitutional Jurisprudence
   In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees
   And In Support Of Affirmance

7. Doc 84:
   

   Brief Amicus Curiae of Gun Owners Foundation,
   Gun Owners of America, Inc.,
   Virginia Gun Owners Coalition,
   Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.,
   U.S. Justice Foundation, and
   Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund
   In Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance

8. Doc 85:
   
   

   Brief Amici Curiae Of The Associated Gun Clubs Of
   Baltimore, Inc., The Monumental Rifle & Pistol Club,
   The Illinois State Rifle Association, The New York Rifle
   And Pistol Association, The Association Of New Jersey
   Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., and the Hawaii Rifle
   Association In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees Urging
   Affirmance

9. Doc 86:
   
   

   Brief Amicus Curiae Of The National Rifle Association Of
   America, Inc. In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees Urging
   Affirmance

The first thing I will do in the morning, will be to take one last look at MDShooters and/or the PACER docket to see if any more amici have filed. I doubt it, but you never know.

[Willie Sutton]

Virginia et al seems to me to be the one that is the tipping point. When a group of AG's and States put their signature on an amicus, that to me as a layman makes a serious impression.

All of them make good reading. Well spent time to do so.


Willie

.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

The Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professors Of Law, History, Politics, And Government In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees And In Support Of Affirmance absolutely destroys the arguments in the BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF LEGAL HISTORIANS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL. Moreover, it exposes intentional deception by half-truths and out-of-context citations that should, IMHO, be actionable against the authors of that brief as perjury. Experts (be they historians, ballisticians, or DNA analysts) are free to express opinions based on their acknowledged area of expertise, but those who falsify or misrepresent data to form the opinions their employers desire should be prosecuted where such malfeasance can be proven.

In any event, consider the historical aspect of the arguments now decisively weighted in favor of the plaintiffs!

[Willie Sutton]

^^^^^^^^^

To the above, which is a great read, it is interesting to see the involvement of Hillsdale College faculty. If you have not taken a look at the philosophical background of that school, you have missed out. Reading their monthly (free) newsletter Imprimus is something not to be missed. Readers are encouraged to do more research on this institution.


Willie

.

[Al Norris]

I've been a subscriber to Imprimus for years. And yes, I was surprised to see 4 of the amici as being Hillsdale professors.

A question that came to my mind, when reading the anti-history was, when will the anti-gunners realize that they cannot hope to win by re-litigating Heller? <- rhetoric. I already know the answer.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I already know the answer.

So do I.

[CowTowner]

^^^^^^^^ Now that's funny right there!

[Al Norris]

The argument date, but not time, has been set.

08/15/2012 108 CASE CALENDARED for oral argument. Date: 10/24/2012. Registration Time: 8:45 - 9:00. Daily Arguments Begin: 9:30. [12-1437] (JLC)

08/15/2012 109 ORAL ARGUMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Appellees Second Amendment Foundation, inc. and Raymond Woollard. Counsel arguing: Alan Gura Answering argument time: 20 minutes [998916682] [12-1437] Alan Gura

[Al Norris]

The State has filed its reply brief, thus ending the briefing stage. We now await for the oral arguments to be heard in the last week of October.

So what is my overall impression?

Give them credit for mis-characterizing what Justice Scalia actually wrote in Heller. That was as skillful as anything I've read from the VPC.

The level of outrage (AKA righteous indignation) that anyone would attempt to deny their stance, was apparent from the beginning to the end.

Oh! and they led off with the Long Gun carry right out of the gate! Of course, our side got it all wrong and never addressed any of the "substantive" reasonings of the State. Um, nor did our sides amici.

The arguments start at pp 10 of the PDF and end at pp 37.

[Aguila Blanca]

I didn't get beyond the first paragraph. What a transparent bucket of hogwash.

Paraphrased: The law doesn't in any way regulate the carrying of handguns for self-defense, anyone can do so who obtains a permit. And our permit system is available to anyone who can show a demonstrable need to carry a gun, so what's the problem?

Never mind that the requirement to demostrate a need IS the problem ...

[SilverBulletZ06]

As I am reading:

You can carry.. in your home, therefore there is no problem.
If I were to say you could vote in your home but it wouldn't effect elections would that count too?


I see that Heller's in the home bit is coming back with a vengeance. Then in the next pages they go to speak about the 2A right, which is italicized for emphasis. The RIGHT was "to wear, bear, or carry in case of confrontation" and never have the limits of "in the home" ever attached to it.

[maestro pistolero]

The RIGHT was "to wear, bear, or carry in case of confrontation" and never have the limits of "in the home" ever attached to it.

I hope it is an acerbic Justice Scalia who pens the opinion where that ridiculous notion is buried forever.

[Luger_carbine]

If the 7th Cir comes out with their opinion on Moore and they find for the plaintiff (Moore), couldn't that case impact this?

It wouldn't have to go to SCOTUS unless there were split circuit decisions right?

[Al Norris]

A 7th Circuit decision in the Moore/Shepard cases, whichever way it decides, will affect what the 4th Circuit might decide.

Judge Posner was the presiding Judge of the panel. If he writes the decision, it will be doubly important. He is highly regarded amongst judicial circles.

As for the SCOTUS taking a case, yes it helps if there is a split in the circuits. That's because they simply can't have the (case) law say one thing in one circuit and say the opposite in another.

Another factor is that the Supreme Court is a bit more deferential if the party asking for cert is the State.

[Al Norris]

Oral arguments are being held, as I type.

Here is a draw of the panel:

Judge King - Clinton
Judge Davis - Obama
Judge Diaz - Obama

Not the best draw of judges, but at least, Judge King is the presiding Judge.

While I'm waiting for some reports from some friends in MD, here are a couple of articles that are out:

Appeals court to consider making it easier to carry handguns in Maryland - Washington Post

Gansler to defend Maryland’s concealed-carry gun law - Washington Times

More later, as it is reported.