{"id":293,"date":"2012-04-04T17:26:40","date_gmt":"2012-04-04T17:26:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=293"},"modified":"2012-04-04T17:26:40","modified_gmt":"2012-04-04T17:26:40","slug":"maryland-to-appeal-the-ruling-in-woollard-v-sheridan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=293","title":{"rendered":"Maryland to appeal the ruling in Woollard v. Sheridan"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

Maryland Attorney General Gansler<\/p><\/div>\n

As expected, the Maryland Attorney General’s office has filed a timely notice of appeal<\/a> in the case of Woollard v Sheridan<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The state had signalled their intention to appeal in a Motion For Immediate Stay Pending Appeal <\/a>which they filed on March 7th, only days after Judge Legg’s ruling came down.<\/p>\n

On March 30th, Judge Legg granted a\u00a0temporary stay<\/a> of the ruling in order for both parties to submit briefs regarding the request for a permanent stay. \u00a0The temporary stay order requires the state to file their first brief by April 19th. \u00a0The plaintiffs will have until May 9th to respond and the state will then have until\u00a0May 23rd to submit their final brief. \u00a0I will share these briefs with you and comment upon the arguments made therein as they are filed with the court.<\/p>\n

After May 23rd, Judge Legg will rule on whether or not a permanent stay is appropriate. \u00a0Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c)<\/a>, a court “may\u00a0<\/strong>suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on … terms that secure the opposing party’s rights.” \u00a0In their motion, the state cites Goldstein v. Miller<\/em>[1. \u00a0Goldstein v. Miller, 488 F. Supp. 156, 172-73 (D. Md.\u00a01980)] for the proposition that a stay should be granted pending an appeal “when the equities of the case suggest that the\u00a0status quo should be maintained.\u201d<\/p>\n

In support of their argument that the status quo should be maintained in regards to Maryland’s draconian discretionary permitting scheme, the state cites to the dicta by Judges Wilkinson and Duffy from the 2011 4th Circuit case\u00a0United States v. Masciandaro<\/a><\/em>.[2. \u00a0United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d. 458, 475 (4th Cir. 2011)]<\/p>\n

In Masciandaro<\/em>, the majority held that “the general preexisting\u00a0right to keep and bear arms for participation in militias, for\u00a0self-defense, and for hunting is thus not strictly limited to the\u00a0home environment but extends in some form to wherever\u00a0those activities or needs occur.” \u00a0However, Judges Wilkinson and Duffy, while concurring in the holding, dissented on this point, stating\u00a0\u201c[w]e\u00a0do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem\u00a0because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment\u00a0rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was this dicta from\u00a0Masciandaro <\/em>that the state quoted in their motion, implying that there would be “significant adverse consequences for public safety” if the stay were not granted. \u00a0The state is effectively arguing that citizens of Maryland, who\u00a0are not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm and who are capable of passing a background check in order to receive a permit to carry a handgun for self defense purposes,\u00a0are somehow far more likely to commit “unspeakably tragic act[s] of mayhem”\u00a0than the citizens of the 42 states which do not have such restrictions on permit issuance.<\/p>\n

For those who are unfamiliar with the holding in Woollard<\/em>, it was a challenge to Maryland’s requirement that an applicant for a handgun [carry] permit demonstrate a subjective\u00a0\u201cgood and substantial reason.\u201d \u00a0Judge Legg’s resulting opinion contained several important holdings.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most\u00a0portentous, Judge Legg joined with the majority in\u00a0Masciandaro <\/em>in holding\u00a0that “the right to bear arms is not limited to the\u00a0home.”<\/p>\n

Secondly, Judge Legg held that, while permit requirements to carry firearms outside the home are ‘presumptively lawful’ as noted in Heller<\/em>, such presumptions are challengeable under “a heightened standard of review.”<\/p>\n

In reviewing (and ultimately striking down portions of) Maryland’s discretionary scheme under such a standard, he cited the 1995 4th Circuit case of\u00a0Chesapeake B & M, Inc. v.\u00a0Harford Cnty<\/em>[3. \u00a0Chesapeake B & M, Inc. v. \u00a0Harford Cnty., 58 F.3d 1005, 1009 (4th Cir. 1995)].<\/p>\n

A licensing or permitting scheme is unconstitutional when characterized by \u201cunbridled discretion\u201d of a government official or agency, which exists \u201cwhen a licensing scheme does not impose adequate standards to guide the licensor\u2019s discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Woollard moves through the appeals process, I would like to believe that we will soon see an end to the “unbridled discretion” that is may-issue across the country.<\/p>\n

UPDATE:<\/strong>\u00a0 The state has filed their first brief<\/a> and\u00a0Plaintiffs have filed their response brief<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As expected, the Maryland Attorney General’s office has filed a timely notice of appeal in the case of Woollard v Sheridan. The state had signalled their intention to appeal in a Motion For Immediate Stay Pending Appeal which they filed … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25,36,55,75,85,86,90],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-concealed-carry","category-gun-control","category-maryland","category-permit-requirements","category-saf-litigation","category-second-amendment-case-law","category-state-laws"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}