Oral Arguments in the Woollard Case

12 thoughts on “Oral Arguments in the Woollard Case”

1. Audio should be posted in “48 hours.” Expect it Friday or Saturday.

   Preview: No judge adopts the other side’s view other than to flirt with the concept that the right to resist the british and the Klan only exists inside your home – maybe…

   -Gene

2. It’s a real pity Kagan wasn’t involved in a high-profile 2nd A. case before the coming election.

   1. Errr, I’d say that’s an “it depends”. She’s not allergic to guns (that’s been covered here, from her support of the HLS Shooting Club while dean to her hunting aspirations, all of which would be beyond improbable from the Wise Latina), so it might come down to her possibly positive views after being briefed vs. the terrific backlash she’d get if she took the “wrong” side.

3. Personally, basing the RKBA on Kagen is VERY Dangerous. She’ll just get her Marching Orders and Vote Against it. That’s part of the Reason that she was put in there. And why this “Unanimous” Approval w/o a Vote in the Senate really torques me.

   But Wollard will be decided in SCOTUS. If Alan loses at the lower level, he’ll just go forward. If Maryland loses, then they HAVE to go forward, or else they lose one of their Tools to keep the Masses in Check. Can’t have “We the People” telling their Political Masters that they are really just Employees, after all.

   But I wish Alan could put into his Arguments that ANY Fees for a CHP is the Functional Equivalent of a “Poll Tax”. Why should ANY U.S. Citizen be charged by the State to exercise ANY Right is beyond me.

   1. But I wish Alan could put into his Arguments that ANY Fees for a CHP is the Functional Equivalent of a “Poll Tax”. Why should ANY U.S. Citizen be charged by the State to exercise ANY Right is beyond me.

      Alan Gura tends to keep his cases very focused. This is a wise. How much, if anything, can be charged for a CHP is a topic for another, separate case, not this one.

4. Oh Maryland, MY Maryland…of course, you could de-rail this suit right now, the way DC could have with Heller by changing the provision in question while still making it practically impossible to get a CCW…but like DC, you won’t. Gura & Co. are counting on you to take the “morally pure” approach of no compromise, which I am sure was in the calculation to pick a test case in your state.

   And of course, if you win this round, which you very well may, I am sure all those involved will pat themselves on the back for a job well done protecting the citizens of Maryland from themselves.

   SUCKERS!!!!

   Thank you for your predictability.

   1. Gura & Co. are counting on you to take the “morally pure” approach of no compromise, which I am sure was in the calculation to pick a test case in your state.

      I’m almost certain that’s not the case, otherwise Gura & Co. would have picked near or total ban states like Hawaii, Illinois or New Jersey, or of course D.C. That’s because Maryland is probably the least obnoxious anti-state; in the case of CCW they actually do sometimes grant licenses when real need is demonstrated, and then take them away when they judge the need is over.

      Which makes this an infinitely better test case, since there are no facts to be argued about the plaintiff. Maryland did judge this citizensubject to be trustworthy to carry concealed, and therefore admits that its citizens can be trusted. The only argument is how much can they be trusted, and here the facts are not on their side (witness Clayton and company’s dismantling of Concealed Carry Killers (disclaimer, I was one of his research minions)) so it pretty much comes down to an interpretation of law.

      Which means this case will very likely tell us how close we are to Brown v. Board of Education in our particularly civil rights struggle.

      1. You are right. I am sure they took the best case they have. But I do think that they are counting on Maryland doing everything they can to fight it in court rather than change the law to, i dunno, grant this guy a license, or offer permanent renewal or something else that would derail-delay this case.

         1. Fortunately that doesn’t work in this sort of litigation, or so is my strong impression. The courts don’t want to waste their time getting caught up in a game of wack-a-mole.

      2. @Harold: This is incorrect.

         Gura and Co. *did* in fact bring challenges in multiple states and in multiple circuits including New Jersey. The aim was to get diverse opinions which would make bringing a case to the SCOTUS more likely.

         In addition to Woollard, there is Kachalsky v. Cacace in New York which is on appeal to the 2nd Circuit Ct of Appeals, the two Illinos cases (Shepherd and Moore) on appeal to the 7th Circuit, multiple California cases, and what was Muller v. Maenza in NJ. This last case is on appeal to the 3rd ciruit.

         1. Errr, I was more referring to the state’s perceived resistance; all of these states will obviously fight tooth and nail, and a circuit split may be needed to get this to the Supreme Court (and can’t hurt).

            Illinois could be the hardest one, since technically they don’t allow any citizenssubjects to carry concealed. NJ would be next; last time I checked it was said they had about 1,900 outstanding (compare to 12,000 in Maryland), all supposedly to people handling a lot of cash or the like (and then Hawaii and one would hope D.C. would fall in a like manner).

            The NY and California cases should be the easiest in establishing consistent criteria across the municipalities of the respective states (and then Massachusetts and perhaps NYC should be slam dunks).

            But without looking at the particulars of each case, just going by what I know of the law, Maryland is perhaps the only one that could clearly and cleanly establish shall issue as the law of the land. All the rest would probably allow a degree of discretion in the issuing authorities if the courts see fit.

      3. There is an SFA-backed case in NJ covering substantially the same material. Interestingly, NJ tried to moot the case by granting the lead plaintiff his carry permit.

Comments are closed.