Posted: 3/15/2006 6:51:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: They haven't been doing much in Maryland
|
I disagree: Taken from therre web site... "MARYLAND
Douglas J. Godesky (Maryland). He is an employee of the federal government. He was subjected to harsh discipline, namely, termination, on account of his membership in the NRA and because he is a gun owner. On June 11, 2004, the arbitrator ruled that "the Agency consciously disregarded previous disciplinary decisions of similarly situated employees." The arbitrator ordered that "the Grievant be reinstated to his position [and] ... awarded full back pay and benefits." He is pursuing EEOC, federal tort claims, and a Bivens action against the agency and individuals responsible.
Keith Barrett (Maryland). He is a Maryland State Trooper. He was charged with a violating a federal law that restricts possession of certain semiautomatic firearms to police officers. The law is unclear whether this applies to duty only or if it includes off duty status. On May 28, 2004, information was provided that Trooper Barrett has been reinstated and his record has been cleared.
David Pence v. Montgomery County (Maryland). This case involved the seizure of firearms from the victim of a home invasion. The police refused to return the firearms. To make matters worse, the firearms were destroyed after the filing of a lawsuit based on 42 U.S. Code § 1983. The lawsuit was filed on March 17, 2003. Mr. Pence's attorney advised on March 9, 2005, that Judge Dugan of the Montgomery County Circuit Court found that the county had denied Mr. Pence due process. The court did issue a judgment awarding Mr. Pence the value of his firearms. A valuation hearing was held following the decision. The judge did chide the county for failing to observe due process, for failing to grant a hearing, and for the county's actions on seizing, retaining, refusing to return, and eventually destroying property and never giving Mr. Pence an opportunity to be heard.
Maryland Gun Safety Act of 2000. Maryland enacted in 2000 a law requiring "Any manufacturer that ships or transports a handgun to be sold, rented, or transferred in the state shall include in the box with the handgun in a separate sealed container ... a shell casing of a projectile discharged from that handgun." A declaratory judgment action was filed to affirm that the law applies just where the legislature said it applies: to manufacturers. The court was asked to enjoin the state from enforcing its new mandate upon entities outside the scope of this law. Meaning of mechanical safety provision was challenged through a declaratory relief action. On April 27, 2004, a complaint for declaratory judgment was filed in the circuit court for Montgomery County. It is captioned James M. Purtilo v. Col. Thomas E. Hutchins, Secretary of Department of Maryland State Police. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed his opposition on September 7, 2004. A hearing occurred on December 9, 2004. The circuit court found that plaintiff suffered no harm and dismissed the lawsuit based on a lack of standing. The hearing results suggest that the plaintiff seek administrative redress first. Once administrative remedies have been exhausted, he could seek relief in court.
Krasner (Silverado Gun Show) v. Montgomery County (Md.). This is an effort by the county to shut down gun shows by prohibiting financial or in-kind support to any organization that allows gun shows. This prohibition applies to the fair grounds located within the City of Gaithersburg. The U.S. District Court granted injunctive relief based on the county's violation of the Tillie Frank state law. The court did not reach the 1st Amendment claims. The case is reported as Krasner v. Montgomery County, 166 F.Supp.2d 1058 (D.Md. 2001). The county appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. On April 1, 2003, the court sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue. The trial court still found standing to sue for two of the three plaintiffs. The county appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Oral argument occurred on December 1, 2004. The Court of Appeals held on March 11, 2005, that the gun show promoter and exhibitor have no standing to challenge a county law that denies public funding to venues that display and sell firearms.
Troy Bradley Brigance (Md.). He lives in a high crime area in Baltimore. Two drug dealers attempted to invade his home. Mr. Brigance showed up at the front window of his home holding a shotgun. The two men, who had up to that point been kicking and beating his front door, ran to a nearby police substation and claimed Mr. Brigance had for no reason aimed his shotgun at them. Mr. Brigance was arrested. Charges were dismissed on the day of trial when defense counsel was able to show one witness had used the name and address of a man who been dead for two years (the real complainant had outstanding felony arrest warrants), and the other complainant was being arraigned in the same courthouse, but different courtroom, on other charges. This information was provided on September 10, 2004.
Todd Lin Chow (Md.). On April 23, 2003, Todd Lin Chow, a District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Officer in good standing, met with his friend, Man Nguyen, in Maryland. Mr. Nguyen wanted to purchase a pistil from Officer Chow. It was decided that before any agreement to buy the pistol would be consummated and the terms of an agreement would be reached, Mr. Nguyen would first test-fire the pistol at a local shooting range. Subsequently, Mr. Nguyen was stopped by the police and the pistol was seized. Officer Chow was charged with transferring a pistil to a person other than a firearms dealer without first going through the application for transfer process with the Maryland State Police and receiving an approval. He was convicted. On June 2, 2005, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the conviction. The court held that a "transfer" under the statute includes a temporary transfer without consideration, that is, without payment of anything of value. There are a multitude of "temporary transfer" scenarios where the present decision in Chow will weigh against the everyday activities of firearm owners. A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in the Maryland Court of Appeals. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund filed a motion in support of certiorari on October 20, 2005.
National Capital Skeet & Trap Club, Inc. (Maryland). According to an August 1, 2005, letter this case involves a range and the use of environmental law to attempt to shut it down. The club operated a skeet and trap club on the same plot of land since 1954. In 1979 the Maryland Department of Natural Resources purchased the club's land, incorporating the parcel into Seneca Creek State Park. For a quarter-century thereafter the club operated under state supervision and control. Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc., want an order enjoining operation of the range, clean up and remediation of lead shot, imposition of civil penalties, and imposition of cost and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on February 25, 2005. The defendants are the club and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. "
|