Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional

"A federal judge has ruled that Maryland’s handgun permit law is unconstitutional.

"In an opinion filed Monday, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg says a requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun infringes their Second Amendment right to bear arms."

Full story: CBS Baltimore

You don't need to "show a good reason" to be allowed to exercise a constitutional right.
You get to exercise them for any reason, or no reason at all.

Imagine if you were required to show a good reason in order to be allowed to vote. Or to show a good reason in order to write an editorial for the newspaper. Or to show a good reason before being allowed to go to church.

It's enough to just say; because I want to do it, and it's my constitutional right.

Kudos to the Second Amendment Foundation, which continues their long string of successful gun law challenges.

[rehmwa 2]

Heard that story on the radio this morning. I was amazed that the restriction was EVER part of the law.

Glad a judge saw that and ruled for the favor of our rights to own property.

"just because I want one is 'good enough' for me"



"I'm sorry, you need a really good reason to buy those books, sir"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Glad a judge saw that and ruled for the favor of our rights to own property.

Though there are products one has to show a reason for, I agree that the 2nd amendment would be pretty clear that such a reason is not required for guns.

[wolfriverjoe 1,364]

Quote

Heard that story on the radio this morning. I was amazed that the restriction was EVER part of the law.

Glad a judge saw that and ruled for the favor of our rights to own property.

"just because I want one is 'good enough' for me"



"I'm sorry, you need a really good reason to buy those books, sir"

It isn't about ownership. It's about carry permits. Many of the states that had carry permit laws before the recent wave of new laws had "discretionary issue" permits. California, New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and a few others.

The issuing agency (usually local law enforcement like the sheriff or police chief) get to decide if you "deserve" a carry permit. They can deny you for any reason...

Or no reason.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It isn't about ownership. It's about carry permits. Many of the states that had carry permit laws before the recent wave of new laws had "discretionary issue" permits. California, New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and a few others.

I've heard the only way to get a carry in Westchester county (just north of NYC) is if you own a cash business. Almost impossible for anyone else.

We are all engines of karma

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It isn't about ownership. It's about carry permits. .

ah, my bad

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Heard that story on the radio this morning. I was amazed that the restriction was EVER part of the law.

Many states have had this restriction. This is the difference between what is called "may issue" and "shall issue".

The "may issue" states say that a local sheriff can decide for himself whether or not a person should be issued a permit. And since sheriffs vary widely in their personal beliefs, that leads to uneven processing of applications. Whether you get a permit or not depends upon in which county you live.

"Shall issue", on the other hand, says that if the applicant meets all of the criteria laid out by the state, then the sheriff MUST issue the permit. The local sheriff no longer has any personal input into the matter. And that means that processing is uniform statewide, and everyone gets the same consideration. And that's the way it should be.

So this lawsuit was about forcing Maryland to switch from the discriminatory and uneven may-issue process, to the uniform and non-discriminatory shall-issue. This is an improvement from the citizens of Maryland.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I've heard the only way to get a carry in Westchester county (just north of NYC) is if you own a cash business. Almost impossible for anyone else.

Yep, a lot of places have had laws like that. Protecting cash, or a person carrying cash, with a gun, is considered smart. But protecting everyday people who aren't carrying cash, isn't allowed. And how dumb is that? People are more important than money.

[rehmwa 2]

certainly that makes better sense in terms of equal treatment

I could just imagine if some of our own posters had the arbitrary authority to pick and choose just who gets to exercise certain rights.

simply enough, if you aren't a criminal or a loonie (demonstrated by convicted actions, not just some random number generator /future time machine concept) then everyone should have the same right in this regard

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[charlie5 0]

As an MD resident this makes me happy.

Just wonder if/when this change will actually take effect

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[vanair 0]

Smart, No. If I'm attacked no mater how much cash I have on me, it's not as valuable as my life. However, the logic is that someone carrying alot of cash or jewels is a far more likely a target. i.e. a jeweler leaving work.

[lawrocket 3]

I wonder whether gun laws will develop along the same lines as freedom of speech, wherein reasonable time, place and manner restrictions will be placed. Even though I’m a Second Amendment advocate, I can see good reasons for restricting a person’s right to carry a gun into a prison. I can even see good reasons for banning possession of firearms at schools. By students. (Sorry, kids don’t have the same rights as adults.). I can see limiting gun rights of felons, much like voting rights and even Fourth Amendment rights are limited.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wolfriverjoe 1,364]

Well, reasonable restrictions were noted in Heller.

The big problem is going to be defining "reasonable."

And usually the way it is defined is that the goverment makes a law, someone gets caught breaking and convicted, and then the appeals process runs it's course.

Which means some poor sap gets to be the "test subject."

There's an interesting grey area regarding the Post Office. Although Federal Laws are specific about committing crimes with weapons, there is a section permitting weapons on Post Office property "for lawful purposes."

The Postal authorities ignore the sections about "lawful purpose" when they post the Post Offices as "weapons prohibited."
Which is in direct violation of the law about not ignoring sections of the Federal code. (I have the sections numbers and exact wording in a book, but it's not close by right now and I don't feel like getting up )

I'm not willing to be the one to find out which way this would go in a court case. And until someone either makes a stupid mistake or is willing to be a martyr for the cause this will remain a grey area.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As an MD resident this makes me happy.

Just wonder if/when this change will actually take effect

As a resident of the nation's largest "may issue" state, I wonder how quickly it can get appealed or confirmed by a separate district court and encourage a review.

In California the criteria vary from county to county, and are determined by the Sheriff, an elected official. Politics trumps rights. Carrying cash isn't enough of a reason in most counties. (And it shouldn't be necessary to have that situation anyway)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Smart, No. If I'm attacked no mater how much cash I have on me, it's not as valuable as my life. However, the logic is that someone carrying alot of cash or jewels is a far more likely a target. i.e. a jeweler leaving work.

Yes, that's the thinking of the people that come up with those goofy laws. The problem is that the right to self-defense should not be contingent upon your odds of being attacked. EVERYONE should have the right to defend themself with armed force if they so choose, regardless of their odds of needing it, because no one ever has a guarantee of being completely safe. Crime can strike anyone, anywhere at any time.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The Postal authorities ignore the sections about "lawful purpose" when they post the Post Offices as "weapons prohibited."

Yes, which is rather odd since it's legal to ship long guns via U.S. Post Office. So you have to bring your firearm in a package and walk right past the "No Guns" signs on the front door. And then hope the heck the mail clerk knows it's legal, and doesn't call the cops. I had to stand there for about 15 minutes once while the clerk went in back and looked up the rules in a book. I kept expecting the SWAT team to appear...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

As a resident of the nation's largest "may issue" state, I wonder how quickly it can get appealed or confirmed by a separate district court and encourage a review.

In California the criteria vary from county to county, and are determined by the Sheriff, an elected official. Politics trumps rights. Carrying cash isn't enough of a reason in most counties. (And it shouldn't be necessary to have that situation anyway)

Make donations to the Second Amendment Foundation. They might be working on it as we speak. Even if the 9th Circuit (California) rejected the challenge, that would be okay at this point. Because then there would be differing rulings in two federal districts, which would make the issue ripe for clarification from the Supreme Court. And the pro-gun folks would win there.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I'm surprised that someone who has been a victim of a crime, hasn't filed a lawsuit against Maryland claiming they refused to issue a permit.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I've heard the only way to get a carry in Westchester county (just north of NYC) is if you own a cash business. Almost impossible for anyone else.

What, like drug dealing?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm surprised that someone who has been a victim of a crime, hasn't filed a lawsuit against Maryland claiming they refused to issue a permit.

The irony is that governments have immunity from prosecution for that type of thing - they have no duty or obligation to protect you. And yet these are the same folks denying citizens the means to protect themselves. Go figure!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm surprised that someone who has been a victim of a crime, hasn't filed a lawsuit against Maryland claiming they refused to issue a permit.

The irony is that governments have immunity from prosecution for that type of thing - they have no duty or obligation to protect you. And yet these are the same folks denying citizens the means to protect themselves. Go figure!

Then we are entering 14th Amendment territory, it seems.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It isn't about ownership. It's about carry permits.

2nd amendment is to keep and BEAR arms. So his comments still fit perfectly.

Change it to "You need a good reason to carry that book sir"

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

I'm surprised that someone who has been a victim of a crime, hasn't filed a lawsuit against Maryland claiming they refused to issue a permit.

The irony is that governments have immunity from prosecution for that type of thing - they have no duty or obligation to protect you. And yet these are the same folks denying citizens the means to protect themselves. Go figure!

And you can bet that they own guns or live in gated communities or even have armed guards to protect them, the hypocrites and liars. We've seen it before, we'll see it again.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."