Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal Judge in Maryland rules Gun Law Unconstitutional

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Federal Judge in Maryland rules Gun Law Unconstitutional

    .

    Great quote:

    "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...onstitutional/



    .
    Federal judge says gun owners need not provide 'good reason,' rules Maryland law unconstitutional

    Published March 05, 2012

    | FoxNews.com

    BALTIMORE – Maryland residents do not have to provide a "good and substantial reason" to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state's requirements for getting a permit.

    U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland's objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting to own a gun.

    "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

    Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002, but was denied a renewal in 2009 because he could not show he had been subject to "threats occurring beyond his residence."

    Woollard appealed, but his appeal was rejected by the review board, which found he hadn't demonstrated a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution. The suit filed in 2010 claimed that Maryland didn't have a reason to deny the renewal and wrongly put the burden on Woollard to show why he still needed to carry a gun.

    "People have the right to carry a gun for self-defense and don't have to prove that there's a special reason for them to seek the permit," said his attorney Alan Gura, who has challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago as an attorney with the Second Amendment Foundation. "We're not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there's a right to bear arms."

    In his ruling, Legg wrote that Second Amendment protections aren't limited to the household.

    "In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment's protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and 'self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be,'" Legg wrote.

    "Judge Legg's ruling takes a substantial step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights and provides gun owners with another significant victory," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one's doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be."

    The lawsuit names the state police superintendent and members of the Handgun Permit Review Board as defendants. A spokesman from Maryland's attorney general's office was not immediately available to comment.

    Many states require gun permits, but six states, including Maryland, issue permits on a discretionary basis, Gura said. In most of those states, these challenges have not succeeded in U.S. District Courts, but they are being appealed, he said.

    "Most states that choose to regulate the right to bear arms have licensing systems that are objective and straightforward," Gura said. "That's all that we want for Maryland."
    .
    .

  • #2
    Good. If this is upheld, I wonder if we'll start to see the end of the "may issue" policy.
    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
    -Chris Rock

    Comment


    • #3
      Hell, yeah. One for the good guys.
      The All New
      2013
      BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
      Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
      - M1Garand

      (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



      Comment


      • #4
        It doesn't seem to matter what SCOTUS or other courts rule. If a city (or county) doesn't want them, they can and will just make you jump through 100 channels to get one. They'll just permit you and tax you to death.. then make you go to school to understand it... then register for something else.

        See how DC is doing since the courts ruled against them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Here are other articles. They contain some additional info.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...osR_story.html

          http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bre...,6504189.story
          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jannino View Post
            It doesn't seem to matter what SCOTUS or other courts rule. If a city (or county) doesn't want them, they can and will just make you jump through 100 channels to get one. They'll just permit you and tax you to death.. then make you go to school to understand it... then register for something else.

            See how DC is doing since the courts ruled against them.
            DC is actually removing some of the road blocks, due (IMO) a series of articles by Washington Times reporter Emily Miller. The articles detail her efforts to purchase a handgun for personal protection in the District.

            Never the less, I agree that some cities and politicians will do what ever they can to limit the sale of legal guns to their serfs -ahem- citizens.
            There are basically two kinds of people in this world. Those that believe in the moon landing and those that don't.
            http://unistat76.blogspot.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              Good ruling. One for the good guys, indeed. Next.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have never understood why Maryland was so stingy with the permits. As long as they are doing good background checks and the permits are for concealed only there should be no problems. I have never been a fan of open carry.

                I think Maryland should also make it a law if person who is carrying is stopped by police he or she shall notify the officer that they are carrying and display there permit card. It would make it a lot easier. I have ran into a couple situations concerning that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Now if there was anything at all that could be done to overturn the assault weapons bans in CA, CT, MA, NJ, and NY. But I don't see that happening
                  "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
                  -Chris Rock

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Unistat View Post
                    DC is actually removing some of the road blocks, due (IMO) a series of articles by Washington Times reporter Emily Miller. The articles detail her efforts to purchase a handgun for personal protection in the District.

                    Never the less, I agree that some cities and politicians will do what ever they can to limit the sale of legal guns to their serfs -ahem- citizens.
                    I wouldn’t bet on DC making any speedy headway in opening up the door to concealed permits given the obtuse position espoused by Deputy Mayor Quander at a recent community meeting in which he said it is better to be robbed, scared and even hurt.

                    http://forums.officer.com/showthread...end-themselves
                    Originally posted by SSD
                    It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
                    Originally posted by Iowa #1603
                    And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      sigpic
                      Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun.
                      And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MDPOLICE View Post
                        I think Maryland should also make it a law if person who is carrying is stopped by police he or she shall notify the officer that they are carrying and display there permit card. It would make it a lot easier. I have ran into a couple situations concerning that.
                        No. Why create a threat when there isn't one. Or the other mindset is that they are all a threat until proven otherwise. Either way, them obeying the law should not open them up to possible harassment when there's no need. Not saying that would be the norm, but every agency has those officers that don't like citizens carrying.

                        GA has no such requirement although it is my personal policy to notify them if I am asked to step out of the car. I do also understand that there are different parts of the country that aren't used to dealing with law abiding armed citizens.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Personally I don't believe it to harassment but common courtesy. It is just a simple as displaying a drivers license on the traffic stop. Alaska has a similar law and its seems to work just fine. I have come across those who carry legally. Its a quick look of there card and the traffic stop has gone on as normal. Just as same during a field interview. Never had a negative comment about it from anyone.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MDPOLICE View Post
                            Personally I don't believe it to harassment but common courtesy. It is just a simple as displaying a drivers license on the traffic stop. Alaska has a similar law and its seems to work just fine. I have come across those who carry legally. Its a quick look of there card and the traffic stop has gone on as normal. Just as same during a field interview. Never had a negative comment about it from anyone.
                            And I'm sure that the majority of encounters would end that way. I believe TN also has some type of notification. What is the reason you need to know if they have a permit? Would it change how you handle the stop? You're stopping them for a traffic violation.. you can obviously ask any questions you want, but you shouldn't need any more info than is needed to make sure they're on the road legally and you're able to identify them to issue a ticket.

                            You're suggesting that we infringe upon someone's right for the sake of officer convenience. But that's not the point of the thread so let me get back in my lane.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              .

                              Here's some great quotes from the judge and others. This should help a lot if it can be kept as precedent and not overturned.



                              http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...or-ccw-and-saf



                              ‘The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home..’—Judge Benson E. Legg


                              “The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one’s doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be.”—Alan Gottlieb


                              “A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.”—Judge Benson E. Legg


                              “In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”—Judge Benson E. Legg


                              "Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. [E]ven the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner." —Judge Benson E. Legg


                              .

                              Comment

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4876 users online. 142 members and 4734 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                              Working...
                              X