Maryland gun law found unconstitutional

[Little-Acorn]

Occasionally a ray of sunshine breaks through the gray clouds of government restriction.

The 2nd amendment says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted.

And somebody noticed!

Now if only they would notice a few other things... like the 2nd amendment does NOT say "unless some government official thinks we'd be safer if we were restricted".

And if those government officials are really unhappy about such facts, perhaps they could console themselves with the knowledge that, when criminals know their victims might be armed, they often don't commit their crimes in the first place.

But that might be asking too much.

This is not a bad first step, though, especially for Maryland.

-----------------------------------------------

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/

Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional

March 5, 2012 12:29 PM

BALTIMORE (AP) — 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. He says it isn’t sufficiently tailored to the state’s public safety interests.

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

The lawsuit, which names the state police superintendent and members of the Handgun Permit Review Board, was also filed on behalf of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

[SassyLady]

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

The lawsuit, which names the state police superintendent and members of the Handgun Permit Review Board, was also filed on behalf of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

So, waiting until one has been threatened in incidents beyond one's residence just might be too late to obtain a permit. Why do I have to wait until someone tries to kill me before I can have permission to carry an item of self-defense.

Isn't this the way the drug cartels have gained control of Mexico? They don't allow their citizens to carry guns, therefore, the cartels know they can slaughter the citizens like sheep.

[Little-Acorn]

Text of the judge's decision can be found here:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.52.0.pdf


If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. 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.

In other words, the government is not allowed to assume the citizen is guilty until the citizens proves to the govt that he is innocent. The gvot is the one that must do the proving, before it can declare that a citizen is not allowed to keep or bear arms.

It's a good first step. Next, we'll need a case where the judge examines whatever reasons the govt uses to deny a law-abiding citizen a permit... and decides that those reasons aren't good enough to take away the citizen's 2nd amendment rights.

And then another, etc.

[SassyLady]

Text of the judge's decision can be found here:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.52.0.pdf



In other words, the government is not allowed to assume the citizen is guilty until the citizens proves to the govt that he is innocent. The gvot is the one that must do the proving, before it can declare that a citizen is not allowed to keep or bear arms.

It's a good first step. Next, we'll need a case where the judge examines whatever reasons the govt uses to deny a law-abiding citizen a permit... and decides that those reasons aren't good enough to take away the citizen's 2nd amendment rights.

And then another, etc.

Feels like turning the Titanic around doesn't it? Glad to see there is still some good common sense somewhere.

[ConHog]

Good ruling. I'm all in on requiring testing and such before allowing folks to carry concealed weapons. But I don't think a person should owe anyone an explanation of why they want to.

[Little-Acorn]

Good ruling. I'm all in on requiring testing and such before allowing folks to carry concealed weapons. But I don't think a person should owe anyone an explanation of why they want to.

I'm all for the govt trying to find a reason to deny me a permit to carry a gun... subject to a court's deciding whether that exception is permitted under the 2nd amendment.

Can you figure out the difference between what I said and what you said?

[ConHog]

I'm all for the govt trying to find a reason to deny me a permit to carry a gun... subject to a court's deciding whether that exception is permitted under the 2nd amendment.

Can you figure out the difference between what I said and what you said?

Don't try to play semantics with me. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Having to prove you are sane and can handle a weapon is not even close to the same thing as having to prove you need that weapon.

Surely you recognize that in the 1770s every man knew how to handle a weapon so there was no question of untrained idiots carrying just because they could, and certainly we have that problem today.

[logroller]

Feels like turning the Titanic around doesn't it? Glad to see there is still some good common sense somewhere.
I wouldn't say they're turning it around, more like admonishing them for saying their ship is unsinkable. :laugh:


I'm all for the govt trying to find a reason to deny me a permit to carry a gun... subject to a court's deciding whether that exception is permitted under the 2nd amendment.

Can you figure out the difference between what I said and what you said?

oohooh, I can... one needn't qualify for a rightful activity; the onus is upon government to justify why it is not infringement.

[Little-Acorn]

Don't try to play semantics with me.
(presses conhog's puffed-out chest gently back into place)


Having to prove you are sane and can handle a weapon is not even close to the same thing as having to prove you need that weapon.
True. And not having to prove a damned thing, but leaving it up to the govt to prove I'm not sane (if they can), is not the same thing as either of those things you said. And is different in MAJOR ways, not just a difference in semantics.

And it is my ultimate goal.

I'm willing to get there in little steps, but only because I don't believe this country can make the jump from the present unconstitutional treatment of the people's RKBA, to fully constitutional treatment, in one step.

First step is what this judge in Maryland just said: The citizen doesn't have to prove he has a special need for a weapon. The govt has to prove there's a good reason to deny him one.

Second step, is when judges start looking at the reasons the govt comes up with, to deny citizens their right to carry... and starts ruling that the govt's reasons are not adequate. The govt might say that since a guy has children in his house, that's too dangerous an environment for the govt to "let" him own a gun. And the judge says, Sorry, Mr. Govt Official, you haven't proven a great enough danger... because the 2nd amendment's guarantee of his right, is a legal statement that he IS responsible enough to keep his gun out of the hands of curious little kids in ordinary living situations, so you cannot deny him a permit on those grounds.

You see where this is going. EVERY must be permitted to own and carry, except those CONVICTED of abuse of a weapon, CONVICTED of unlawful assault and battery, CONVICTED of murder, robbery, etc., crimes serious enough to justify taking away his right to own and carry.

And it's up to the Government to PROVE the citizen has a serious conviction like that. (A conviction for jaywalking isn't serious enough).

Surely you recognize that in the 1770s every man knew how to handle a weapon so there was no question of untrained idiots carrying just because they could, and certainly we have that problem today.[/QUOTE]

[pegwinn]

Good ruling. I'm all in on requiring testing and such before allowing folks to carry concealed weapons. But I don't think a person should owe anyone an explanation of why they want to.

I think you need to restate your position. It sounds like you approve of the .gov taking a role to control how you or I exercise our rights.


Don't try to play semantics with me. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Having to prove you are sane and can handle a weapon is not even close to the same thing as having to prove you need that weapon.

Surely you recognize that in the 1770s every man knew how to handle a weapon so there was no question of untrained idiots carrying just because they could, and certainly we have that problem today.

Actually it should be the government proving I am not sane. And, since the literal words read "shall not be infringed" I'd say that even then they are skating on thin ice as it were.

Your last paragraph is historically inaccurate. Most of the people didn't have guns. Knives and other edged/pointy weapons were far more prevalent than actual firearms. And, I'd bet that most of those with guns were not formally trained other than daddy telling junior not to pull the curvy thang whilst pointing it at ones foot.

[darin]

It's a similar problem with driving. IF government testing proved competency we'd kill millions fewer of population with automobiles.

There's no test for good judgement in every situation. Even those most-familiar with rules of engagement go nuts sometimes (see murder trials of Soldiers, etc).