Links are mentioned in the MD thread, but for those who want to read right away, here's the ruling:
Federal judge rules MD's "good and substantial reason" requirement to obtain a concealed handgun permit is unconstitutional. Granted summary judgement to plaintiff Wollard.
A thread is already going on the MD page here, but I thought mention should be made here on the VA page.
Last edited by markand; 03-05-2012 at 03:28 PM.
I saw nothing in the ruling that would stay it pending appeal. Does that mean residents AND non-residents can now apply to MD without getting denied over the "good and sufficient" reason requirement?
Perhaps some of our legal experts can shed some light.
A "CONCEALED" handgun permit for MARYLANDISTAN on an OPEN CARRY forum in the VIRGINIA thread.. Peter.. say it for me..
VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
- - - -
For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)
The first step in changing Maryland from a de facto "no issue" state into a real-life "shall issue" state is something that merits reporting, even on a Virginia, Open Carry forum.
IMHO, of course.
Note that the permit is simply to carry a handgun. The permit is required without regard to the mode of carry, just like in Tennessee or Georgia.
Congratulations to the few that are trying to regain their rights but I have my own battles here.
After the discussions today with BillB , I'm just not real sympathetic to other states or a lot of their residents.
I see two types moving to Virginia. (One of my quaint stories)
God created an entire country that was covered with beautiful woodlands and rivers.
Some States residents discovered it was fun to cut trees for no reason other than the fun of cutting trees. They were piled to rot and pollute the waterways.
The Residents started hating the sight of rotting trees and the taste of polluted water, so they moved to the next state.
Some got to their new home and said "Look at all the beautiful trees. Lets keep it that way".
And some said "look at all the beautiful trees, where's my chainsaw".
In the meantime there are a few in the first state trying to replant and clean up.
That's admirable but I have enough to do trying to keep their castoffs from destroying my back yard.
How soon can they carry? Also what does this mean for VA CHP holders, could we possible be on the list for state honor?
How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?
In general, it is good news in that it is a step forward. Certainly a small victory for those in MD.
"When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."
Here's the Gem of the Day:
Page 19 of the opinion, in explaining why the State of Maryland's reasons provided were insufficient to support their "good and substantial reason" requirement for granting a carry permit:
"The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve."
A classic line that could be used to describe nearly every law ever conceived to control the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens!
It is very refreshing to see a court recognize this inherent weakness in a gun-control law. Hopefully future courts will be quick to use this same line of reasoning as they strike down other ridiculous gun-control laws as well!
Here's the full context of the Gem of the Day (with certain interesting parts bolded for effect):
Rather, the regulation at issue is a rationing system. It aims, as Defendants concede, simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home by limiting the privilege to those who can demonstrate "good reason" beyond a general desire for self-defense. In support of this limitation, Defendants list numerous reasons why handguns pose a threat to public safety in general and why curbing their proliferation is desirable. For example, they argue that an assailant may wrest a handgun away from its owner, and cite evidence that this possibility imperils even trained police officers. See Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J. 15, Docket No. 26. They note that when a police officer is engaged in a confrontation with a criminal, the presence of an armed civilian can divert the officer‘s attention. Id. at 16. In addition, Defendants urge that while most permit holders are law-abiding, there is no guarantee that they will remain so. They cite studies purporting to show that the majority of murderers have no previous felony conviction that would have prevented them from obtaining a permit. Id. at 35. Thus, they argue, a permitting scheme that merely denies permits to convicted felons is inadequate.
These arguments prove too much. While each possibility presents an unquestionable threat to public safety, the challenged regulation does no more to combat them than would a law indiscriminately limiting the issuance of a permit to every tenth applicant. The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve. Maryland‘s "good and substantial reason" requirement will not prevent those who meet it from having their guns taken from them, or from accidentally shooting themselves or others, or from suddenly turning to a life of crime. Indeed, issuing permits specifically to those applicants who can demonstrate an increased likelihood that they may need a firearm would seem a strange way to allay Defendants‘ fear that "when handguns are in the possession of potential victims of crime, their decision to use them in a public setting may actually increase the risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others." Id. at 15. If anything, the Maryland regulation puts firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation by limiting the issuance of permits to "groups of individuals who are at greater risk than others of being the victims of crime." Id. at 40.
Last edited by TFred; 03-06-2012 at 12:52 AM.
Certified Glock Armorer
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. --- Thomas Jefferson
This "victory" is really only half a loaf. In it all bearing of arms outside the home is treated with intermediate scrutiny. If Maryland had intelligent litigators and wanted to keep as much anti-gun power as they could, they would not challenge this ruling. Of course we know that the political morons that run Maryland will direct their lawyers to appeal.
Last edited by Thundar; 03-06-2012 at 09:22 AM.
He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty
The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776
There's just no accounting for legislating hate:
Legislative committee chairs weigh in on Md. handgun permit ruling
As quoted in the earlier WaPo article:A ruling by a federal judge loosening handgun restrictions in Maryland has drawn different reactions from the chairmen of the two General Assembly committees that take up gun-related bills, with one of the legislators blasting the decision and the other reconsidering his position on a restriction that gun rights advocates have long sought to repeal.
Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said Tuesday that the decision is “dangerous.”
“It’s a very radical decision, and I doubt that it will be sustained on appeal,” Frosh said. “I think we have a policy in Maryland that is safe and sane, and the idea that the presumption would be that anyone who wants wants one can walk around with a gun strapped to his hip or her hip is a dangerous one,” Frosh said.
The consequences of legislating on the basis of hate:“This is a potentially very dangerous decision,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supported the state in the lawsuit. “People of Maryland have right to decide who can carry loaded guns in the public places that we all enjoy.”
“I don’t think this is a decision that will enhance public safety,” said Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “It will more likely harm public safety.”
Shame on all you Hoplophobes. That includes you, Dick and Janet.During a Feb. 21 hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, dozens of gun rights advocates crowded the committee room to testify about the difficulty of obtaining a permit to carry a gun in Maryland.
Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil), the lead sponsor of one of the bills, argued that the ability to carry a gun is an “unalienable right that comes from God” and grilled Maryland State Police Lt. Jerry Beason about the necessity of the “good and substantial reason” clause. Beason conceded that the phrase is “impossible” to define.
“Shame on the state of Maryland,” Smigiel said.