Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Wollard v. Sheridan in Maryland

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Wollard v. Sheridan in Maryland

    Huge win for gun rights in Maryland.
    The 2nd amendment does not stop at your doorstep.
    Good cause is unconstitutional.

    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=395
    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member jim8588's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    14
    One can only hope that something like this ruling can make its way out west.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jim8588 View Post
    One can only hope that something like this ruling can make its way out west.
    It's not binding in Calif. courts. I'm sure it will come up in arguments.

    I may have to change my sig line.
    Last edited by Gundude; 03-05-2012 at 05:58 PM.
    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Judge Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

    If that isnt the best damn quote i've ever heard then I dont know what is.
    One might follow up the judge's well-reasoned finding with the question, "If carrying a concealed firearm is a right then why should any citizen who is lawfully exercising that right need the government's permission or have to pay a fee to the government to do so?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ed2276 View Post
    One might follow up the judge's well-reasoned finding with the question, "If carrying a concealed firearm is a right then why should any citizen who is lawfully exercising that right need the government's permission or have to pay a fee to the government to do so?"
    The court has recognized the governments right to tax rights. California is a right-to-fish state, but the courts have upheld the states right to visit fishing licenses upon citizens. In their final decision, the court likened the license fee to a tax

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    63
    For anyone who hasn't read the opinion, Judge Legg first establishes that 2nd Amendment cases should be decided using intermediate scrutiny (that the state must have an important interest and that the policy be written in such a way that is substantially related to that interest.) Legg establishes that the state has an important interest in protecting public safety, but finds that Maryland's law isn't substantially related to that interest. He compares the permitting process to randomly handing out a permit to every tenth applicant, which obviously doesn't advance the state's interest in keeping guns out of the hands of bad people.

    Of course, this has no direct bearing on CA as findings from different districts don't affect us. This ruling will only help us IF a contradictory ruling is made in our district, in which case the Supreme Court will be obliged to step in and resolve the contradiction.

    Anyone have a good CA lawsuit that can survive to the Ninth Circuit? =)

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    The court has recognized the governments right to tax rights. California is a right-to-fish state, but the courts have upheld the states right to visit fishing licenses upon citizens. In their final decision, the court likened the license fee to a tax
    when and what case was used to overturn Murdock v. commonwealth of pennsylvania?

    "The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control and suppress its enjoyment.... A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution....
    - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

  8. #8
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by DoomGoober View Post

    Anyone have a good CA lawsuit that can survive to the Ninth Circuit? =)
    http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/com...inalreply.html

    http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...ards_v._Prieto
    Last edited by cato; 03-06-2012 at 10:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •