maryland Law Unconstitutional

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...les-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/

SNIP

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.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...un-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oHhAdEra

Click to expand...

Should be interesting to see where things go from here.

...I hope "things" go to Hawaii: ANY kind of carrying is illegal due to HI being a MAY-issue state (with no OC allowed) but never issuing permits! So presently, HI citizens have no 2nd Amendment/RKBA rights past their front doors.

This ruling -- if upheld -- might FORCE HI to go SHALL-issue. Hopefully it's only a matter of time!

This is good news...

Not just HI, but any state where it's effectively impossible to carry. Southern Cali, NY, IL, etc.

Oh and could a mod change the title please. I meant to put "Maryland Gun Law Ruled Unconstitutional" and forgot the "Law" (and I somehow didn't capitalize Maryland).

Not surprisingly, MD is appealing the ruling and asking for a stay:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=46&sid=2773265

Dupe

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?100586-Judge-rules-for-the-2A

swinokur said:

Dupe

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?100586-Judge-rules-for-the-2A

Click to expand...

Not really. That's the Maryland specific forum, while I would say that this ruling is large enough to warrant a post in the national forum section. After all, this ruling has the potential to affect all Americans and not just those that live in/visit Maryland.

Using the new posts command would have shown the thread regardless of where it was posted.

swinokur said:

Using the new posts command would have shown the thread regardless of where it was posted.

Click to expand...

There's many things that one "could" do, but the fact is that many people don't do things such as the "new post" feature, or subscribe to threads, etc. Besides increased exposure to this ruling is a good thing.

cloudcroft said:

...I hope "things" go to Hawaii: ANY kind of carrying is illegal due to HI being a MAY-issue state (with no OC allowed) but never issuing permits! ...

Click to expand...

Never? Are you sure?

I would wager than there are many blood-sucking creature types in Hawaii with permits.

"many" = "poly"
"blood-sucking creature" = "tick"

Aknazer said:

Not really. That's the Maryland specific forum, while I would say that this ruling is large enough to warrant a post in the national forum section. After all, this ruling has the potential to affect all Americans and not just those that live in/visit Maryland.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is absoloutely correct. If this ruling is upheld on appeal, it could very well be the end of "May Issue" and "No Issue" nationwide. This case WILL effect the way DC, IL, NJ, MA, HI, RI, and NY issue their permits as well, and may very well FORCE DC and IL to allow carry.

Reciprocity is a different matter altogether, though, and is FAR outside the scope of this suit. One could only hope that once forced into going "Shall Issue" that the AGs of these criminal serfdoms would see the light, and work to establish reciprocity agreements with the other 44 states...

i'm not sure if this is a violation of the rules; i hope not

but one of my favorite websites for legal analysis of firearms and speech related issues is www.volokh.vom

prof. volokh is a highly respected ULCA Prof/Attorney and many other contributers are very well versed.

It leans libertarian as well, which is nice.

There is a thread discussing these legal issues there that is quite informative

If SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal after a 4th Circuit ruling or MD decides not to appeal to SCOTUS, it is only binding on the 4th Circuit, of which MD is the only May Issue state.

swinokur said:

If SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal after a 4th Circuit ruling or MD decides not to appeal to SCOTUS, it is only binding on the 4th Circuit, of which MD is the only May Issue state.

Click to expand...

While it might only be binding in the 4th other circuits could still quote it as a part of their arguement in order to show how other places have already ruled on the subject. And when there's conflicting rulings it will help to get it to the SCOTUS.

maryland ruling is so wrong

the recent ruling in Maryland is so bad that i do not know where to begin. lets make it simple. the federal government has no stature concerning states gun control laws. we do not want to go down that road. the second amendment does not apply to the states. it is perfectly clear in all of the literature and discussions of that day, that these items, bill of rights, constitution, etc were written to keep the "general" government, federal government for the newbies, in check. it was to insure that the sovereign states, countries, like Virginia, Maryland, New York, etc maintained their sovereignty. we do not want the federal government having any say in what gun laws a state has. yes the law is horrible, i do not go to Maryland for those reasons. but, it is marylands law and the feds have no right to interfere. if we let them continue down that road what else will the feds have to say about laws in each of our own states.
the bill of rights and the constitution in general is suppose to limit the federal government. read amendment 10 and the preamble to the bill of rights.

Interesting premise....13th Amendment?....18th?....19th?....21st?....24th?....26th?

In the abstract, you are correct, the less federal intervention into a state's affairs the better for that state's citizenry. However, it is unwise to read too little into the US Constitution and all of the jurisprudence since its inception. Also, there is not one state that does not look forward to a check from the federal treasury each month.

The US Constitution is the 'Law of the Land', not the 'Law of the Land, with exceptions.'

cwolfs69 said:

the recent ruling in Maryland is so bad that i do not know where to begin. lets make it simple. the federal government has no stature concerning states gun control laws. we do not want to go down that road. the second amendment does not apply to the states. it is perfectly clear in all of the literature and discussions of that day, that these items, bill of rights, constitution, etc were written to keep the "general" government, federal government for the newbies, in check. it was to insure that the sovereign states, countries, like Virginia, Maryland, New York, etc maintained their sovereignty. we do not want the federal government having any say in what gun laws a state has. yes the law is horrible, i do not go to Maryland for those reasons. but, it is marylands law and the feds have no right to interfere. if we let them continue down that road what else will the feds have to say about laws in each of our own states.
the bill of rights and the constitution in general is suppose to limit the federal government. read amendment 10 and the preamble to the bill of rights.

Click to expand...

Read the fourteenth amendment. It kills this arguement as it forces the restrictions that are placed on the federal government in regards to rights onto the states. Now if the 14th amendmend didn't exist you would be correct that the feds have no right getting involved, but due to the 14th this is one of the few situations where the feds should be involved.

cwolfs69 said:

the recent ruling in Maryland is so bad that i do not know where to begin. lets make it simple. the federal government has no stature concerning states gun control laws. we do not want to go down that road. the second amendment does not apply to the states. it is perfectly clear in all of the literature and discussions of that day, that these items, bill of rights, constitution, etc were written to keep the "general" government, federal government for the newbies, in check. it was to insure that the sovereign states, countries, like Virginia, Maryland, New York, etc maintained their sovereignty. we do not want the federal government having any say in what gun laws a state has. yes the law is horrible, i do not go to Maryland for those reasons. but, it is marylands law and the feds have no right to interfere. if we let them continue down that road what else will the feds have to say about laws in each of our own states.
the bill of rights and the constitution in general is suppose to limit the federal government. read amendment 10 and the preamble to the bill of rights.

Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment says otherwise. In other words, if Maryland wants to set up a dictatorship complete with full on censorship, gun bans, roadside executions, quartering government employees in your home against your will, genocide, all that, well, sorry, can't do that. States rights are not "everything", though they should be stronger in most cases than the Federal government's powers. Most cases, not all cases. The powers not ascribed to the Federal government are given to the states, however, the BOR are rights that the Federal government is charged with safekeeping. The 14th Amendment was put in place specifically to ensure that states did not abridge individual rights, as at the time states were quite keen to deny blacks their rights at whim, so blacks were "free" but had no rights whatsoever and were being pushed back into a condition resembling slavery without calling it slavery. By rights denied, I mean BOR rights, in fact the right of blacks to own firearms being denied was specifically referenced when passing the 14th.

Some have come to interpret the 10th amendment too broadly, and some too narrowly. It's a balance on the whole though. That's one of the intents of the 14th amendment, so that places like Hawaii couldn't ban guns and censor you and still call itself a state.

Aknazer said:

Read the fourteenth amendment. It kills this arguement as it forces the restrictions that are placed on the federal government in regards to rights onto the states. Now if the 14th amendmend didn't exist you would be correct that the feds have no right getting involved, but due to the 14th this is one of the few situations where the feds should be involved.

Click to expand...

Ah dang it, you beat me to the punch!

cwolfs69 said:

the recent ruling in Maryland is so bad that i do not know where to begin. lets make it simple. the federal government has no stature concerning states gun control laws. we do not want to go down that road. the second amendment does not apply to the states. it is perfectly clear in all of the literature and discussions of that day, that these items, bill of rights, constitution, etc were written to keep the "general" government, federal government for the newbies, in check. it was to insure that the sovereign states, countries, like Virginia, Maryland, New York, etc maintained their sovereignty. we do not want the federal government having any say in what gun laws a state has. yes the law is horrible, i do not go to Maryland for those reasons. but, it is marylands law and the feds have no right to interfere. if we let them continue down that road what else will the feds have to say about laws in each of our own states.
the bill of rights and the constitution in general is suppose to limit the federal government. read amendment 10 and the preamble to the bill of rights.

Click to expand...

The constitution protects the individual, not the state, from overbearing government of any kind. This is one place where, when the states, which have agreed to abide by the constitution of the US when they joined the Union, overstep their authority, the National governement must come in to remind them of what they subscribed to when they joined the Union.

I am strongly states rights, and I am strongly private property rights, and personal rights, but there are places and time when the government, State, Local or National can tread on those rights. (that is, they can condem and take you private property for a public project, like a road, an airport, or even a military base.) The Constitution says when that happens you must have "just compensation" (5A) are you against the ultimate court of reveiw being the national Supreme Court in these cases? Or how about the 1A?

The Federal Court does have standing when in comes to protecting the individual rights that were granted to all PEOPLE in the US through the "bill of rights", standing as to the state and local governments, as well as the National Government. You keep forgetting, the 2A is an "individual right". not a "state" right.

If you want to protest something, protest your state's treading on your own individual 2A right.

cwolfs69 said:

the recent ruling in Maryland is so bad that i do not know where to begin. lets make it simple. the federal government has no stature concerning states gun control laws. we do not want to go down that road. the second amendment does not apply to the states. it is perfectly clear in all of the literature and discussions of that day, that these items, bill of rights, constitution, etc were written to keep the "general" government, federal government for the newbies, in check. it was to insure that the sovereign states, countries, like Virginia, Maryland, New York, etc maintained their sovereignty. we do not want the federal government having any say in what gun laws a state has. yes the law is horrible, i do not go to Maryland for those reasons. but, it is marylands law and the feds have no right to interfere. if we let them continue down that road what else will the feds have to say about laws in each of our own states.
the bill of rights and the constitution in general is suppose to limit the federal government. read amendment 10 and the preamble to the bill of rights.

Click to expand...

Amendment 14 is later than amendment 10.

The above is anti gun screed dressed up as Neo-Confederate political ideology. You cannot be pro gun rights and pro 2A & have the above opinion that the states can abridge 2A rights.