Jim675
Founder's Club Member
A Federal judge for the Maryland District just shot down the State's requirement for a "good and substantial" reason to grant a CC permit. This is good. Except for one little quibble.
This Maryland DC decision, building off of Heller and McDonald, still stresses that the right to be armed as "most notably in the home". I think this is a logic flaw that will eventually be dropped.
I understand the common reasoning that as we mingle in public our rights bump into the rights of others more often. However, since there's no Right to Feel Safe [SUP]TM[/SUP], I do not believe that a properly holstered handgun does violate the rights of others.
The "in the home" part is wrong for several reasons:
It assumes that we are responsible for ourselves while at home, but not in public? Who, then, is directly and immediately responsible for me, personally, in my travels?
Can the police pay as much attention to my personal safety as I do? Nope.
Does it imply that if I go to my office or shopping, my kids to public school or library, that those places will provide protection at least equal to my personally-carried firearm? Of course they won't, and can't.
Or does it imply that home is more dangerous and therefore additional protection is warranted?
Isn't this similar to the old canard of "most accidents take place within 5 miles of home"? Just as baseless and for the same reason? Most of us spend more time at home then anywhere else. If you work at home, are retired, unemployed, or on a break from school this might be a very large percentage of the time. Even for most on the job workers its over half their time. And yet, only one in four crimes happen at home. Why can't I protect myself against the other 3/4s of crimes?
The gov provides lots of tips on safeguarding your home, block watch programs, neighborhood alerts, etc. And yet, for 3/4s of crime I'm defenseless in many cases because of state and local laws.
My wish to preserve my well-being is a constant in any lawful location I care to visit. If the gov or other actors can't take responsibility for my safety as I travel why should the gov limit my own ability to do so?
And in case I haven't mentioned it today, Alan Gura should be able to travel by crowd-surfing wherever he wishes to go.
This Maryland DC decision, building off of Heller and McDonald, still stresses that the right to be armed as "most notably in the home". I think this is a logic flaw that will eventually be dropped.
I understand the common reasoning that as we mingle in public our rights bump into the rights of others more often. However, since there's no Right to Feel Safe [SUP]TM[/SUP], I do not believe that a properly holstered handgun does violate the rights of others.
The "in the home" part is wrong for several reasons:
It assumes that we are responsible for ourselves while at home, but not in public? Who, then, is directly and immediately responsible for me, personally, in my travels?
Can the police pay as much attention to my personal safety as I do? Nope.
Does it imply that if I go to my office or shopping, my kids to public school or library, that those places will provide protection at least equal to my personally-carried firearm? Of course they won't, and can't.
Or does it imply that home is more dangerous and therefore additional protection is warranted?
Isn't this similar to the old canard of "most accidents take place within 5 miles of home"? Just as baseless and for the same reason? Most of us spend more time at home then anywhere else. If you work at home, are retired, unemployed, or on a break from school this might be a very large percentage of the time. Even for most on the job workers its over half their time. And yet, only one in four crimes happen at home. Why can't I protect myself against the other 3/4s of crimes?
The gov provides lots of tips on safeguarding your home, block watch programs, neighborhood alerts, etc. And yet, for 3/4s of crime I'm defenseless in many cases because of state and local laws.
My wish to preserve my well-being is a constant in any lawful location I care to visit. If the gov or other actors can't take responsibility for my safety as I travel why should the gov limit my own ability to do so?
And in case I haven't mentioned it today, Alan Gura should be able to travel by crowd-surfing wherever he wishes to go.
