Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Maryland Requirement for Gun-Carry Permit Upheld by 4th C. Court Appeals

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Maryland Requirement for Gun-Carry Permit Upheld by 4th C. Court Appeals

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-court-1-.html
    Maryland’s demand that a person who wants a permit to carry a gun outside the home show “good and substantial reason” for doing so was upheld by a U.S. appeals court as a constitutional public-safety measure.

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, today reversed a lower-court judge, who had found that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense extends beyond the home and that the state’s standard for granting a carry permit infringed on that right.
    http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/21/fou...-gun-carrying/

    UPDATE: The court claims that it’s not deciding whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in self-defense extends to carrying a gun outside the home. Rather, the court concludes that, even if such a right exists, Maryland’s licensing scheme — which requires a “good and substantial” reason for a license to carry and which doesn’t treat a general desire for self-defense as an adequate reason — passes intermediate scrutiny.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    519
    Dark day for MD residents. Hopefully there's some viable appeal path here.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would not worry .. it will be decided de novo by SCOTUS ... would have been nice ... but the traitors are identifying themselves

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Here is a link to the actual ruling...

    http://delegatemike.com/?p=3499
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    This is the fault of so called gun rights organizations that actually are privilege rights organizations. They have been pushing these schemes for so long they have become acceptable in place of rights.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Three black robed statists are strangling our constitutional rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This is the fault of so called gun rights organizations that actually are privilege rights organizations. They have been pushing these schemes for so long they have become acceptable in place of rights.
    You are so correct Walking Wolf.

    The District Court Judge was crystal clear. If concealed carry is the right, then it cannot be predicated upon a state approved justification. That the right exists is all the justification one needs.

    We should be very clear - open carry is the right concealed carry is a priveledge.

    The real issue is whether the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. (Bearing arms inside of ones home is not what the phrase bearing arms originally refered to) If it is a fundamental right, then the District Court Judge was correct. If 5 of the 9 black robed deciders again vote to supress constitutional rights, then there is no real right to bear arms. What would be left for bearing arms would be the sort of swiss cheese that we now have for the 4th A.

    This was indeed a dark day, as lady liberty weeps as the demonic statists cheer and rejoice.
    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

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    You are so correct Walking Wolf.

    The District Court Judge was crystal clear. If concealed carry is the right, then it cannot be predicated upon a state approved justification. That the right exists is all the justification one needs.

    We should be very clear - open carry is the right concealed carry is a priveledge.

    The real issue is whether the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. (Bearing arms inside of ones home is not what the phrase bearing arms originally refered to) If it is a fundamental right, then the District Court Judge was correct. If 5 of the 9 black robed deciders again vote to supress constitutional rights, then there is no real right to bear arms. What would be left for bearing arms would be the sort of swiss cheese that we now have for the 4th A.

    This was indeed a dark day, as lady liberty weeps as the demonic statists cheer and rejoice.
    It appears to me(IMO) considering the 4ths ruling in NC, they are saying it is ok for the state to require permission for a right, BUT if you chose to ignore that privilege you cannot be harmed by government unless you have committed a crime or are reasonably suspected of committing a crime.

    Seems to me a message is there within the two rulings. Carry and keep your big mouth shut, and stay out of trouble.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We should be very clear - open carry is the right concealed carry is a priveledge.
    No, open carry is a right and concealed carry is a right. But historically, you are correct.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  10. #10
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Given the makeup of the panel (1 Clinton appointee, 2 Obamas) this was not a total surprise. It was headed to Scotus anyway. Gura can ask for an 4CA En Banq rehearing or ask for Cert from SCOTUS He has already requested CERT from the 2CA crappy ruling in Kachalsky. That case is now ahead of Woolard and if CERT is granted and a good ruling from SCOTUS will most likely strike down the 4CA's even crappier decision.

    If CERT is granted to Kachalsky, I doubt Woolard will. The cases are very similar so a win for Kachalsky is probably going to be the winner for both.
    Last edited by swinokur; 03-23-2013 at 05:37 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204

    Not surprised

    The MD requirement (below), #6, is vague and arbitrary. There is no definition in the statutes so you would think the judges would have ruled the law unconstitutional, or sent it back for clarification. Apprehended danger usually means perceived danger. I would think the high crime rate in MD would be a good case for apprehended danger- obviously not.
    As a former MD native, this is one of the reasons I don't live there. I hope that SCOTUS does take this case when presented and finds in favor of the challengers.

    Requirements:
    1. Is 18 years of age or older.
    2. Has not been convicted of a felony or of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
    3. Has not been committed within the previous 10 years to any juvenile detention center for longer than one year.
    4. Is not an addict or alcoholic nor has ever been convicted of a narcotics offense.
    5. Has not, based on the results of investigation, exhibited a propensity for violence or instability.
    6. Has, based on the results of investigation, “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun, including a finding that the permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” [5]

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Given the makeup of the panel (1 Clinton appointee, 2 Obamas) this was not a total surprise. It was headed to Scotus anyway. Gura can ask for an 4CA En Banq rehearing or ask for Cert from SCOTUS He has already requested CERT from the 2CA crappy ruling in Kachalsky. That case is now ahead of Woolard and if CERT is granted and a good ruling from SCOTUS will most likely strike down the 4CA's even crappier decision.

    If CERT is granted to Kachalsky, I doubt Woolard will. The cases are very similar so a win for Kachalsky is probably going to be the winner for both.
    People get too excited about these lower court rulings when we all know that some will go all the way to SCOTUS. Indeed, many of the laws and bills that likely will be laws that trample on our 2nd amendment rights should be welcome to have the upper court either: a) clarify or rights or b) trample on them

    Then we can decide what actions are needed, if any.

    It is nice to see courts rule in our favor but also good to know who the traitors are as well. I say traitors for lack of a more appropriate term as I think SCOTUS has already clearly outlined what arms are covered and the manner in which we can utilize them...and those that rule/pass laws contrary to what is right, are traitors.

  13. #13
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Does MD allow/legal for open carry without a permit?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  14. #14
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Does MD allow/legal for open carry without a permit?
    As I understand it - most definitely not. Without a permit there are only "narrow exceptions," for where you can take a firearm in your possession like to a range or gunsmith. The gun must be unloaded and locked at all times.

    Someone correct me on this, but I also believe Maryland's preemption law is also just as vague. I think local authorities could revoke a permit for OC if you happen to have a permit. You can't carry at all without one.
    Last edited by acmariner99; 03-25-2013 at 11:00 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    As I understand it - most definitely not. Without a permit there are only "narrow exceptions," for where you can take a firearm in your possession like to a range or gunsmith. The gun must be unloaded and locked at all times.

    Someone correct me on this, but I also believe Maryland's preemption law is also just as vague. I think local authorities could revoke a permit for OC if you happen to have a permit. You can't carry at all without one.
    Then clearly, as in Co, the petitioner fought the case on the wrong basis. It should have been fought solely on the right to bear arms outside the home, and self defense instead of concealed carry and a permit.

    It is those darn permits that numpties keep wanting that gets them in trouble in these cases. If they would just forget about permits completely we might be able to have nationwide open carry one state at a time, until a final ruling by SCOTUS guaranteed it for all. Then the legislatures would fall on the sword of allowing more CC to appease the anti's from seeing those evil guns.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  16. #16
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    As I understand it - most definitely not. Without a permit there are only "narrow exceptions," for where you can take a firearm in your possession like to a range or gunsmith. The gun must be unloaded and locked at all times.

    Someone correct me on this, but I also believe Maryland's preemption law is also just as vague. I think local authorities could revoke a permit for OC if you happen to have a permit. You can't carry at all without one.
    NO OC. Period. MD has preemption (see MD Statute 4-209). Local jurisdictions cannot revoke permits for any reason, as the MD SP issue permits. There are 3 jurisdictions that prohibit long gun carry because their laws were on the books before the preemption law was passsed. I believe Balt. City, Leonardtown, and Rockville.

    The MD transport law (MD Statute 4-203) allows the firearm to be unloaed and in an enclosed case or holster for a very narrow set of destinations. Range, gun shop, etc. No requireemnt for any locks. What an enclosed holster is is vague however.
    Last edited by swinokur; 03-27-2013 at 05:29 AM.

  17. #17
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Looks like Gura intends to file for CERT in Woolard. Should be forthcoming shortly.

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kac...2013-03-26.pdf

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Then clearly, as in Co, the petitioner fought the case on the wrong basis. It should have been fought solely on the right to bear arms outside the home, and self defense instead of concealed carry and a permit.

    It is those darn permits that numpties keep wanting that gets them in trouble in these cases. If they would just forget about permits completely we might be able to have nationwide open carry one state at a time, until a final ruling by SCOTUS guaranteed it for all. Then the legislatures would fall on the sword of allowing more CC to appease the anti's from seeing those evil guns.
    That's not correct.

    In filing after filing after filing, Woollard's lawyer stated that the state could require open carry as one of the requirements of a license issuance. Maryland law is that OC & CC is not allowed without a permit to wear a handgun, and Mr. Woollard was denied this ability when his license renewal was denied.

    Per the Kachalsky reply at cert stage with SCOTUS:

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kac...2013-03-26.pdf

    In modern popular usage, the word “concealed”
    has become appended to the word “carry,” such that
    “concealed carry” is synonymous and used interchangeably with the concept of “carry.” Respondents
    thus present the common – and erroneous – logic:
    1. There is no right to carry concealed
    handguns. Opp. at 10 & n.3;
    2. Petitioners have not specifically argued
    that they should carry handguns openly,
    id. at 11, thus
    3. Petitioners lose. Q.E.D

    But the Second Amendment says nothing about
    concealment or display of firearms; it merely speaks
    of bearing arms. The term includes open as well as
    concealed carry. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (“in the
    clothing or in a pocket”) (citation omitted).
    That is not to deny that concealed carrying may
    be forbidden. Of course it might. And so might open
    carrying be forbidden and, indeed, a number of states
    prohibit that practice. (Gray's note: this would be Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Arkansas, and New York)

    Had Petitioners not applied for, and been denied,
    handgun carry licenses, Respondents would have
    doubtless complained that Petitioners’ claim is speculative and unripe. And had Petitioners filed a specious claim for a right to carry guns, specifically, in
    the open, Respondents would have properly objected
    citing the same precedents upholding the state’s
    prerogative to regulate the manner of carrying handguns. In any event, Respondents assert that “prohibitions and near prohibitions on all public carrying”
    are constitutional. Opp. at 11.
    Petitioners pled this case exactly as they had to,
    given New York’s decision to channel the right to
    carry handguns into a licensing system for concealed
    handgun carry.3
    That decision is not at issue.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Then clearly, as in Co, the petitioner fought the case on the wrong basis. It should have been fought solely on the right to bear arms outside the home, and self defense instead of concealed carry and a permit.

    It is those darn permits that numpties keep wanting that gets them in trouble in these cases. If they would just forget about permits completely we might be able to have nationwide open carry one state at a time, until a final ruling by SCOTUS guaranteed it for all. Then the legislatures would fall on the sword of allowing more CC to appease the anti's from seeing those evil guns.
    MD doesn't distinguish between OC and CC-the permit allows you to do both, although if I had a MD permit I'd definitely keep it concealed.

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    MD doesn't distinguish between OC and CC-the permit allows you to do both, although if I had a MD permit I'd definitely keep it concealed.
    OC should not be connected to a permit, Rights should not be argued in court connected to a permit. The case should have been argued the right to bear arms, and left the permit out of it. After the failure in Colorado to force the government to issue a permit the light should be clear. There is no right to a privilege, or privilege to a right. The court as in CO was correct, the privilege scheme is not supported by the US constitution. So the application of the scheme or rules cannot be controlled by federal courts, only state courts.

    If one of these cases goes to SCOTUS it will be a huge failure.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Petition for rehearing en banc filed. Don't hold your breath on this one, unless Kachalsky is granted on Monday. In which case they might hold it the petition for rehearing. Gura's plan here is a good one.
    Last edited by swinokur; 04-08-2013 at 09:42 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Petition for rehearing en banc filed. Don't hold your breath on this one, unless Kachalsky is granted on Monday. In which case they might hold it the petition for rehearing. Gura's plan here is a good one.
    Gura is teeing this one up for the 4th to get a SCOTUS spanking. I wouldn't be surprised if the 4th actually takes another bite at the apple. One of the reasons for SCOTUS to take a case is a clash between circuit opinions. Here Gura says there is a clash of logic and opinions within the 4th Circuit.
    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

  23. #23
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    If one of these cases goes to SCOTUS it will be a huge failure.
    I wouldn't be so sure about that. SCOTUS didn't repeal some key portions of Obamacare, so I do not think victory in a 2A court case is automatic anymore. And for the time being at least, MD has won the ability to use broad discretion as to what constitutes good cause for a permit to be issued. I am so glad I didn't take a job out there.

  24. #24
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    SCOTUS denied Cert in Kochalsky. Now it's up to them to grant cert in Woolard in MD or Moore (if IL applies for it) in the 7CA in Chicago. I think there are a couple cases percolating in the 9CAi n California. Not lloking very good for carry in MD.

    Disappointing to say the least.

    List attached
    Last edited by swinokur; 04-16-2013 at 01:39 PM.

  25. #25
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Request for en banc hearing denied. No bit surprise. rarely granted. On to SCOTUS.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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