• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Amicus brief before SCOTUS re MD permits

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Note referenced case:

Raymond Woollard, et al. v. Denis Gallagher, et al.



GoaLogoEmail.png
Gun Owners of America

GOA Backing Case Before the Supreme Court
Victory would put additional “teeth” in the Heller case

This week, GOA and its foundation filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of striking down Maryland’s ban on the carrying of handguns by ordinary citizens unless they first demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to law enforcement.
You can help support this legal challenge by clicking here.

While the federal district court in Maryland had decided the case in Raymond Woollard’s favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, using a “balancing test” to come to conclude that Maryland may override the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the name of public safety.

Both lower courts used a judicially-created balancing test, coming to opposite conclusions, thus demonstrating the illegitimacy of subjective, judge-made tests.

GOA’s position is simple: the Founding Fathers determined that Americans have the right to bear arms both inside the home and out, regardless of how “compelling” the state’s desire to infringe their right.

As the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case, the Second Amendment means what it says -- the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Our brief in Woollard v. Gallagher reminds the Court of the absolute nature of the right, leaving no room for federal judges to “balance” away the guarantee, no matter how strict or loose the test may be.

Your contribution to Gun Owners Foundation tremendously helps us to support good causes like this Woollard case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case was not a previously budgeted item for GOF, so any support that you can lend will tremendously help.

Gun Owners Foundation exists to protect gun owners around the country from overzealous prosecutors and to use the ensuing legal challenges as opportunities to strike down anti-gun restrictions.

Thank you for your help.

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
Please forward this e-mail to friends and family
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Help: link to brief available? Maybe not, just asking.

The MD case ... need to show cause ... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I got cause...look down the barrel of my gun to find it !
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.

Well, we will know where we stand ... and then to prepare
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.

Exactly, we have to fight for the unfettered right to carry. If a license is required, it is a de facto privilege, even if it is conceptually or de jure a right.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Exactly, we have to fight for the unfettered right to carry. If a license is required, it is a de facto privilege, even if it is conceptually or de jure a right.

The court may just rule that ... we'll know one way or the other .. at least what the court thinks ... does not change our rights
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
I am afraid this will yet again be another failure, they are still trying to establish a privilege as a right, I am sure of the outcome. Heller and McDonald succeeded because the cases were based only on the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to conceal them.

The permit is required to carry handguns openly or concealed. A loss by the plaintiff at this level based solely on the privilege to be issued a license to carry concealed, would seem to make the issue of open carry without a license allowing concealment even more likely to prevail in the end.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The permit is required to carry handguns openly or concealed. A loss by the plaintiff at this level based solely on the privilege to be issued a license to carry concealed, would seem to make the issue of open carry without a license allowing concealment even more likely to prevail in the end.

The bold red is the only right that should be argued at this point in time. A license of any type establishes a privilege and not a right.
 

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
"Right to keep and bear" is more/less a given...the SCOTUS pretty much has to decide the way Posner did in Moore v. Madigan or admit/decide that the 2A isn't really a right at all.

Conceal/Open is a "time/place/manner" restriction which is almost assuredly going to be Constitutionally valid if/when decided by another case...since any law mandating concealment would not be denying an individual the right to carry open. The worst-case would be to categorize home/public distinction as a time/place/manner restriction rather than the denial of the right to bear which it is.

The home/public distinction is pretty much only valid in the 4A search and seizure context and that's based on privacy/exigency grounds not necessarily public safety. You still have 5A/6A protections in and out of the home as well as voting rights and free-speech rights.
 
Top