Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Maryland Judges Uphold State Anti-Handgun Law

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Maryland is not agun rights friendly place is it?






    November 3, 2009 11:50 PM

    Maryland Judges Uphold State Anti-Handgun Law








    (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
    I've written recently about how courts in New Jersey and Illinois have concluded that the Second Amendment poses no obstacle to local governments enacting stringent anti-gun laws.

    Now a Maryland appeals court has followed suit. A three-judge panel ruled last Thursday that the Second Amendment does not interfere with a Maryland law that generally restricts state residents from carrying handguns.

    That's not much of a surprise. What is remarkable is that Judge Albert Matricciani went out of his way to write that even if the Second Amendment applied to state laws, Maryland's statute would be perfectly constitutional in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court D.C. v. Heller decision last year to invalidate the District of Columbia's handgun ban.

    Matricciani wrote:

    Even if the Second Amendment did apply, it would not invalidate the statute at issue here. CL Sec. 4-203 provides that a person may not "wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person" or "in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the state." This blanket prohibition is modified by subsection b of the statute, which provides eight exceptions to the general rule outlined above. One of these exceptions is for possession of a gun by a person on real estate that the person owns or leases or where the person resides. Thus, even if the right articulated in Heller, namely the right to keep and bear arms in the home for the purpose of immediate self-defense, were to apply to the citizens of Maryland, this statute does not infringe upon that right.
    Translation: Your right to keep and bear arms applies only to your own home.

    The Maryland case started when an officer with the Prince George's County Police Department spotted a man named Charles Williams, Jr. rummaging through his backpack and then allegedly hiding something in the bushes. Williams allegedly told the police that he had concealed a handgun, and one was in fact recovered. Williams had purchased the gun legally, but carrying it without government permission -- which is virtually impossible to obtain -- is a crime.

    (Like California, Maryland is one of those few states with a constitution that does not mention gun rights. A 1994 opinion from the state attorney general says the Second Amendment does not apply to Maryland's laws because "in Maryland, the militia is 'well regulated' by Article 65 of the code" and "the needs of the militia can be met with state-owned firearms housed in secure locations.")

    Some background: the Second Amendment, of course, says that Americans' right to "keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. Last year's Heller decision applied that prohibition only to the federal government and federal enclaves like Washington, D.C. Another case that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear will decide whether that portion of the Bill of Rights applies to state and municipal governments (the concept is called "incorporation").

    The problem for gun rights proponents is that, even if the Second Amendment is technically incorporated in the same way as the First Amendment has been, judges in more anti-gun states are sure to find creative ways to uphold even strict laws as constitutional.

    Take the recent case in New Jersey, where a state appeals court upheld a state law saying that nobody may possess "any handgun" without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in advance, saying it would be fine post-incorporation. Then there's the Ninth Circuit's decision saying that while the Second Amendment applies to California municipalities, Alameda County's ordinance was acceptable.

    This is all the more reason for the Supreme Court to guide lower courts considering whether or not an anti-gun law is permissible. We already know, thanks to Heller, that a flat ban on possessing handguns is out. But is mandatory gun registration permissible? Can a 17-year old be barred from buying a low-powered .22-caliber rifle? Can laws like California's one-handgun-a-month rule stand? Will what lawyers call "strict scrutiny" be applied, or a lower standard?

    Along the same lines, a lawsuit that the Second Amendment foundation filed against the District of Columbia argues that Americans have the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Both pro- and anti-gun types may be hoping for wildly different outcomes, but both should be able to agree that some legal clarity would be useful right about now.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...y5517894.shtml

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    This is why I'll NEVER live in MD again. I did for 2 years a few years ago, and I will NEVER live there again. My wife wants to move back there, because she REALLY likes MD, but I told her I CAN NOT live there--VA, WV, PA are all OK, and are all close to our old friends and family in that area. But NEVER AGAIN will I live in MD. I simply refuse to live somewhere that prohibits me from protecting my own life, and the lives and safety of my family.

    How's that Gun Control thing working out for you, Baltimore?

    Check this out--a crime map, updated daily, for Baltimore. Scary.

    http://crimebaltimore.com/

    I can't understand why every single LAC in Baltimore doesn't want to carry. That place is a war zone...

    "In Democracy, the People get the Government they deserve." --Alexis de Tocqueville
    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

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    This is why the federal courts are more reliable than state.

    -Gray

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post



    albert.matricciani@mdcourts.gov

    410-209-2250



    Voice your displeasure with this moron.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    On a new appeal of this case, before the MD Court of Appeals, based on Heller and McDonald defenses, the MD Courts once again ruled AGAINST Mr. Williams...

    http://mddailyrecord.com/2011/01/05/...ond-amendment/

    Gee, thanks AG Gansler and Judge Battaglia, for taking a huge, steaming dump on the US Constitution, and the Heller and McDonald decisions...

    I hope SAF has got some SERIOUSLY crafty tricks up their sleeves. It's becoming mor eand more obvious that the MD Courts DO NOT consider Heller and McDonald to have any bearing whatsoever on possessing, carrying, or wearing a firearm outside one's home, and they do not consider ANY version of carry rights beyond the draconian, elitist, oligarchical permit system they currently have to be something even open for discussion.

    There is NO 2A clause in the MD State Constitution, and the MD Courts all pretty much agree that there is no RIGHT to keep and bear arms AT ALL in MD, regardless of what the Federal Courts and the Constitution says. It is established case law, and is becoming stringer with each passing case like this, that the Courts in MD do not believe the US Constitution is a binding source of law upon the MD government.

    Please, SAF, and Alan Gura--save your time, breath, and money and ABANDON your efforts in MD. Let them just continue their spiral into nanny-state totalitarianism. The courts are corrupt and empaneled with scofflaw oligarchs. The AG's office is somewhere to the left of Paul Helmke. The Governor is a shoe-shine boy for Michael Bloomberg, and the MSP just sit on their hands and mutter the "Nurmberg Defense" when questioned on their extra-legal policies for permit issuance.

    There are plenty of other states with Courts that understand the Rule of Law, and honor their state's obligation as members of the Republic. There are other suits in other states that will gain you more traction in the long-term fight for 2A rights in this nation.

    MD is a lost cause. The courts are corrupt, the police are systemically anti-citizen, and the government isn't so much a "government" as it is a sort of Prussian Noblility Fiefdom...

    Save your time and money, SAF. Walk away from MD. This state is not worth it. Even if you win Woollard, the fact remains that it will be a hollow, Chicago-like victory that will require DECADES more of costly, time-consuming lawsuits to get the State to coe into line with the Court ruling. In MD government and law enforcement, corruption is not a sporadic anomoly--it is systemic, fundamental, and essential to "the Maryland Way"...

    Run away, SAF. Run away while you can. Don't throw your money down the rat hole tha tis the MD Court system. It's a losing proposition--even if you win the case...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 01-06-2011 at 01:25 AM.
    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

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,963

    Md Supreme Court: 2A doesn’t apply in Md. unless you apply for a permit!

    The judges also said Williams did not have standing to challenge aspects of the state's gun permit statutes "because he had failed to even apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun."

    Link: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2223036
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,963

    Md Supreme Court v. US 4th Circuit

    Here it Comes… Does the 2A only apply in your house?
    What exactly do Heller and McDonald mean?
    The Maryland Supreme Court thinks so, but the US 4th Circuit thinks not!
    Maryland Decision Link: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2223036
    4th Circuit Link: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...he-4th-Circuit
    Maryland Fair use:
    "The defendant wished to extend the Second Amendment beyond what the Supreme Court held in the Heller case -- that a person has an individual right to possess a gun in their home and for self-defense," says Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, who argued the state's case before the appellate court last year."
    What this defendant said is, 'You shouldn't convict me for toting a gun on the streets of Prince George's County, because I have an individual right to carry a gun outside of the home,'" Gansler says.
    The court specifically said the Maryland law governing Williams' conviction falls outside of the Second Amendment's scope, because it bars having a handgun in public

    4th Circuit Analysis:
    (2) Substantial restrictions on gun possession that fall within the core of Second Amendment protection, described by the panel as “the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense” (note the inclusion of carrying, and not just possession in the home, as some courts have said), are probably subject to strict scrutiny.
    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

Posting Permissions

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