usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
This isn't good. This was ruled on today. I guess the next step is SCOTUS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...for-gun-carry-permits-upheld-by-court-1-.html
This isn't good. This was ruled on today. I guess the next step is SCOTUS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...for-gun-carry-permits-upheld-by-court-1-.html
..
Maryland Requirement for Gun-Carry Permit Upheld by Court
By Tom Schoenberg & Andrew Zajac - Mar 21, 2013 12:11 PM CT
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.
“The state has demonstrated that the good-and-substantial- reason requirement is reasonably adapted to Maryland’s significant interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime,” U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King wrote in the 33-page opinion.
The potential of the case to extend the Second Amendment right of gun possession to carrying firearms in public drew 45 interest groups and states to file briefs arguing their positions to the court. The judges opted not to address the question directly,saying Maryland’s law would withstand constitutional scrutiny even if the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a gun outside the home.
“It’s not much of a right if the police can demand that you satisfy their vision of a ’good and substantial reason’ to exercise it,” Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs said in a statement released by the Second Amendment Foundation. “The next step is for courts to tell Americans that they need a ’good and substantial reason’ to speak, worship or be secure from unreasonable searches.”
The case is Woollard v. Gallagher, 12-1437, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond).
To contact the reporters on this story: Tom Schoenberg in Washington at [email protected]; Andrew Zajac in Washington at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at [email protected].
.