Right to Carry Victory in Maryland

[bushmaster1313]

All I know is That Federal District Judge found carry permit law unconstitutional because of requirement of personalized need outside of home

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/

Please update.

 

[slik pak]

All I know is that we need more Judges like that.

 

[wildbilll]

No doubt that since it is a loss for the hopolophobes, they will not start issuing on the basis of wanting a permit because I want to carry for self defense.
It seems like if something is ruled unconstitutional where it is to the benefit of the liberals, it is complied with immediately.
On the flip side of that coin, the liberals drag feet and pretend the ruling never happened.

 

[IndispensableDestiny]

It was an intermediate scrutiny analysis of Maryland's "good and substantial reason" requirement for issuing a carry permit.

At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason"why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

 

[wojownik]

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” ... "The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

Can't wait to read the rest of the ruling.

 

[SigMic]

That's oustanding. Seems to me the last 10 years, the general movement has been to increase gun rights. Let's hope for good progress in the next 10!

 

[armoredman]

Love it - wonder what the hastily crafted replacement will look like?

 

[Rmeju]

It was an intermediate scrutiny analysis of Maryland's "good and substantial reason" requirement for issuing a carry permit.

Quote:
At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason"why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

This is not necessarily intermediate scrutiny. Justification and narrow tailoring are part of BOTH strict and intermediate scrutiny. The court here doesn't say how "compelling" the justification needed is (which is a huge part of strict vs. intermediate) nor what method is sufficiently respectful of the fundamental right in question, given that justification. There may be more information in the opinion (which I haven't read yet), but this paragraph alone does not suggest intermediate scrutiny. If anything, the mention of the constitutional guarantee and the other wording suggest this judge is using strict scrutiny (or something more respectful than intermediate scrutiny) on this part of the law.

 

[F-111 John]

No doubt that since it is a loss for the hopolophobes,

What is a hopolophobe? Someone who has a fear of Hoppes #9?

 

[wbwanzer]

I live in this miserable state. This is excellent news, although I'm sure that the libs running the state will try to weasel out of this in some way. Can't have The People's Republic of Maryland turning into the 'wild west', now can we.

 

[steven58]

Hopolophobia:An irrational fear of weapons, generally guns, usually occuring as a result of a liberal upbringing or the fact that the person is just a wimp in general. Rather than deal with the fear said hoplophobe will assign human characteristics to a weapon ie "guns are evil" or "guns kill" to justify the fear rather than deal with the core problem of being a sissy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

 

[Scimmia]

Can't wait to read the rest of the ruling.

Maryland Shall Issue has it up:
http://marylandshallissue.org/share/opinions/Woollard_Opinion.pdf

 

[bushmaster1313]

RTKBA extends beyond the home.

Intermediate scrutiny.

This is HUGE

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Federal Judge in Maryland rules Gun Law Unconstitutional

.

Very good.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...un-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oHmQp1Ui

.

Federal judge says gun owners need not provide 'good reason,' rules Maryland law unconstitutional

Published March 05, 2012

| FoxNews.com


BALTIMORE – Maryland residents do not have to provide a "good and substantial reason" to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state's requirements for getting a permit.

U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland's objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting to own a gun.

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs.".

.

 

[mortablunt]

This is great, but it belongs in the Legal section.

 

[TT]

So what is next? Can Maryland appeal this ruling?

 

[Scimmia]

Yep, and I would be very surprised if they didn't. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is the next step.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
From the article:

.
In his ruling, Legg wrote that Second Amendment protections aren't limited to the household.

"In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment's protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and 'self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be,'" Legg wrote.


"Judge Legg's ruling takes a substantial step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights and provides gun owners with another significant victory," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one's doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be."
.

.

 

[Loosedhorse]

This is a major bright spot, as someone growing up in NJ and currently living in MA. I'll bask in this ruling a moment, and wait for the ruling on NYC.

 

[Scimmia]

Deleted

 

[bushmaster1313]

District Judge came to opposite conclusion in the New Jersey case.

Hi ho, hi ho, it's to the Circuits we go!

 

[Scimmia]

This is not necessarily intermediate scrutiny. Justification and narrow tailoring are part of BOTH strict and intermediate scrutiny. The court here doesn't say how "compelling" the justification needed is (which is a huge part of strict vs. intermediate) nor what method is sufficiently respectful of the fundamental right in question, given that justification. There may be more information in the opinion (which I haven't read yet), but this paragraph alone does not suggest intermediate scrutiny. If anything, the mention of the constitutional guarantee and the other wording suggest this judge is using strict scrutiny (or something more respectful than intermediate scrutiny) on this part of the law.

From the opinion:

"The statute he challenges, therefore, is properly viewed through the lens of intermediate scrutiny, which places the burden on the Government to demonstrate a reasonable fit between the statute and a substantial governmental interest."

 

[doom]

Now, if ONLY the headline in the future reads: Judge declares Illinois UUW/AUUW law unconstitutional.

 

[ilbob]

It is another step forward. We still have a long way to go.

 

[Chicken321]

Please excuse my ignorance regarding legal talk. Is this official, or just a huge step in the right direction? Either way I do agree this is GOOD STUFF.