Federal judge rules Maryland gun permit law unconstitutional

[g5000]

God damn these activist judges legislating from the bench! So much for states rights! This bastard needs a lesson in the Tenth Amendment.

How do they need a lesson in the Tenth amendment by upholding the Second?

Probably the same way they need a lesson in the Tenth Amendment by upholding the Fourteenth.

'zactly.

 

[g5000]

A...Obviously. (I have a concealed carry permit myself)
B...This concept evades some people at convenient moments.

By the way, I like the Tardis. I am a big Dr. Who fan.

LOL. My 11 yr old just got into shooting 22's at scouts. He now owns a vintage Marlin 80 bolt action single-sot from the 30's (was my late uncles). I'm still a better shot with it, but he's only had it out once or twice so far.

Dr. Who rocks.

My brother got my 4year old son a Red Ryder Bee Bee gun this year for Christmas, I almost shot my brother with it.

I think it is great to teach your children gun safety, and I support the NRA, for one my brothers took classes through the NRA as children. My son will not using the bee bee gun until he is 30 though.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Now they need to start recognizing my Virginia CHP. It would be nice to visit Maryland legally.

Why should we? Our state, our laws. If you want to come here, respect our laws. Otherwise, stay home.

 

[g5000]

Now they need to start recognizing my Virginia CHP. It would be nice to visit Maryland legally.

Here's a handy-dandy site: Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps

Click on your state and then it will show you what states honor your permit.

I can drive coast to coast with mine, although I have to detour up through Montana.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should we? Our state, our laws. If you want to come here, respect our laws. Otherwise, stay home.

It has to do with citizens of your state; the majority can’t determine one’s civil rights – with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage laws, privacy rights with regard to abortion, or Second Amendment rights with regard to firearm possession.

It’s all cut from the same rule of law cloth.

But you knew that already.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Why should we? Our state, our laws. If you want to come here, respect our laws. Otherwise, stay home.

It has to do with citizens of your state; the majority can’t determine one’s civil rights – with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage laws, privacy rights with regard to abortion, or Second Amendment rights with regard to firearm possession.

It’s all cut from the same rule of law cloth.

But you knew that already.

There's no infringement of rights simply from a state requiring a permit for concealed carry. And there's no infringement of rights by a state not granting reciprocity to other states permits.

 

[Syphon]

Why should we? Our state, our laws. If you want to come here, respect our laws. Otherwise, stay home.

It has to do with citizens of your state; the majority can’t determine one’s civil rights – with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage laws, privacy rights with regard to abortion, or Second Amendment rights with regard to firearm possession.

It’s all cut from the same rule of law cloth.

But you knew that already.

There's no infringement of rights simply from a state requiring a permit for concealed carry. And there's no infringement of rights by a state not granting reciprocity to other states permits.

this was just a poorly written law. they need to specifically detail the criteria that one would need to meet in order to limit hand gun purchases. things like passing a background check to check for wants, warrants, felony convictions and such. if its ambiguous then there is too much room for guessing what the actual requirements are.

interesting question, would the passage of a psychological evaluation be upheld or struck down as a requirement for a weapon permit?

 

[Inthemiddle]

this was just a poorly written law. they need to specifically detail the criteria that one would need to meet in order to limit hand gun purchases. things like passing a background check to check for wants, warrants, felony convictions and such. if its ambiguous then there is too much room for guessing what the actual requirements are.

It's construction and enforcement might both be lacking. Let's not get too ahead of ourselves. We have very little information to go off of here. But whether it's the construction of the law, or the way it's been enforced, or even if it's just the misdeed of a single person who needs to be fired, it's pretty stupid that one must prove that they've been threatened in order to renew their CCW. That's like saying that you have to prove that your job is too far away to walk in order to renew your driver's license.

interesting question, would the passage of a psychological evaluation be upheld or struck down as a requirement for a weapon permit?

I would think no. It would constitute government intrusion into privacy between doctor and patient.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's no infringement of rights simply from a state requiring a permit for concealed carry. And there's no infringement of rights by a state not granting reciprocity to other states permits.

It isn’t the issuing of the permit per se; rather, it’s the state’s requirement for a resident to ‘show a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun.’

One is not required to ‘prove’ he has ‘good cause’ to exercise a given right, he may exercise it as he sees fit in any manner he sees fit, provided he doesn't overstep a boundary established by the courts – yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

Otherwise it’s incumbent upon the state to demonstrate a compelling reason to restrict a right supported by evidence.

this was just a poorly written law. they need to specifically detail the criteria that one would need to meet in order to limit hand gun purchases. things like passing a background check to check for wants, warrants, felony convictions and such. if its ambiguous then there is too much room for guessing what the actual requirements are.

Correct.

Amending the measure to remove the offensive language may be all that’s needed.

interesting question, would the passage of a psychological evaluation be upheld or struck down as a requirement for a weapon permit?

I would argue it should be struck down – it constitutes an undue burden lacking evidence. What type of evaluation would be conducted and by whom? Who would pay the expenses? Could a prospective permit applicant appeal the results or ask for a ‘second opinion? What type of ‘profile’ manifested by the ‘evaluation’ would merit denial of a permit?

 

[old navy]

Now they need to start recognizing my Virginia CHP. It would be nice to visit Maryland legally.

Why should we? Our state, our laws. If you want to come here, respect our laws. Otherwise, stay home.

Your state sucks ass. As long as the thugs in PG and Baltimore counties have their guns everyone is happy. **** you and your laws.

 

[Conservative]

It has to do with citizens of your state; the majority can’t determine one’s civil rights – with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage laws, privacy rights with regard to abortion, or Second Amendment rights with regard to firearm possession.

It’s all cut from the same rule of law cloth.

But you knew that already.

There's no infringement of rights simply from a state requiring a permit for concealed carry. And there's no infringement of rights by a state not granting reciprocity to other states permits.

this was just a poorly written law. they need to specifically detail the criteria that one would need to meet in order to limit hand gun purchases. things like passing a background check to check for wants, warrants, felony convictions and such. if its ambiguous then there is too much room for guessing what the actual requirements are.

interesting question, would the passage of a psychological evaluation be upheld or struck down as a requirement for a weapon permit?

good post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There's no infringement of rights simply from a state requiring a permit for concealed carry. And there's no infringement of rights by a state not granting reciprocity to other states permits.

this was just a poorly written law. they need to specifically detail the criteria that one would need to meet in order to limit hand gun purchases. things like passing a background check to check for wants, warrants, felony convictions and such. if its ambiguous then there is too much room for guessing what the actual requirements are.

interesting question, would the passage of a psychological evaluation be upheld or struck down as a requirement for a weapon permit?

good post.

Struck down. The requirement for loss of 2nd Amendment rights on Mental issues is already clear. One must be adjudged incompetent by a Judge in a courtroom. Any involuntary commitment that is upheld by a Judge is such a case. Voluntary commitment is NOT.

Nor can the State force you to be evaluated. That would be a violation of your 5th Amendment rights.

Simply having a mental health issue does not disqualify one from owning possession or using firearms. It may be enough to prevent a State certified concealed carry permit though. If the State has probably cause they can get you involuntarily committed and a Judge will rule on that. If the Judge does not side with the State you do not lose your rights under the 2nd Amendment.

BY the way one can petition to have those rights restored. The Secretary of the Treasury would be the one to petition.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your state sucks ass.

Then I guess there's really no reason for you to come visit us. So stay home, because we don't want you.

**** you and your laws.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HE50Gkl4xA]NO, **** YOU. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should we? Our state, our laws. If you want to come here, respect our laws. Otherwise, stay home.

It has to do with citizens of your state; the majority can’t determine one’s civil rights – with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage laws, privacy rights with regard to abortion, or Second Amendment rights with regard to firearm possession.

It’s all cut from the same rule of law cloth.

But you knew that already.

There's no infringement of rights simply from a state requiring a permit for concealed carry. And there's no infringement of rights by a state not granting reciprocity to other states permits.

Never try to explain anything to Jones.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered ―reasonably adapted to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland‘s goal of ―minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them, id. at 40, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly. Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. ―[E]ven the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 464–65 (1980).

http://ia700501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.52.0.pdf

Maryland is vowing to appeal, which is good; these types of ‘public safety’ rationales need a full review.

 

[Syphon]

this was just a poorly written law. they need to specifically detail the criteria that one would need to meet in order to limit hand gun purchases. things like passing a background check to check for wants, warrants, felony convictions and such. if its ambiguous then there is too much room for guessing what the actual requirements are.

interesting question, would the passage of a psychological evaluation be upheld or struck down as a requirement for a weapon permit?

good post.

Struck down. The requirement for loss of 2nd Amendment rights on Mental issues is already clear. One must be adjudged incompetent by a Judge in a courtroom. Any involuntary commitment that is upheld by a Judge is such a case. Voluntary commitment is NOT.

Nor can the State force you to be evaluated. That would be a violation of your 5th Amendment rights.

Simply having a mental health issue does not disqualify one from owning possession or using firearms. It may be enough to prevent a State certified concealed carry permit though. If the State has probably cause they can get you involuntarily committed and a Judge will rule on that. If the Judge does not side with the State you do not lose your rights under the 2nd Amendment.

BY the way one can petition to have those rights restored. The Secretary of the Treasury would be the one to petition.

so lack of mental capacity should not prohibit someone from owning a gun?

not to be insensitive, but looked what happened to VT a few years back... could that have been prevented by something such as a psychological evaluation? should this safety factor not be at least explored before being immediately dismissed?