Maryland, model of gun control, torn asunder by activist Federal judge!

[Gups]

It's a great point - if the 2nd provides for the right to carry the gun in the first place, then clearly you don't need to show any reason to exercise that right.

Mental stability? Adulthood?

[Eddie Teach]

The onus is on the government to provide a reason to restrict the right, not on the person to provide a reason to exercise it.

[Razgovory]

Wasn't Baltimore the murder capital?

No.

[grumbler]

The onus is on the government to provide a reason to restrict the right, not on the person to provide a reason to exercise it.

You assert that as though it were somehow part of the definition of what a right is. 

[The Minsky Moment]

It's a great point - if the 2nd provides for the right to carry the gun in the first place, then clearly you don't need to show any reason to exercise that right.

But the very question at issue was to what extent the Second Amendment provides a right to carry a gun in public places (as opposed to a home), and what the contours of the right are.  So it begs the question.

[The Minsky Moment]

Just as a reminder, here's what the Supreme Court said in DC v. Heller

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

A footnote then adds: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

[Berkut]

I don't think the ruling changes any of that - it just states that the government cannot a priori restrict a right without showing some cause.

You can restrict the right to yell fire in a theater, but you cannot say "You have to fill out this form and show why you need to have free speech before you can actually exercise the right to free speech".

I am not a gun advocate, and personally I don't think the 2nd Amendment means there is a right to carry a handgun in the first place. But if in fact it has been determined that such a right does in fact exist, I think a law like Marylands is clearly in breech of it.

The State can certainly restrict the exercise of rights, but surely the burden of proof is on them to show that a right needs specific restriction and under particular circumstances, rather than the burden being on the private citizen to show they have some need to exercise the right.

I don't even think this would be debated by anyone if we were talking about any right other than the right to pack a gun. Could you imagine a state passing a law that says that a newspaper has to show that they need to the right to a free press before they can exercise it? Or someone has to show that they have some cause to exercise freedom of religion before they are allowed to do so?

[Berkut]

Just as a reminder, here's what the Supreme Court said in DC v. Heller

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

A footnote then adds: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

You don't see the difference between regulating gun ownership for specific individuals (felons, mentally ill) and restricting possession in particular places (schools, government) and a blanket demand that someone show a need to exercise a right in general before it is allowed?

[The Minsky Moment]

You don't see the difference between regulating gun ownership for specific individuals (felons, mentally ill) and restricting possession in particular places (schools, government) and a blanket demand that someone show a need to exercise a right in general before it is allowed?

I do see the difference, but that is not what this case was about.

The Maryland regulations permit the unrestricting carrying of long guns outside the home (without special permit).  With respect to handguns, the regulations allow carriage and use of such guns in the home and other specified locations (gun shows, target ranges, repair shops) and also allow unloaded weapons and ammunition to be transported separately between such areas.  Thus, the "good reason" requirement for a permit only relates to carrying a loaded handgun (either concealed or openly) in a public area outside the home.

Under Heller, it would appear that the regulatuion is constitutional to the extent it forbids conceal carry.

The question that remains is whether the regulation is constitutional to the extent it imposes the "good reason" requirement on open carry of a handgun in a (generic) public place.  Heller doesn't answer that question.

[grumbler]

You don't see the difference between regulating gun ownership for specific individuals (felons, mentally ill) and restricting possession in particular places (schools, government) and a blanket demand that someone show a need to exercise a right in general before it is allowed?

JR isn't saying that.  He's implying that, but he isn't saying that.

[grumbler]

You don't see the difference between regulating gun ownership for specific individuals (felons, mentally ill) and restricting possession in particular places (schools, government) and a blanket demand that someone show a need to exercise a right in general before it is allowed?

I do see the difference, but that is not what this case was about.

The Maryland regulations permit the unrestricting carrying of long guns outside the home (without special permit).  With respect to handguns, the regulations allow carriage and use of such guns in the home and other specified locations (gun shows, target ranges, repair shops) and also allow unloaded weapons and ammunition to be transported separately between such areas.  Thus, the "good reason" requirement for a permit only relates to carrying a loaded handgun (either concealed or openly) in a public area outside the home.

Under Heller, it would appear that the regulatuion is constitutional to the extent it forbids conceal carry.

The question that remains is whether the regulation is constitutional to the extent it imposes the "good reason" requirement on open carry of a handgun in a (generic) public place.  Heller doesn't answer that question.

Concealed carry isn't what this case is about.  I don't see that your Heller quote relates at all.

[CountDeMoney]

Concealed carry isn't what this case is about.

Actually, it is, as that's the purpose of his permit, in addition to the alleged arbitrariness of his renewal's rejection.

[The Minsky Moment]

Concealed carry isn't what this case is about.  I don't see that your Heller quote relates at all.

Concealed carry is part of the regulation that was subject to constitutional challenge so it has some relevance.

The Heller quotation goes to the very heart of what this case was about - to extent to which the Second Amendment prohibits regulation of carrying handguns in public places.  The Supreme Court did not decide that in Heller one way or the other.  It only decided with respect of handguns in the home.

[grumbler]

Concealed carry isn't what this case is about.

Actually, it is, as that's the purpose of his permit, in addition to the alleged arbitrariness of his renewal's rejection.

Ah.  The story just refers to a "gun-carry permit" which, in Virginia, is just a permit to carry a gun.  Concealed carry requires a different permit.

From your comment, I conclude that a Maryland "gun-carry permit" is a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  Can anyone, then, carry a handgun openly in Maryland, without a permit?  That's effectively what you have in Virginia, where the po-po have to provide a positive reason for denial of what here is called a "gun-carry permit," and so getting one is trivially easy.  Concealed carry permits require the applicant to provide a reason for concealed carry, with the justification (AIR) that police are more in danger from concealed weapons, and so there is a state interest in reducing the number of people allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

[ulmont]

From your comment, I conclude that a Maryland "gun-carry permit" is a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  Can anyone, then, carry a handgun openly in Maryland, without a permit? 

According to the opinion, no.

The state of Maryland prohibits the carrying of a handgun outside the home, openly or concealed, without a permit.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83963717/Maryland-handgun-opinion