QuoteState gun-carry law unconstitutional, federal judge rules
Attorney general plans to appeal decision
A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a provision in Maryland law regulating who can carry a handgun, effectively loosening the restrictions governing firearm possession on the state's streets.
In a 23-page memorandum opinion, made public Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg said a state requirement forcing those applying for a gun-carry permit to show that they have a "good and substantial reason" to do so "impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms," as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
"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."
The ruling was hailed alternately as a victory by gun enthusiasts, who saw it as a bolster to public safety, and as a dangerous precedent by gun opponents, who painted it as a return to the Wild West.
The Maryland attorney general's office vowed to appeal the ruling and request a stay of its implementation, while the plaintiff's lawyers have promised to fight to uphold it. Meanwhile, one Republican legislator is trying to change the law itself by erasing the requirement.
"I have a bill that does exactly what the court said we needed to do," said Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr., who represents Caroline, Cecil, Kent and Queen Anne's counties. "It's there, it's been discussed, I have enough votes to get it out of committee. But for political reasons, it would never get out and have a chance to have a vote."
He's hopeful that the ruling will strengthen his efforts and garner bipartisan support for an often polarizing issue.
On one side are people like Chuck Ammann, a 67-year-old from Parkville who has owned a gun since he was 10. His father took him target shooting as a boy, and he still practices as an adult, but he also keeps guns for protection in his home. He's recently applied for a carry permit, because he tends to handle a lot of cash.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people," Ammann said Monday, repeating an adage favored by gun proponents. In Maryland, "you don't let the good guys carry them," he said, "but every day you read in the paper that the bad guys have them and they do not have permits."
He applauded Legg's decision, which was based on a Baltimore County man's lawsuit that was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, a national gun rights advocacy group, with some funding from Maryland Shall Issue, a local organization.
On the other side are groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which works to limit access to firearms.
"It's perfectly reasonable and prudent for Maryland to have law enforcement decide who has a demonstrated need to carry loaded guns in public. There's a whole other level of risk that the public is exposed to when civilians carry loaded guns on public parks, streets, in restaurants, what have you," said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, which submitted a brief in the Maryland federal case, claiming that loosening the law would be detrimental.
"Maryland's law is completely reasonable, and to hold that the Constitution does not allow Maryland to make that reasonable decision, we think, is not supported by the case law," Lowy said. This decision "would be a very dangerous precedent to remain on the books. We hope and expect it to be reversed."
Maryland's gun laws require permits for people wishing to carry handguns outside the home. They're issued by the secretary of the state police to those who can show, among other things, that they aren't violent, convicted felons, alcoholics or drug addicts.
The secretary also was required, until now, to determine if the applicant "has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."
That's the provision that drew a challenge to the law.
On Christmas Eve of 2002, Raymond Woollard was at home at his Baltimore County farm with his extended family, when his son-in-law broke into the house, high on drugs and demanding his wife's car keys so he could buy more, according to court records. Woollard pointed a shotgun at the man, who wrestled it away, but was soon subdued by another family member, who trained a second gun on him. The man was held there for more than two hours, while the Woollards waited for police to arrive.
Woollard applied for a handgun carry permit in 2003, and was allowed to renew it in 2006, shortly after his son-in-law was released from prison, having been convicted of multiple offenses in separate instances.
But Woollard's 2009 renewal application was denied because he couldn't "produce evidence of a current threat," Legg's decision said, or a good and substantial reason to carry a weapon, such as carrying a lot of cash for business or working in a high-risk or regulated profession, like law enforcement and armored car personnel.
After exhausting his appeal options, Woollard filed a lawsuit against Col. Terrence B. Sheridan, then superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and three members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board in 2010, claiming the requirement was unconstitutional.
Legg decided the case by asking two basic questions: whether the Second Amendment protections extend beyond the home, and, if so, whether the "good and substantial" reasoning requirement "passes constitutional muster."
His thinking was guided by two landmark rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court that helped define the constitutional stance on gun ownership. A 2008 decision, overturning a decades-old ban on gun possession in the District of Columbia, found that citizens are entitled "to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," not just in militia circumstances. And a 2010 decision that followed it extended the right to all states — including Maryland — under the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment.
Because the right to bear arms is understood to allow for hunting and militia training, it can't stop at one's front door, Legg held. He further found that Maryland's "good and substantial reason" requirement had no purpose other than to limit the number of guns on the street.
"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," Legg wrote. "States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself."
Woollard could not be reached for comment Monday, but his attorneys, Cary Hansel and Alan Gura, called the court decision a "sweeping victory" that "brings Maryland's extremist approach much more in line with the common sense regulation seen in the rest of the country."
There are now 12,000 active carry permits in Maryland, according to a state police spokesman.
That number is expected to rise exponentially if the judge's opinion stands. Paul Dembowski, legislative director for Maryland Shall Issue, based in Annapolis, said a 10-fold increase would be reasonable, and Smiegel claims "tens of thousands of people" have been waiting for access to the permits."
But prosecutors see the ruling as a setback for the state.
"We disagree with this ruling," Assistant Attorney General Matthew Fader said in an emailed statement. "In light of the very important implications of the ruling for public safety, the defendants will be appealing to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals."
Excerpt of the judge's ruling:
QuoteThis case requires the Court to answer two fundamental questions. The first asks whether the Second Amendment's protections extend beyond the home, -where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.¿ Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. This question was left unanswered in Heller, and has not been authoritatively addressed in the Fourth Circuit's post-Heller decisions. Second, if the right to bear arms does extend beyond the home, the Court must decide whether Maryland's requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate -good and substantial reason to wear or carry a handgun passes constitutional muster.
The Maryland statute's failure lies in the overly broad means by which it seeks to advance this undoubtedly legitimate end. The requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate -good and substantial reason¿ to carry a handgun does not, for example, advance the interests of public safety by ensuring that guns are kept out of the hands of those adjudged most likely to misuse them, such as criminals or the mentally ill. ... Rather, the regulation at issue is a rationing system. It aims, as Defendants concede, simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home by limiting the privilege to those who can demonstrate good reason beyond a general desire for self-defense.
These arguments prove too much. While each possibility presents an unquestionable threat to public safety, the challenged regulation does no more to combat them than would a law indiscriminately limiting the issuance of a permit to every tenth applicant. The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve. Maryland's "good and substantial reason requirement" will not prevent those who meet it from having their guns taken from them, or from accidentally shooting themselves or others, or from suddenly turning to a life of crime.
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, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly.
Meanwhile, back at the Batshit Cave:
QuotePro-gun lawmakers want permits from state police
Three House lawmakers fired off a letter to the state police late Monday requesting that the agency immediately start issuing more gun permits in the wake of the recent federal court decision that loosened the rules about who can walk around with weapons.
Del. Michael A. McDermott, a lower Shore Republican, said that "the people of Maryland" have been "crying" for changes in the guns laws for years. "It is a great day for Maryland," he said at a Tuesday news conference. "Now we have a liberty that should not have been denied in the first place."
On Monday, a federal judge declared unconstitutional the state's rule that gun applicants must prove they have a "good and substantial reason" to be armed. The following disqualifiers remain: felony charges, mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, and a track record of violence.
Maryland's Attorney General plans to appeal the decision and will ask that it be stayed in the meantime.
Del. Michael Smigiel, an Eastern Shore Republican, wants the decision to be implemented now. "The right to self defense comes from God," he said. "The second amendment applies outside the home."
Smigiel is one of the few state lawmakers with a permit to carry a gun (as a lawyer, he said he needs one because he carries around large quantities of cash.) Del. Don Dwyer, an Anne Arundel Republican who also signed the letter, said the he will not apply for a permit "until his neighbor can."
Smigiel, Dwyer and McDermott are also asking the state police to start recognizing out-of-state gun carry permits because, they say, the agency used Maryland's "good and substantial reason" test as a rational for denying them. "Clearly, the recent court decision has determined that these applied standards have been inappropriate and unconstitutional," according to the letter.
The state police did not immediately reply to questions about the letter. This blog will be updated with their response.
State police spokesman Greg Shipley said he is not yet able to respond to the letters.
Shipley said that in 2011 the state police received 5,216 applications for carry permits. Of those 251 were denied -- 179 because the police did not see a "good and substantial reason" for issuing the permit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 12:51:02 AM
"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."
Good point.
And the Baltimore Sun returns fire:
QuoteThe attack on Maryland's gun laws
Our view: A federal judge finds the state's limit on handgun permits unconstitutional in a win for the NRA crowd but a potential loss for public safety
Maryland's restrictions on carrying a handgun outside the home have been among the strongest in the nation — and for good reason, given the death and destruction perpetrated by those possessing handguns in this state. So it is regrettable that the standard is now under threat because a federal judge, emboldened by a pair of recent Supreme Court decisions that have expanded the reach of the Second Amendment, has found a portion of the law unconstitutional.
Make no mistake, U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg is pushing the Second Amendment envelope in his 23-page opinion that an existing restriction on handgun carry permits — that the applicant must show a "good and substantial reason" to have one — infringes on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. He admits as much in his decision.
The foundation the judge uses, the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, spoke chiefly to the regulations of firearms inside the home. While we disagreed with those opinions and the activist court's departure from the long-held view of the Second Amendment as a collective right in favor of its conferring an individual right, it's not shocking that the boundaries would be pushed even further.
Maryland is not the only battlefield upon which this Second Amendment war is being waged. New York and New Jersey have had their similarly restrictive handgun carry laws challenged in federal court as well — although in both instances, judges have stood by existing statutes. Permit restrictions in a handful of other states are under constitutional challenge, too.
And while the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment absolutists are no doubt cheered by the decision, their victory is modest and temporary at best. Judge Legg did not order the state to grant a permit to any Tom, Dick or Harry who walks in the door. His qualm was with Maryland's requirement that applicants demonstrate a "good and substantial" reason for needing to carry a gun outside the home. Other restrictions, including a Maryland State Police criminal background check, are not at issue.
What appears to offend Judge Legg is the specter of a "rationing" of permits. Clearly, he believes the state bears the burden of demonstrating why a person is undeserving to carry a handgun in public rather than the applicant having to justify his or her need for one.
It's entirely possible that the Maryland statute could be rewritten in a manner that meets the judge's requirements without resulting in a flood of additional permits. Language could be crafted that is far more specific and where the foundation in public safety is made clear. But it's far too early to even discuss such a reform in the General Assembly, given that the ruling is now headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and could face years of legal wrangling.
Still, what's troubling about the ruling is the judge's failure to recognize just how great a threat handguns pose to the citizens of Maryland and how putting more loaded weapons on the street is only going to exacerbate that problem. Even the case that landed the issue before Judge Legg is hardly a convincing argument for loosening the carry standards.
The decision not to renew Raymond Woollard's handgun permit was hardly a "random" enforcement. The Baltimore County resident did once use a gun for self-defense — a shotgun, in his home, and it was turned against him by his son-in-law. The state did allow him to carry a handgun for six years after the incident but eventually determined that he was no longer threatened and chose not to renew his permit, as his "good and substantial reason" had faded away over time.
Nothing in Maryland law would keep Mr. Woollard from owning a handgun, or a shotgun for that matter, and using it to defend his home. But carrying a loaded handgun into a street or other public place is another matter that has the potential to affect many other lives, and the state legislature determined long ago that the epidemic of gun violence in Baltimore and elsewhere requires some sensible limitations.
It would be nice to think that everyone who gets a handgun permit is an honest, upstanding citizen interested only in self-defense. Unfortunately, that doesn't square with the facts. One recent study by the Violence Policy Center documents 11 law enforcement officers killed in a two-year period by people using handguns who either had a permit for the concealed weapon or did not need one. The same study cited 30 murder-suicides under the same circumstances between 2007 and 2009.
But such arguments seldom appease those who believe the Second Amendment knows no bounds. Yet even in Heller, the Supreme Court found that some limits apply outside the home. The question is whether public safety needs outweigh individual interests. We think Maryland had already struck the appropriate balance for its circumstances by severely restricting handgun carry permits. We can only hope that the courts will eventually recognize that fact, too.
Quote(as a lawyer, he said he needs one because he carries around large quantities of cash.)
:lol:
Quote from: Spider JerusalemLawyers. You can always recognize them by the bad pockets. Lawyers always carry drugs. Ruin the line of their pants.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 07, 2012, 01:00:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 12:51:02 AM
"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."
Good point.
Not really.
It's not really a right if you have to ask permission first.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 01:02:49 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 07, 2012, 01:00:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 12:51:02 AM
"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."
Good point.
Not really.
Nuh-uh.
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.
For me (and I'm certainly not a pro-gun activist) this is a pretty good point:
QuoteMaryland's "good and substantial reason requirement" will not prevent those who meet it from having their guns taken from them, or from accidentally shooting themselves or others, or from suddenly turning to a life of crime.
From what I understand the goal was (among other things) to keep guns out of the "wrong hands"(TM), but does not really do much to prevent that by making you give some sort of resonable
excuse explanation that you need one.
Wasn't Baltimore the murder capital? So all those restrictive gun laws didn't do anything to reduce the murder rate.
Who knew that people who intend to murder somebody with a gun don't care whether they have a permit or not when carrying a weapon?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 07, 2012, 03:28:53 AM
Wasn't Baltimore the murder capital? So all those restrictive gun laws didn't do anything to reduce the murder rate.
Who knew that people who intend to murder somebody with a gun don't care whether they have a permit or not when carrying a weapon?
:yes: :cool:
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 07, 2012, 03:28:53 AM
Wasn't Baltimore the murder capital? So all those restrictive gun laws didn't do anything to reduce the murder rate.
Who knew that people who intend to murder somebody with a gun don't care whether they have a permit or not when carrying a weapon?
Can you prove those murders were committed with illegal guns? Let's start with that baseline.
Admit it, you just wanted to use "torn asunder" today, didn't you?
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2012, 01:35:16 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 07, 2012, 08:42:09 AM
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. <_<
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2012, 01:35:16 AM
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.
Just as a reminder, here's what the Supreme Court said in DC v. Heller
QuoteLike 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."
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2012, 10:48:28 AM
Just as a reminder, here's what the Supreme Court said in DC v. Heller
QuoteLike 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?
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2012, 11:05:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2012, 11:05:20 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2012, 11:35:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2012, 11:05:20 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2012, 11:48:18 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2012, 11:48:18 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 12:30:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2012, 11:48:18 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2012, 07:32:57 PM
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.
Quote from: The OpinionThe 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
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2012, 07:32:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 12:30:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2012, 11:48:18 AM
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.
Open carry: only if the reason for the permit is a condition of employment, e.g., armored car driver, security officer, etc. In the case of a citizen such as the subject of the case, it would be required to be a concealed weapon, as it is not a condition of employment. #2 on the MSP's list of no-nos (after carrying under the influence of alcohol/drugs) is what's called "indiscriminate display". You better have a badge or uniform if you're carrying it openly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 08:21:53 PM
Open carry: only if the reason for the permit is a condition of employment, e.g., armored car driver, security officer, etc. In the case of a citizen such as the subject of the case, it would be required to be a concealed weapon, as it is not a condition of employment. #2 on the MSP's list of no-nos (after carrying under the influence of alcohol/drugs) is what's called "indiscriminate display". You better have a badge or uniform if you're carrying it openly.
Interesting. I withdraw my arguments, then.
Yeah, they're picky like that 'round these parts. They don't even like you carrying it openly in plain clothes as a shop owner, like a jeweler or pawn broker.
Weird thing is how the states see things differently; when I was doing bails on the Eastern Shore, I had to change at the line. Maryland wants it concealed unless you're in some sort of uniform, as open carry can be considered indiscriminate; however, Delaware would require you to carry openly--even as a non-resident--as concealed carry was a definite no-no without a very special permit. So, I had to pull my shit out at the Delaware line, and tuck it back in once I was back in Maryland.
Pennsylvania, IIRC, didn't give a shit either way.
IIIRC, in Arizona, you needed a permit to go around without a gun.
In Kennesaw, Georgia, every homeowner must own a gun, by law. :CSA:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 08, 2012, 09:35:38 PM
In Kennesaw, Georgia, every homeowner must own a gun, by law. :CSA:
Sort of like Obamacare. :hmm:
It's okay if it is something good like guns, not bad like healthcare.
QuoteThe Maryland attorney general's office has filed a motion to delay an order from a federal judge finding that the state's handgun permitting process is unconstitutional, pending an appeal.
Calling the ruling an "unmapped" legal issue, attorneys for the state argue in a motion filed late Wednesday that clarification from the appellate courts "would be prudent in light of the potentially significant adverse consequences for public safety."
The attorneys wrote that granting a motion to stay the court order would also allow the Maryland General Assembly to consider whether to enact legislation that might address the court's concerns while upholding the intent of the state's restrictions.
Opponents of Maryland's strict gun laws have long complained that obtaining a permit to carry a handgun has been nearly impossible. Among the many rules, the state requires that applicants show a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun.
This week, ruling in a lawsuit brought by a Maryland man who had a permit but was denied a renewal, U.S. District Judge Benson E. Legg called the "good and substantial reason" clause unconstitutionally broad, an arbitrary regulation designed to minimize the number of guns on the street, but one that doesn't necessarily keep everyone safe.
The ruling was hailed as a victory by gun enthusiasts, who saw it as a bolster to public safety. There are 12,000 active carry permits in the state, and advocates expect that number to increase exponentially — possibly more than tenfold. Experts also told The Baltimore Sun that the ruling is likely to withstand an appeal.
Critics say the state's laws are reasonable, and loosening the restrictions will lead to more violence in a state with already-high levels of gun crime.
Maryland State Police spokesman Gregory Shipley said the agency, which oversees the permit process, will not be making any permit decisions solely on the "good and substantial reason" requirement until "the court clarifies its position" based on the attorney general's request.
In their motion, assistant attorneys general Matthew J. Fader and Stephen M. Ruckman wrote that the state's ability to protect public safety is harmed by the ruling and that the inability to enforce crucial components of the handgun permit regulations will "expose citizens to an increased risk of handgun violence."
They quoted an opinion from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a different case: "We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights."
Quote from: PDH on March 09, 2012, 08:24:49 AM
It's okay if it is something good like guns, not bad like healthcare.
STATES' RATS!
Local law vs federal.
Romneycare is satanic.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2012, 09:32:21 PM
IIIRC, in Arizona, you needed a permit to go around without a gun.
When I was in New Mexico a while ago I had to go way out in the desert to the little town of Reserve. Was told by the bank president that all residents of Catron County are required to carry a gun and a certain length of rope in their vehicle.
That part of New Mexico seems like a good place to live if you really, really want privacy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2012, 09:27:25 PM
Yeah, they're picky like that 'round these parts. They don't even like you carrying it openly in plain clothes as a shop owner, like a jeweler or pawn broker.
Weird thing is how the states see things differently; when I was doing bails on the Eastern Shore, I had to change at the line. Maryland wants it concealed unless you're in some sort of uniform, as open carry can be considered indiscriminate; however, Delaware would require you to carry openly--even as a non-resident--as concealed carry was a definite no-no without a very special permit. So, I had to pull my shit out at the Delaware line, and tuck it back in once I was back in Maryland.
Pennsylvania, IIRC, didn't give a shit either way.
I like Maryland's better. I'm fine with concealed carry, but people openly carrying firearms make me nervous.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 08, 2012, 09:35:38 PM
In Kennesaw, Georgia, every homeowner must own a gun, by law. :CSA:
Fuck that. At first blush I doubt it's even constitutional. EP violation for religious and other pacifists. Where's the freedom?
Then again, if the state wants to provide me a gun (or rocket launcher, or heavy bomber), I'll take it. But those things are expensive.
I'm a gun enthusiast but considering all the victories the gun lobby has had recently I think I could start to get behind some level of regulation of gun ownership. In the mid-90s I was basically opposed to any gun regulation, even regulations I felt were reasonable. Not because I was an obstinate asshat, but because things like the Brady campaign and the very real 1994 Assault Weapons Ban made me feel very justified in my belief that there was a serious and effective movement to substantially limit private gun ownership. I felt the strategy being utilized was one of attrition and ever expanding regulation as opposed to overt bans, so to me I felt I had to oppose even moderate regulation.
Now things are materially different, the anti-gun forces are weak and with virtually no voice. Barack Obama was mentioned as a gun grabber and hasn't done a damn thing about firearms, he won't touch the issue. John Kerry wore blaze orange and carried a shotgun around. When the Democrats are trying to show, every election cycle, how much they love guns too it's obvious to me we've passed that point in the early/mid 90s when our right to have a gun was being more seriously challenged.
So now I feel I can tolerate reasonable regulations. Generally I think you should be free to "own or possess" any firearm aside from NFA regulated weapons without any restrictions. However, I'd be supportive of a license to take those firearms off your property and a license to purchase new firearms. The licenses would be "shall issue" in the same manner as a driver's license, and they would require completion of safety training with a mandatory, state conducted safety test.
I'd be fine with outright prohibition of open carry (something that puts me on the NRA hit list these days), because I think open carry does nothing but cause a public disturbance and I feel it serves no valid purpose. I think concealed carry should be permissible for anyone who can get a firearms license subject to regulations on where you can bring the firearm.
I'd also advocate military, retired military, police, and retired police be exempted from any licensing requirements.
I'd also advocate any purchase require that you social security number be ran against a database of convicted felons and people who have been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals.
To me, all of those are reasonable regulations of our right to have a firearm. However, any scheme which requires me to show need for a permit to exercise my right is too onerous. I'm fine with safety regulations for any right that can impact the public, because let's be honest gun ownership isn't something that happens in a vacuum and affects no one else in society. But any requirement that I need to demonstrate some "need" or "just cause" to get a firearms permit is simply unacceptable.
I think currently though, the state of firearms laws in America remains stupid.
First, in general if you want to legally own a firearm in this country, it's not very hard. If you want a super specific type of firearm, it is a little harder in some states than others. If you want to carry the firearm in public, it's a little harder in some states than others.
A few of the very large cities (counting D.C. in this) things are a little different and it is genuinely very difficult to legally get a gun. I oppose that, but those are fringe cases, I'm all for those regulations being dismantled over time but at the same time I think most people that really care about owning a gun do not live in NYC, Washington, San Francisco, or Chicago. Especially since in all of those cities you could still say, work there, but easily live in a more gun friendly jurisdiction since even California and New York State it's not difficult to legally own a weapon as long as you aren't in certain stupid municipalities.
So the first thing to take away is, by and large the people who are up in arms about current gun law being too restrictive are mostly making a mountain out of a molehill.
At the same time, there are some really, really dumb laws out there. California recently banned .50 cal rifles (maybe just banned new purchases, I can't remember), these are weapons that are essentially unknown in the world of crime and just about the only people who own or use them privately are hardcore gun nerds that like to take them out to the range. These are extremely expensive weapons, extremely heavy and awkward to use, and are just simply not part of crime in America. They were banned essentially because of stupidity because of the fact they deliver an incredibly powerful round, even though there was no evidence they were being used in crime whatsoever. Finally, the power of the round is mostly irrelevant for crime, far more portable (and still legal) firearms exist that can kill police through body armor that aren't .50 cal rifles and also have a far greater likelihood of actually killing police since they are more likely to be actually used by a criminal.
Who are you and what have you done with our Biscuit?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2012, 05:46:15 PM
Who are you and what have you done with our Biscuit?
No shit. It's incredibly disconcerting.
I think the Democrats' lack of fight on gun control is because they realize that it's a loser; its opponents pull out all the stops when it comes to the slightest discussion of any kind of control, and it's not worth the fight; similar to the Republicans' approach to abortion back in the 80's and well into the late 90's (with the exception of bombing clinics and murdering doctors, but I don't think any GOP members of Congress were directly involved): there was simply no traction with the opposition, so it wasn't worth the whole team effort.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2012, 05:30:22 PM
I'm fine with safety regulations for any right that can impact the public, because let's be honest gun ownership isn't something that happens in a vacuum and affects no one else in society. But any requirement that I need to demonstrate some "need" or "just cause" to get a firearms permit is simply unacceptable.
Bah. When it comes to carrying a concealed weapon, you gotta have a good reason. And "just because" is not a good enough reason to overrule "just cause".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2012, 06:02:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2012, 05:30:22 PM
I'm fine with safety regulations for any right that can impact the public, because let's be honest gun ownership isn't something that happens in a vacuum and affects no one else in society. But any requirement that I need to demonstrate some "need" or "just cause" to get a firearms permit is simply unacceptable.
Bah. When it comes to carrying a concealed weapon, you gotta have a good reason. And "just because" is not a good enough reason to overrule "just cause".
More good guys with guns than bad guys with guns = Just Cause
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2012, 05:46:15 PM
Who are you and what have you done with our Biscuit?
I've slowly transitioned from a Texas style Republican to a traditional New England style Republican. For me the biggest issue is I've slowly become more and more distrustful of the populace, to the point that I'm a lot more authoritarian than I ever thought I'd be.
I still believe free markets make economic decisions better than any government can, and I'm extremely fiscally conservative. I still think the invasion of Iraq was a justified moral action (although I've always questioned its strategic wisdom), and I think extraordinary rendition, water boarding, and warrantless wiretaps are justified uses of executive power just as always. It's just I've grown to intrinsically distrust the populace at large and largely think they do not know best on most issues.
As part of this, I'm fine with mandating the public get some level of government approval to do something dangerous like own a gun. I've also become very opposed to things like home schooling. I think the Germans have it right on that one, education of the population is a public order and health issue and I think crazy Christians who just want to pull their kids from public schools so they don't have to learn any actual science are hurting America and should have no right to weaken our workforce in such a manner.
Do you think that openly supporting torture is strategically wise?
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2012, 11:15:00 AM
Do you think that openly supporting torture is strategically wise?
I don't see an intrinsic problem with it. The propaganda issue is moot, we could give people in Guantanamo a pet kitten and steak oscar for dinner every night and the propaganda leaflets brain-dead Arabs read over in the Middle East would still say they were being rape-tortured to death by Jewish sorcerors.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2012, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2012, 11:15:00 AM
Do you think that openly supporting torture is strategically wise?
I don't see an intrinsic problem with it. The propaganda issue is moot, we could give people in Guantanamo a pet kitten and steak oscar for dinner every night and the propaganda leaflets brain-dead Arabs read over in the Middle East would still say they were being rape-tortured to death by Jewish sorcerors.
Who cares about what Arabs think?
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2012, 06:11:25 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2012, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2012, 11:15:00 AM
Do you think that openly supporting torture is strategically wise?
I don't see an intrinsic problem with it. The propaganda issue is moot, we could give people in Guantanamo a pet kitten and steak oscar for dinner every night and the propaganda leaflets brain-dead Arabs read over in the Middle East would still say they were being rape-tortured to death by Jewish sorcerors.
Who cares about what Arabs think?
Not me, that's my point. But they are the only relevant reason I can think of to be coy about whether we are using "harsh" methods or not. Who else is there? The Europeans? I care less about what they say than the Arabs, the Arabs at least (a small number of them) actually do things, Europeans just pussy bleed so there is even less reason to give a fuck what the Europeans have to say.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2012, 05:30:22 PM
I felt the strategy being utilized was one of attrition and ever expanding regulation as opposed to overt bans
If only that had continued. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2012, 07:44:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2012, 06:02:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2012, 05:30:22 PM
I'm fine with safety regulations for any right that can impact the public, because let's be honest gun ownership isn't something that happens in a vacuum and affects no one else in society. But any requirement that I need to demonstrate some "need" or "just cause" to get a firearms permit is simply unacceptable.
Bah. When it comes to carrying a concealed weapon, you gotta have a good reason. And "just because" is not a good enough reason to overrule "just cause".
More good guys with guns than bad guys with guns = Just Cause
So we can all shoot each other? Or are you suggesting some MAD situation? :unsure:
Mississippi doesn't ban open carry, but it doesn't permit it either. It's in a total grey area that will likely never be covered, since the bill legalizing open carry dies in committee every year, and I'm not familiar with any cases in MS where someone was found guilty of violating the law through open carry.
Quote from: Scipio on March 10, 2012, 07:09:29 PM
Mississippi doesn't ban open carry, but it doesn't permit it either.
I bet I know which one gets shot by the poleece in Mississippi.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_vmpSO2BbYCE%2FSjECvqEjXLI%2FAAAAAAAAHZ4%2FcPydra6ZBMw%2Fs400%2FKKK_GUN_bw.jpg&hash=51b6e36ff1fe8de300e75ffa95745f70eea4c58d)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackmeninamerica.com%2FKen%2520With%2520Gun.jpg&hash=1248fa8b01515075754218a9a2b33abce6151728)
Digger Phelps was in the Klan?? :o
I thought it was Red Auerbach.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
I thought it was Red Auerbach.
Are you stoned? Red looked like Yogi Berra. Short bald dude with no neck.
The cigar threw me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2012, 08:24:39 PM
The cigar threw me.
It threw me, too. I thought it was Fidel Castro.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2012, 06:38:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2012, 06:11:25 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2012, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2012, 11:15:00 AM
Do you think that openly supporting torture is strategically wise?
I don't see an intrinsic problem with it. The propaganda issue is moot, we could give people in Guantanamo a pet kitten and steak oscar for dinner every night and the propaganda leaflets brain-dead Arabs read over in the Middle East would still say they were being rape-tortured to death by Jewish sorcerors.
Who cares about what Arabs think?
Not me, that's my point. But they are the only relevant reason I can think of to be coy about whether we are using "harsh" methods or not. Who else is there? The Europeans? I care less about what they say than the Arabs, the Arabs at least (a small number of them) actually do things, Europeans just pussy bleed so there is even less reason to give a fuck what the Europeans have to say.
It indicates a lack of judgment, which makes it a sign of weakness. I am not convinced that it is in America's interest to appear weak.
Quote from: The Brain on March 11, 2012, 07:53:12 AMIt indicates a lack of judgment, which makes it a sign of weakness. I am not convinced that it is in America's interest to appear weak.
No, things like extraordinary rendition and waterboarding don't really show a lack of judgment or make America look weak. I think some people who are uncomfortable with the morality of those things try to come up with fanciful reasons for why it isn't smart without actually coming out and saying "I think it is wrong" because
they don't want to be lumped together with tie-dye wearing hippies. Also members of this crowd: the people who make the logically impossible argument that torture "never works."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 11, 2012, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 11, 2012, 07:53:12 AMIt indicates a lack of judgment, which makes it a sign of weakness. I am not convinced that it is in America's interest to appear weak.
No, things like extraordinary rendition and waterboarding don't really show a lack of judgment or make America look weak. I think some people who are uncomfortable with the morality of those things try to come up with fanciful reasons for why it isn't smart without actually coming out and saying "I think it is wrong" because they don't want to be lumped together with tie-dye wearing hippies. Also members of this crowd: the people who make the logically impossible argument that torture "never works."
I didn't talk about using torture.