Maryland gun law found unconstitutional

[Little-Acorn]

Occasionally a ray of sunshine breaks through the gray clouds of government restriction.

The 2nd amendment says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted.

And somebody noticed!

-----------------------------------------------

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

Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional

March 5, 2012 12:29 PM

BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that Maryland’s handgun permit law is unconstitutional.

In an opinion filed Monday, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg says a requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun infringes their Second Amendment right to bear arms. He says it isn’t sufficiently tailored to the state’s public safety interests.

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard was denied a renewal of his permit in 2009 because he could not show he had been subject to “threats occurring beyond his residence.” Woollard obtained the permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002.

The lawsuit, which names the state police superintendent and members of the Handgun Permit Review Board, was also filed on behalf of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

 

[dogtowner]

well good. how blatant a violation of the 2nd is that ?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Now if only they would notice a few other things... like the 2nd amendment does NOT say "unless some government official thinks we'd be safer if we were restricted".

And if those government officials are really unhappy about such facts, perhaps they could console themselves with the knowledge that, when criminals know their victims might be armed, they often don't commit their crimes in the first place.

But that might be asking too much.

This is not a bad first step, though, especially for Maryland.

 

[steveox]

Its a Republican Judge. And it was George Bush sr who apointed him back in 1991.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Its a Republican Judge. And it was George Bush sr who apointed him back in 1991.

That explains why he can read.

He can even read the part of the Constitution that says govt can't restrict ordinary citizens' gun ownership.

Will wonders never cease?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Text of the judge's decision can be found here:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.52.0.pdf

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.

In other words, the government is not allowed to assume the citizen is guilty until the citizens proves to the govt that he is innocent. The gvot is the one that must do the proving, before it can declare that a citizen is not allowed to keep or bear arms.

It's a good first step. Next, we'll need a case where the judge examines whatever reasons the govt uses to deny a law-abiding citizen a permit... and decides that those reasons aren't good enough to take away the citizen's 2nd amendment rights.

And then another, etc.

 

[dogtowner]

I would have prefered he simply said "you don't get to do that".