Blog:

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

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

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."

But state Assistant Attorney General Matthew Fader vowed to appeal the ruling.

“We disagree with this ruling," Fader said in a written statement that noted the "very important implications of the ruling for public safety."

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

Woollard appealed, but his appeal was rejected by the review board, which found he hadn't demonstrated a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution. The suit filed in 2010 claimed that Maryland didn't have a reason to deny the renewal and wrongly put the burden on Woollard to show why he still needed to carry a gun.

"People have the right to carry a gun for self-defense and don't have to prove that there's a special reason for them to seek the permit," said his attorney Alan Gura, who has challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago as an attorney with the Second Amendment Foundation. "We're not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there's a right to bear arms."

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."

The lawsuit names the state police superintendent and members of the Handgun Permit Review Board as defendants.

Many states require gun permits, but six states, including Maryland, issue permits on a discretionary basis, Gura said. In most of those states, these challenges have not succeeded in U.S. District Courts, but they are being appealed, he said.

"Most states that choose to regulate the right to bear arms have licensing systems that are objective and straightforward," Gura said. "That's all that we want for Maryland."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oVuxRY64




8 comments (Add your own)

1. Sylvester Akins, Jr. wrote:
As a resident of New Jersey, we face the same situation as those citizens in Maryland. It is impossible to get a CCW here. In a state of 9 million people, only 500 CCW were approved during a 5 year period. Why? One has to prove to a Superior ourt Judge the reason why he/she need a CCW. Simply stating self defense and home protection won't work. The citizens of New Jersey needs to pay attention to this Maryland procedings.

Mon, April 9, 2012 @ 6:06 PM

2. Daniel Lefebvre wrote:
You know Maryland has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. The question we should asking if the law abiding citizens of Maryland could carry a weapon how much that would impact the crime rate. Criminal don't care about the law so they carry and they also know that people that they commit the crimes against don't normally have a weapon so they have nothing to fear from that person so they can commit the crime without the chance of being harmed themselves. If all the citizens in Maryland were given the chance to carry then the criminals will have a 50/50 chance that person may or may not be armed. The reasoning of the state that people need to be protected from themselves is a Democratic BS which indicts that Maryland citizens are not smart enough to understand the responsibilities of carrying a gun. The state feels that they can protect us with the police force that is in place well the statistic say different for sure. If you look all the states that have major gun control the crime rates are much higher the stats speak volumes but the ones that have CCW permits the amount of crime is less. So what does that say about the system in the states that don't have CCW permitting. I believe that I would rather face a judge because a person threaten my life that I shot then face God because I was told by the state government that I could not have the gun to protect myself.

As smith of smith and wesson said years ago. God made man and women and Smith and Wesson made them Egual.

I would rather have a gun and not need it ever then not have a gun and needed it. Once these states come to understand that protecting one self is a right under the Constitution people in these states will be much safter then they are today.


Jay

Thu, May 3, 2012 @ 3:10 AM

3. Marty wrote:
Wow! so I guess you have to be Raped, Mugged, Robbed or beaten half to death before you can get a CCW in Maryland Huh? Kinda like putting the cart before the horse to me. Give the people the opportunity to defend themselves BEFORE they are attacked I say.

Tue, May 22, 2012 @ 10:08 PM

4. way wrote:
guns can even easily legally be obtained in russia

Mon, May 28, 2012 @ 1:00 PM

5. David Gordon wrote:
Maryland was given the right to argue the second amendment by the judge who found it unconstitutional. Since when is the 2nd Admenment up for debate.....I had to get a Virgina carry permit, I can carry in every state surrounding Md, but not the state I live in. Had to go thru all the back ground checks FBI included to obtain the permit, dos'nt make sense, Im a criminal in my own state if I carry SAD.....Time to move..LOL

Tue, July 10, 2012 @ 4:13 PM

6. Anti-mail wrote:
>Wow! so I guess you have to be Raped, Mugged, Robbed or beaten half to death before you can get a CCW in Maryland Huh?

Actually, you need to be "Raped, Mugged, Robbed or beaten half to death" first, then you have to survive the attack. Then you have to apply for a permit and wait months to be approved or denied.

Either that, or be rich, famous, politically well connected, or a Judge. Law enforcement doesn't need a permit either.

Sun, October 21, 2012 @ 6:04 PM

7. Patrick Kelley wrote:
It's us the honest people who would like to obtain the right to protect us and our families when were away from home against the one with crack in his pocket and a gun pointing at us for our money of which we have to give him because we dont have a gun to point back to defend ourselves, walmart isnt even safe anymore, they wanna ban guns but they did that with drugs, howd that turn out, the ones who want it get and with their illeagal weapons, so when guns are outlaw from law abiding citizens how do we protect ourself from the gun wheilding crack, because dealer probably didnt fill out the proper paper work on the stolen pistol hes about to shoot with while ours is in police lockers in court house, its alright to carry cause apparantly those are'nt the ones there looking to take its our registered guns

Sat, January 5, 2013 @ 12:34 AM

8. Bill Canaday wrote:
"Actually, you need to be "Raped, Mugged, Robbed or beaten half to death" first, then you have to survive the attack. Then you have to apply for a permit and wait months to be approved or denied."

And, apparently, you have to prove that the event is likely, to the point of probability, that the rape, mugging, robbery or being beaten is going to occur again. If you can't show that it is likely to happen again, why would you need to carry a firearm? After all, you've already taken your drubbing ... it won't happen again. Right?

Thanks to a Higher Power, I live in a state that still recognizes that I have a right to continue living without asking a felon for mercy and that my defense of the lives of my family and others around me takes precedence over the right of felons to be successful in their endeavors.

Would I actually pull the trigger? Threaten my wife and find out.

Fri, May 3, 2013 @ 4:06 PM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.

Latest CCW News Headlines:
Quote Of The Day:
Image Of The Day:
Video Of The Week:

View Previous Videos Of The Week

Are you looking for state specific CCW legal information?
Would you like to know which states honor your CCW Permits?
Planning a trip and need quick CCW info for each state you are traveling through?
Featured Article:
Featured Review:
Featured Forum Topic:
Featured Sponsor: