View Full Version : Federal Judge Rules Maryland Gun Law Unconsitutional
GeorgiaBoy
03-05-12, 18:37
From: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/
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."
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."
I didn't even know Maryland had a law like this, but its good to see a Federal court rule correctly on it.
Excellent news. I hope that this ruling has a chilling effect on other "may issue" states.
GeorgiaBoy
03-05-12, 18:48
Excellent news. I hope that this ruling has a chilling effect on other "may issue" states.
Its definitely showing a social culture change in this country towards guns. Its a big sign to politicians that they need to stop bringing up gun politics, as it becoming more and more of a game changer in elections. While 20 years ago supporting gun control might have had positive results, today guns are a very touchy subject.
Let's see if this can be parlayed into success in other "may issue" states.
If we get conflicting rulings then it will go to SCOTUS.
-
yeah... spread that over to NJ and I will be in line for my CCW in an instance! lol
ICANHITHIMMAN
03-06-12, 11:51
Good news another positive precedent
yeah... spread that over to NJ and I will be in line for my CCW in an instance! lol
Is Maryland in the same judicial district as New Jersey?
Is Maryland in the same judicial district as New Jersey?
Honestly not sure, but I just hope it rubs off since NJ has the same "Justifiable Need" clause in their CCW Laws and there is a similar lawsuit by the SAF against NJ as there is/was against MD.
Edit: no they are not, MD is the 4th and NJ is 3rd
Eurodriver
03-06-12, 16:03
If this spreads out to Hawaii you will never see me on the mainland US ever again. :cool:
Rahm and Bloomberg are crapping their pants right about now. Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing.
I think this ruling is great. No reasonable person could suggest that other inherent rights are infringe-able based on a supposed lack of necessity by bureaucrats. (can you imagine having to prove need for privacy, or faith, or legal representation in order to be "granted" such a right by government?)
But Mike Church brought up an interesting point on his show the other day: How exactly does a federal judge have the legal jurisdiction to invalidate a state law? If the law violates the Maryland state constitution, ok. But under the 10th A, aren't these type of restrictions fully lawful?
The same argument was made by some members here a while back about the national ccw reciprocity act. Great idea on paper, but when you boil it down to what it actually is, it's nothing more than illegitimate federal encroachment into legitimate state power. We cannot have welcome federal encroachment, and unwelcome federal encroachment, can we?
NOTE*. I'm simply playing devils advocate here, and relaying an interesting argument id heard on talk radio. I DO think this ruling was just, lawful, and proper.
Thoughts?
As far as the National CCW thing, I believe you are wrong. What if a state decided to no longer recognize the marriage certificate of another state or for that matter a drivers license? They can't because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The first section requires states to extend "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress may regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.
I think this ruling is great. No reasonable person could suggest that other inherent rights are infringe-able based on a supposed lack of necessity by bureaucrats. (can you imagine having to prove need for privacy, or faith, or legal representation in order to be "granted" such a right by government?)
But Mike Church brought up an interesting point on his show the other day: How exactly does a federal judge have the legal jurisdiction to invalidate a state law? If the law violates the Maryland state constitution, ok. But under the 10th A, aren't these type of restrictions fully lawful?
The same argument was made by some members here a while back about the national ccw reciprocity act. Great idea on paper, but when you boil it down to what it actually is, it's nothing more than illegitimate federal encroachment into legitimate state power. We cannot have welcome federal encroachment, and unwelcome federal encroachment, can we?
NOTE*. I'm simply playing devils advocate here, and relaying an interesting argument id heard on talk radio. I DO think this ruling was just, lawful, and proper.
Thoughts?
ICANHITHIMMAN
03-14-12, 05:51
Im no legal guy by any means but isnt the fact that the 2nd amemendent is part of the constitution a federal thing? So how can a state change a federal law in the first place?
Im no legal guy by any means but isnt the fact that the 2nd amemendent is part of the constitution a federal thing? So how can a state change a federal law in the first place?
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
Most states that have good gun laws have their own 2A provided in the state constitution. Places like Kalifornia and the Empire State have no provision, making severe gun control legally easier.
The BoR is only a list of federal government no-no's; the states at the time wanted some extra restrictions spelled out clearly. (not clearly enough IMO)
Eta: I'm no legal guy either
Empire State have no provision
New York State Civil Rights Law Article 2, Section 4
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed."
And as a sort of tie in, elsewhere in the muddle of laws, policies and red tape there's definition of what 'militia' is in NY, both organized which the state recognizes them as a militia unit for them to practice and unorganized being all males 17 to 45 in good health unless retired military officer in which case upper limit is higher.
The words are there, NYS just chooses to ignore them.
But Mike Church brought up an interesting point on his show the other day: How exactly does a federal judge have the legal jurisdiction to invalidate a state law? If the law violates the Maryland state constitution, ok. But under the 10th A, aren't these type of restrictions fully lawful?
IIRC the 14th Amendment made it mandatory that the states recognize the bill of rights. When the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd was an individual right and not a state right, like other had claimed, it was then incorporated through the 14th.
My problem is that local and state governments are choosing to ignore the ruling (Heller). While it is now possible to get a pistol in DC the process is far from constitutional. Could you imagine what the left would say if the same requirements where applied in order to get an abortion.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-14-12, 08:47
As far as the National CCW thing, I believe you are wrong. What if a state decided to no longer recognize the marriage certificate of another state or for that matter a drivers license? They can't because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The first section requires states to extend "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress may regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.
What limits would you place on that? If laws are fully portable, why even have states? Take a building permit from Texas to Cali?
I'm all for CCW from sea to shinning sea, but not at the cost of empowering the federal government, reducing states rights, and allowing any chance of the dumb-asses in DC from screwing around in this area.
CarlosDJackal
03-14-12, 09:04
This can be a double edged sword depending on who welds it. On the one hand, States are not supposed to be able to negate Federal Law or anything that is guaranteed by the US Constitution. They can, however, elect to make it stricter (IE: may issue vs. shall issue).
When this Federal Judge declares that a state's laws as unconstitutional does this mean he (a Federal entity) is exercising the power to negate this state's law? Or is he merely forcing the state to modify that law so that it no longer violates the US Constitution?
The problem with the Feds being able to negate a law is it could take away the individual States' rights to self-govern (which is something every dumboKrat I have ever talk to seem to think is a good idea). This could open up the States to have to accept any Federal Law to be the end all and be all (IE: obamacare).
The current system creates a buffer between each State's citizenry and a Federal government which in theory can find its Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches under the control of a single party. Can you imagine what state we would be in if obama had control of both houses and the SCOTUS fo0r any period of time?
This is also the reason why each State normally have their own Constitution that is usually based on and in line with the current US Constitution. This way if such a single party government does manage to modify the US Constitution (IE: negate the Second Amendment) each state can still maintain the Right to Keep and Bear Arms within their own borders.
As it stands those who do not agree with the current MD laws concerning firearms ownership and CCW can do what I did almost 12-years ago: move to Virginia or any other gun-friendly State or Commonwealth. JM2CW.
CarlosDJackal
03-14-12, 09:11
As far as the National CCW thing, I believe you are wrong. What if a state decided to no longer recognize the marriage certificate of another state or for that matter a drivers license? They can't because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution...[/B]
Actually, this is already something that has been happening. Certain states do not recognize the marriage certificates of states that allow same-sex marriage.
States do have the ability to not recognize another state's driver's license should they choose to do so. The only reason why none of the states do is because the Federal Government has used Federal Funding for Highway maintenance and expansion ransom and forced the states to comply. The same is true for the mandatory use of seat belts.
If the Feds wanted to, they can use the same tactic with respect to carry permits.
What about equal protections & rights? Can a state say the life of one person is more worthy of protection than another? A state cannot deny employment, housing, basic services based on class. I fail to see how they can deny 2A rights based on class either.
Just thinking out loud as I haven't got time to do legal research on it right now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.