Gun grabbers, all under the guise of public safety do they ply their nefarious intentions of eroding our civil liberties. Much like the food nazi’s, under the guise of public health, the cap and traders, under the guise of protecting our environment, the card checkers, under the guise of worker’s rights, and those conscience deniers church/state separation ignorers forcing employers to provide products and services contrary to their moral beliefs, the gun grabbers go to sleep at night with a clear conscience, knowing that they know what’s best for the rest of us. But sometimes the judicial process works, and they get spanked in the process:
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.”
At first I was confused about the apparent unconstitutionality of permits, but they clarified that part:
“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.”
OK, now it makes sense, it was the permit process in place in Maryland that was off kilter, making citizens jump through arbitrary hoops in order to exercise constitutional rights, not good.
As simpatico with the defendant’s attorney, the permit process was not at issue, it was how it was used, allowing the government to decide if your application was worthy or not.
What is also significant here is that the court clarified that the Second Amendment is not limited to “the home”, therefore, Maryland citizens should not be required to submit a “good and substantial reason” when applying for a concealed carry permit. Many states have instituted an arbitrary and onerous process whereby the citizens have to PROVE that they NEED a concealed weapons permit, this ruling states that belief wrong headed and not in keeping with the Second Amendment.
The article mentions the inclusion of other states requiring a permit, but the permit process in these states only involves being truthful in the application, no “compelling need” is required, and no tacit limitation on gun ownership is the goal.
Some libertarian minded folks might think any permits or any regulations on gun ownership is a violation of their rights. Although I understand this belief and have stated before that our liberties and constitutional protections trumps facilitating the police in the performance of their duties, I don’t think that requiring a permit to buy a handgun violates this belief (but as usual, am open to a better argument).
Knowing who the registered owner of a handgun which was used in the commission of a crime is a public safety issue, requiring a gun safety class and a show of competence in issuing CC permits is a public safety issue, and putting some limitations (the “leeway” aspect that the ruling judge talked about in this case) in purchasing handguns and certain types of ammo is reasonable (such as we don’t allow 12 year olds to buy guns, or convicted felons). If you even want to discuss the requirements (abuses) of the cooling off/waiting period before you get your gun, (I’m ambivalent about this) we can talk about that.
Death by a thousand cuts (some could make the argument that this administration is using sharper/bigger knives) has been the fate of the American citizenry over the last few years wrt the nanny state and it’s assault/molestation of our civil liberties. This court ruling slowed that process down a bit.