Might Interest Fellow Gun Owners

[Snaggletiger]

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."

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. A spokesman from Maryland's attorney general's office was not immediately available to comment.

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."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oHZFYDug

[Townhallsavoy]

That was actually in question? 

What the fuck is wrong with this country?  (And that state in particular)

[JR4AU]

I'd love to answer that question with: "'Cuz the fucking 2nd Amendment gives me the right!  Is that 'good and substantial enough?"

[Saniflush]

WOW!  Just fucking WOW!

I bet the ACLU didn't rush to defend him.

[GH2001]

I'd love to answer that question with: "'Cuz the fucking 2nd Amendment gives me the right!  Is that 'good and substantial enough?"

Liberals have tried to take an interpretive view of the 2nd amendment since the late 60's and the rhetoric has ramped up again since 2008. Many try to argue that it was "meant" for the formation of militias only. But nowhere does it say that. Again, a convenient activist mentality when needed is their crutch. The 2nd amendment has no explicit terms and conditions. Period.

[JR4AU]

Liberals have tried to take an interpretive view of the 2nd amendment since the late 60's and the rhetoric has ramped up again since 2008. Many try to argue that it was "meant" for the formation of militias only. But nowhere does it say that. Again, a convenient activist mentality when needed is their crutch. The 2nd amendment has no explicit terms and conditions. Period.

DC Sup. Ct case a year or so ago declared the 2A an individual right, not a collective.

[GH2001]

DC Sup. Ct case a year or so ago declared the 2A an individual right, not a collective.

Sounds like they agree with me....and the Constitution.

[wesfau2]

I know I'm going to regret this....but....

the meaning of the 2nd is arguable, and has been argued.

I know: it's those awful activist judges that wanna limit yore rights.

I think that the 2nd ought to mean that citizens, with certain registration restrictions and limitations on firepower, ought to be able to own weapons.

But, I think that if you read (and diagram) the 2nd Amendment as written, it says that the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms is predicated on their involvement in a state militia that is kept to keep the feds in check.  That societal context is outdated and ill-equipped to address our modern life.

Fire away. 

Figuratively speakin.

[GarMan]

But, I think that if you read (and diagram) the 2nd Amendment as written, it says that the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms is predicated on their involvement in a state militia that is kept to keep the feds in check.  That societal context is outdated and ill-equipped to address our modern life. 

I think that's really the core of the debate.  Is the citizenry still responsible for keeping the feds in check?  I say, yes...  Do you believe that the Constitution is written in a context that has become outdated and ill-equipped to address modern society?  I say, no...  I believe that the current phrasing of the Constitution applies just as much today as it did when it was ratified, including the amendments, of course. 

[wesfau2]

I think that's really the core of the debate.  Is the citizenry still responsible for keeping the feds in check?  I say, yes...  Do you believe that the Constitution is written in a context that has become outdated and ill-equipped to address modern society?  I say, no...  I believe that the current phrasing of the Constitution applies just as much today as it did when it was ratified, including the amendments, of course.

Agree that the citizenry is charged with keeping the feds in check.  Disagree that the current context of society dictates that it be done through force.

If you are arguing a strict (and I mean literal) interpretation of the Constitution, then you are relegated to the fringe.  And rightfully so.

[GarMan]

Agree that the citizenry is charged with keeping the feds in check.  Disagree that the current context of society dictates that it be done through force.

If you are arguing a strict (and I mean literal) interpretation of the Constitution, then you are relegated to the fringe.  And rightfully so. 

I don't believe that the literal interpretation of the Constitution means that we're going to take up arms whenever we're disgruntled with our government's actions.  We don't have a history of doing so, but the mere threat of arms has kept the government from overstepping its bounds.  It serves as a deterrent, and I don't believe you have to adopt lunatic fringe ideals to see that. 

[JR4AU]

I know I'm going to regret this....but....

the meaning of the 2nd is arguable, and has been argued.

I know: it's those awful activist judges that wanna limit yore rights.

I think that the 2nd ought to mean that citizens, with certain registration restrictions and limitations on firepower, ought to be able to own weapons.

But, I think that if you read (and diagram) the 2nd Amendment as written, it says that the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms is predicated on their involvement in a state militia that is kept to keep the feds in check.  That societal context is outdated and ill-equipped to address our modern life.

Fire away. 

Figuratively speakin.

Despite what Godless liberal fucks like yourself "think", which y'all should refain from, the SCOTUS has ruled against you. 

Dist. of Columbia v. Heller 128 S. Ct. 2783, Scaliia delivered the majority opinion.  Here are some quotes:

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.

Petitioners justify their limitation of "bear arms" to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to "keep arms."

Finally, Justice STEVENS suggests that "keep and bear Arms" was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to "hue and cry" or "cease and desist." (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of "keep arms.") Justice STEVENS believes that the unitary meaning of "keep and bear Arms" is established by the Second Amendment's calling it a "right" (singular) rather than "rights" (plural). See post, at 2830-2831. There is nothing to this.

What liberal fucks miss.  The 2A doesn't grant a right, it recognizes a God given right to self protection and self preservation.

The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The 2798*2798 Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

Holding:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 2816-2817, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Fuck what you think or believe.

There's more to read here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[GH2001]

Agree that the citizenry is charged with keeping the feds in check.  Disagree that the current context of society dictates that it be done through force.

If you are arguing a strict (and I mean literal) interpretation of the Constitution, then you are relegated to the fringe.  And rightfully so.

So an activist interpretation > a literal interpretation? It may be easier if you would just come right out and say that you interpret it to fit your personal opinions. At least then, you would be honest.

[CCTAU]

So an activist interpretation > a literal interpretation? It may be easier if you would just come right out and say that you interpret it to fit your personal opinions. At least then, you would be honest.

Its the younger, government school educated generation that has been quietly taught this type of thinking.

We, as parents HAVE to know what our kids are being taught and teach them the "alternative" views. You know, the ones we were taught until some liberal assholes rewrote everything.

[wesfau2]

If you are arguing a strict (and I mean literal) interpretation of the Constitution, then you are relegated to the fringe.  And rightfully so.

Typically you all glossed over this part.

JR goes on to prove my point by showing that interpretation was necessary to glean the intent of the Amendment.

[Saniflush]

Typically you all glossed over this part.

JR goes on to prove my point by showing that interpretation was necessary to glean the intent of the Amendment.

I glossed over nothing sir. I intend to keep my weapons in case of zombies. Those that eat flesh and those that exact it through other means.

[JR4AU]

JR goes on to prove my point by showing that interpretation was necessary to glean the intent of the Amendment.

Interpretation was/is necessary because fucking libtards keep trying to infringe on the right. 

[wesfau2]

Interpretation was/is necessary because fucking libtards keep trying to infringe on the right.

Right. 

[wesfau2]

To completely change the direction of the discussion:

Does anyone have any experience with NFA Firearms Trusts?  I have dome some light reading on them and get the gist.  Would like to hear some firsthand accounts, if any, though.

Thanks.

[Snaggletiger]

To completely change the direction of the discussion:

Does anyone have any experience with NFA Firearms Trusts?  I have dome some light reading on them and get the gist.  Would like to hear some firsthand accounts, if any, though.

Thanks.

Thinking about getting involved in that area?  Interesting.  I don't know of anyone around here so I might do a little research and see if there's a market for it.