Federal Appellate court upholds Maryland ccw laws

[Malsua 1,422]

Maryland's "good and substantial reason" for CCW is essentially the same as "Justifiable Need" in NJ. A 4th circuit ruling just overrode the win at the circuit level.

 

After the NY case in the 2nd circuit (Kachalsky v Westchester) thatruled that "Proper cause" is legal and now this 4th circuit "Good and Substantial Reason" has been ruled ok in the 4th circuit court, I suspect "Justifiable need" will also be lost in the 3rd circuit. This will all hinge on if the supreme court takes the case and that no more liberal anti-gun zealots get on the court before it's litigated.

 

-----------

http://www.baltimore...0,6527965.story

 

By Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun

1:12 p.m. EDT, March 21, 2013

 

A federal appeals court has upheld Maryland's handgun permitting law, reversing a lower court decision by concluding that the state can constitutionally require applicants to show "good and substantial reason" that they need concealed-carry licenses.

 

"The state has demonstrated that the good-and-substantial reason requirement is reasonably adapted to Maryland's significant interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime," Fourth Circuit Judge Robert King wrote in the court's opinion.

 

The case began with Baltimore County resident Raymond Woollard, who sued after he was denied a permit. A national gun rights advocacy group took on the case, arguing that Maryland unnecessarily restricts the right to carry firearms.

 

A federal district judge agreed last March, striking down that requirement as unconstitutional.

 

The Maryland attorney general's office, fearing a spike in gun violence, appealed the decision, and the federal court of appeals allowed the law to stand during the challenge.

 

Alan Gura, a lawyer for the Second Amendment Foundation, argued before the judges in October that because the Supreme Court has held that bearing arms is a fundamental right, people do not need to give public officials a reason they should be allowed to exercise it.

 

He asked the court to consider the implications of applying that standard to other rights such as speech.

"There's no way we can apply such a restriction to the right to bear arms," he said last fall.

 

But Matthew Fader, an assistant Maryland attorney general who argued for the state, said opponents of the permit process want to open up a general right for anyone to carry a lethal weapon "for no reason at all," other than their subjective fears.

 

Maryland does not bar people from taking guns out for sport, military activities or hunting, Fader said.

[email protected]

 

Copyright © 2013, The Baltimore Sun

[mikelets456 78]

I contest, in 1987 only 10 states allowed (shall issue) carry. In 1992 crime/homicides peaked to its highest levels. Since then 41 states have "shall issue" for citizens to carry. Violent crimes/Homicide have dropped every year since 1992 and to 1965 levels in 2012. There's your "justifiable need"! I feel the following should be done:

 

“.....if you elected or appointed officials pass laws which are in direct violation to the USA Constitution, then you have broken your oath of office and therefore have broken the most fundamental law of the land...the Constitution ... and should any one citizen be harmed, violated by a criminal, then you too are guilty because you have aided and abetted the perpetrator....some day soon, all elected and/or appointed public servants will be held accountable for their actions stemming from their voting records........”

 

I am sure most have heard the story of the very liberal Judge who went easy on criminals.....that is, until his wife was mugged !!!

[PK90 3,573]

[diamondd817 828]

This is bad news for us. If the CA3 rules with the CA2 and CA4 then there is even less of a chance SCOTUS will hear the case.

[NJPatriot 0]

Although disappointed, i'm not surprised. The various Circuit Court Justices are simply wrong and cowardly when it comes to applying the Second Amendment right to concealed carry. They are just "doing no harm" in their minds in affirming the status quo This buck will be passed to the Supreme Court where the final decision will be made, and hopefully with Heller/McDonald type results. I Scotus will need to hear it, as there was a conflicting decision in the 7th Circuit Court (? and there is always the possibility of the 3rd Circuit Court ruling in NJ's favor.

[diamondd817 828]

Although disappointed, i'm not surprised. The various Circuit Court Justices are simply wrong and cowardly when it comes to applying the Second Amendment right to concealed carry. They are just "doing no harm" in their minds in affirming the status quo This buck will be passed to the Supreme Court where the final decision will be made, and hopefully with Heller/McDonald type results. I Scotus will need to hear it, as there was a conflicting decision in the 7th Circuit Court (? and there is always the possibility of the 3rd Circuit Court ruling in NJ's favor.

 

Its not a conflicting ruling with the CA7. CA7 ruled that a ban on carry is unconstitutional, not whether if carry can be discretionary or not.

[NJPatriot 0]

Its not a conflicting ruling with the CA7. CA7 ruled that a ban on carry is unconstitutional, not whether if carry can be discretionary or not.

 

Thank you for the clarification on the CA7 ruling. Hopefully CA3 will rule differently (favorably) in the NJ case and provide grounds for Scotus intervention.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

I think we here in NJ need to prepare ourselves for a similar ruling. Maryland has a "good-and-substantial reason" requirement to obtain your CCW. NJ has a "justifiable need" requirement. Maryland DA argued "less guns, less crime." NJ DA argued "less guns, less misuse and fewer accidents." Almost most importantly, Maryland has no open carry. NJ has no open carry. I'm still holding out hope that the counsel for NJ was so incompetent, the judges are almost required to swat away her bumbling argument.

 

This is how I see it.

 

SCOTUS: Keeping and bearing arms is a recognized individual right of citizens protected by the the Constitution that does not require militia participation. States can, however, regulate that right.

NJ/MD: Gotcha. Individuals have the right to keep arms and as states we can decide who among them is worthy of the privilege to bear those arms under the cover of regulation.

SCOTUS: ???

[maintenanceguy 510]

The second amendment is 1 sentence! How are the courts consistently interpreting it so differently from how it is written?

 

Are we nuts? Do we misunderstand something that's obvious to everyone else?

[wooly bugger 1]

I

 

SCOTUS: Keeping and bearing arms is a recognized individual right of citizens protected by the the Constitution that does not require militia participation. States can, however, regulate that right.

NJ/MD: Gotcha. Individuals have the right to keep arms and as states we can decide who among them is worthy of the privilege to bear those arms under the cover of regulation.

SCOTUS: ???

 

McDonald determined that the Heller ruling is "incorporated against the states." I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I believe it means that states can't pass their own laws in violation of Heller.

 

OTOH, the Heller opinion explicitly stated that it was not meant to apply to CCW. Scalia recently hinted that gun control is coming back to SCOTUS. I hope this means that they'll resolve this once and for all, using the same impeccable logic displayed in the majority Heller opinion. It's really a pleasure to read.

 

I completely fail to see how crime or accident protection can be used as a pretext for violating a constitutional right. The same people who oppose shall issue are in a frenzy over stop and frisk. Why not just take it a step further and set up random car inspection checkpoints? Or ban pro-gun speech, since it clearly promotes gun ownership, which we all know increases the risk of "misuse and accidents."

[ryan_j 0]

The second amendment is 1 sentence! How are the courts consistently interpreting it so differently from how it is written?

 

Are we nuts? Do we misunderstand something that's obvious to everyone else?

 

I really believe that judges are legislating/ruling out of their asses and their decisions have zero to do with the actual intent and wording of the constitution. As a result, we are utterly f---ed.

 

Mark Levin's "Men in Black" is a good read btw.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

McDonald determined that the Heller ruling is "incorporated against the states." I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I believe it means that states can't pass their own laws in violation of Heller.

 

OTOH, the Heller opinion explicitly stated that it was not meant to apply to CCW. Scalia recently hinted that gun control is coming back to SCOTUS. I hope this means that they'll resolve this once and for all, using the same impeccable logic displayed in the majority Heller opinion. It's really a pleasure to read.

 

I completely fail to see how crime or accident protection can be used as a pretext for violating a constitutional right. The same people who oppose shall issue are in a frenzy over stop and frisk. Why not just take it a step further and set up random car inspection checkpoints? Or ban pro-gun speech, since it clearly promotes gun ownership, which we all know increases the risk of "misuse and accidents."

 

I think you're absolutely correct on incorporation. Illinois decided that despite the 14th Amendment, Heller didn't apply to them. They went off 19th century case law that held that, in essence, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States and the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the 2nd did.

 

While their prior 2A rulings have been good, I'm hoping the SCOTUS takes up the case and issues a broader judgement this time around. IMHO, even after the McDonald and Heller decisions, some States and federal courts clearly haven't gotten the message. CCW as real "shall issue" here in NJ would be ideal, especially since 40 some states have it now and despite anti-gunners fears, the streets haven't turned into rivers of blood. That being said, I'd be satisfied with a judgement that says the States must allow some form of shall issue (Constitutional) carry with no "justifiable need (NJ)/proper cause (NY)/good-and-substantial reason (MD)/whatever BS California does/whatever BS Illinois is going to pass." If a particular state doesn't like concealed carry and wants to strictly regulate it, fine, but denying law-abiding citizens a protected right is simply not acceptable. Frankly the 2nd Amendment may have been written with open carry in mind , but in today's day in age, concealed carry seems to me to be much more socially acceptable. People who don't like guns or are afraid they are death machines have the benefit of out-of-sight out-of-mind. We'll see what happens but right now we are still probably at least a year out from a decision one way or the other.

[wooly bugger 1]

 

Mark Levin's "Men in Black" is a good read btw.

 

I just discovered Mark Levin and will buy the book. He's hilarious. He is a fiery preacher, preaching to the choir. I think 6 months ago, I would have thought him a sneering, self-righteous blow hard, but in these times he gives perfect voice to my own anger and disillusionment, Mr. Producer.

 

I used to listen to NPR and read the NYT. Now I can't do either, because I've been conditioned by their garbage to feel physically ill when I either hear the NPR hosts' pretentious little voices or see the NYT home page.

 

I really dislike how these past few months have put me into an intolerant, besieged mode. I wasn't like that before, but now that I see how the liberals truly see me, I don't think I'll ever go back. I've even seen it with my "friends." Some have taken to baiting me, and it's just embarrassing to both of us when I leave them stammering and red faced after exposing their ignorance. I've actually cut off friendships, because I now realize that the antis are true enemies, with guns being just the surface manifestation of their irreconcilable antagonism to my values and way of life.

 

Sorry for the off topic rant but had to get it off my chest.

[n4p226r 105]

What was it like prior to concealed carry laws? Is this a new thing? Looking at the map it doesn't look like it was a right anywhere before the 90s really

[BarkNBite 15]

Welcome to New Jersey..........

[RUTGERS95 890]

time to replace judges

[ryan_j 0]

I just discovered Mark Levin and will buy the book. He's hilarious. He is a fiery preacher, preaching to the choir. I think 6 months ago, I would have thought him a sneering, self-righteous blow hard, but in these times he gives perfect voice to my own anger and disillusionment, Mr. Producer.

 

GET OFF THE PHONE YA BIG DOPE!!! (lol, listen to the show to get where I got that from, give 'em the 20 second liberal clock!)

 

I hope this doesn't go too OT but I dislike how he uses ad hominems but I chalk that up to style more than anything.

 

Anyway, he is a solid constitutional conservative. His legal foundation sued to overturn obamacare, and although he was unsuccessful I give him a lot of credit.

 

My personal belief is that the constitution must be upheld as written. No ifs, buts, ands about it. There is plenty of historical context for the 2nd amendment such as state constitutions. There should be absolutely no doubt as to its meaning.

[ryan_j 0]

What was it like prior to concealed carry laws? Is this a new thing? Looking at the map it doesn't look like it was a right anywhere before the 90s really

 

Some states were open carry and some didn't allow carry. Texas you'd think is a pro gun mecca but reality is that they have restrictive laws with regard to carry.

[mikelets456 78]

GET OFF THE PHONE YA BIG DOPE!!! (lol, listen to the show to get where I got that from, give 'em the 20 second liberal clock!)

 

I hope this doesn't go too OT but I dislike how he uses ad hominems but I chalk that up to style more than anything.

 

Anyway, he is a solid constitutional conservative. His legal foundation sued to overturn obamacare, and although he was unsuccessful I give him a lot of credit.

 

My personal belief is that the constitution must be upheld as written. No ifs, buts, ands about it. There is plenty of historical context for the 2nd amendment such as state constitutions. There should be absolutely no doubt as to its meaning.

 

Did you ever notice how the media "leaves" Mark Levine alone? He does not put up with BS and threatens progressives with lawsuits if they attack him. See, the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to them!!!!

[ryan_j 0]

I'm listening to CA4's orals right now for this case.

 

http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/12-1437-20121024.mp3

 

It's quite a difference between us and them. The state seemed well prepared, confident and wasn't bumbling like NJ deputy AG Wood. Haven't gotten to hearing Gura yet though.

[njpilot 671]

My personal belief is that the constitution must be upheld as written. No ifs, buts, ands about it. There is plenty of historical context for the 2nd amendment such as state constitutions. There should be absolutely no doubt as to its meaning.

 

Read the Federalist Papers and there's no doubt what the Framers meant.

[NJPatriot 0]

McDonald determined that the Heller ruling is "incorporated against the states." I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I believe it means that states can't pass their own laws in violation of Heller.

 

OTOH, the Heller opinion explicitly stated that it was not meant to apply to CCW. Scalia recently hinted that gun control is coming back to SCOTUS. I hope this means that they'll resolve this once and for all, using the same impeccable logic displayed in the majority Heller opinion. It's really a pleasure to read.

 

I completely fail to see how crime or accident protection can be used as a pretext for violating a constitutional right. The same people who oppose shall issue are in a frenzy over stop and frisk. Why not just take it a step further and set up random car inspection checkpoints? Or ban pro-gun speech, since it clearly promotes gun ownership, which we all know increases the risk of "misuse and accidents."

I'm in absolute agreement. Driving cars which is a "prililege and not a "right", also leads to accidents, injuries,deaths and are used in the commission of crimes, but NJ "allows and regulates". I don't see how the Courts can justify the defacto NJ ban when it comes to concealed carry. Also under strict or intermediate scrutiny, isnt the State compelled to prove, not simply state the potential public safety issue with regards to a Constitutional right to the Court? Given the relatively good concealed carry statistics in the other States where would they find evidence of a public safety issue?

[ryan_j 0]

How hard is it to get a permit in MD anyway? Just wondering if they are tight asses like NJ or a bit more loose like CT.