Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional

[williamrights]

The Maryland AG is still considering their options.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is unpossible. The judge was appointed by that RINO George W. Bush.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe it's just me, but this sentence seems contradictory. If there's a right, then why in the world must there be a process to permit it? I guess they're basing this on all the other rights I have to get permission to exercise, like......um...ahhhh........

IIRC, a clergy person must be licensed to conduct weddings. Certainly the couple must be to be married. (freedom of religion)
Parade permit. (peaceable assembly)
FISA courts and watch lists. (habeus corpus and right to face your accuser)

I could go on... But I think you get the point. Far too many rights depend upon the obtaining of permission.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jack Burton]

A legal look at the decision

The Volokh Conspiracy » Federal District Court Recognizes Right to Carry Gun Outside the Home, Holds Unconstitutional Maryland’s Restrictive Carry Licensing Scheme

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

IIRC, a clergy person must be licensed to conduct weddings. Certainly the couple must be to be married. (freedom of religion)
Parade permit. (peaceable assembly)
FISA courts and watch lists. (habeus corpus and right to face your accuser)

I could go on... But I think you get the point. Far too many rights depend upon the obtaining of permission.

Blessings,
Bill

Not to quibble, because I get what you're saying and maybe I didn't make the best case for my point. But I can be married outside of a religion and as far as I know a person does not have to have a license to practice a religion or lead a congregation. I have to have a building permit to build a new church. Is that an infringement on religion? Or is it a matter of public safety? Which should take precedence? I'm not sure.

Some rights such as peacable assembly is only restrained when that assembly may interfere with the rights of others to peaceably go about their business. That doesn't mean I can't assemble a group of people in my home, church, or place of business. But I don't have the right to take over a public venue, deprive others of its amenities, and possibly create a public health hazard...unless I'm part of OWS or a labor union that didn't get its way in the legislature or some other pre-ordained, politically correct, aggrieved group...but I digress.

I guess, my point is/was that the 2A is the only right prescribed in the constitution that is often restricted by regulation/permits/license from being exercised at its most basic level, regardless of whether affects anybody else or not.

Regards.

 

[jgreiner]

This is unpossible. The judge was appointed by that RINO George W. Bush.

Bush was only a RINO in the area of Fiscal matters.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not to quibble, because I get what you're saying and maybe I didn't make the best case for my point. But I can be married outside of a religion and as far as I know a person does not have to have a license to practice a religion or lead a congregation. I have to have a building permit to build a new church. Is that an infringement on religion? Or is it a matter of public safety? Which should take precedence? I'm not sure.

Some rights such as peacable assembly is only restrained when that assembly may interfere with the rights of others to peaceably go about their business. That doesn't mean I can't assemble a group of people in my home, church, or place of business. But I don't have the right to take over a public venue, deprive others of its amenities, and possibly create a public health hazard...unless I'm part of OWS or a labor union that didn't get its way in the legislature or some other pre-ordained, politically correct, aggrieved group...but I digress.

I guess, my point is/was that the 2A is the only right prescribed in the constitution that is often restricted by regulation/permits/license from being exercised at its most basic level, regardless of whether affects anybody else or not.

Regards.

Not taking it as quibbling; you made your points politely and civilly, and I thank you. you can indeed be married outside of a church... By an employee of the gov't (a judge) or a licensed sea captain... At some level gov't has several fingers in the pie, though as you correctly point out, those don't specifically infringe on religion. As for gatherings in the home, I know the story was posted on here a while back about the people who were cited/arrested/something for having a religious gathering in their home (Bible study, maybe... Been too long for me to remember exactly, but IIRC there wasn't just one case of it happening.)

We are in essence discussing the same thing, I think. I'm just not sure if the regulation of the other rights is the cause of the belief that the 2A should be regulated or if it's a result of those regulations being mostly accepted by the majority of the public. That is, we often say that for "them" to come after the other rights, "they" have to dismantle the 2A first- I'm not sure that the process will not be concurrent rather than sequential.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm just not sure if the regulation of the other rights is the cause of the belief that the 2A should be regulated or if it's a result of those regulations being mostly accepted by the majority of the public. That is, we often say that for "them" to come after the other rights, "they" have to dismantle the 2A first- I'm not sure that the process will not be concurrent rather than sequential.

Blessings,
Bill

Something to consider. It's quite interesting when you think about it. In one respect we are witnessing the ability to more freely exercise 2A rights to be on the rise. While at the same time, we're seeing a loss in certain aspects of other rights. The recent flap about contraceptives and the Catholic church for example. I happen to believe that is a government intrusion into how one is able to follow the teachings of one's religion, all in the name of health care. Then on the other hand we are only down to a single state in the union that does not allow some form of CC or OC by its citizens.

Interesting times indeed.

 

[jgreiner]

Something to consider. It's quite interesting when you think about it. In one respect we are witnessing the ability to more freely exercise 2A rights to be on the rise. While at the same time, we're seeing a loss in certain aspects of other rights. The recent flap about contraceptives and the Catholic church for example. I happen to believe that is a government intrusion into how one is able to follow the teachings of one's religion, all in the name of health care. Then on the other hand we are only down to a single state in the union that does not allow some form of CC or OC by its citizens.

Interesting times indeed.

Exactly, it's not just the 2nd amendment that is under attack,. It is all of them. The 1st with the Catholic Church, the 5th & 6th with Obama deciding he can kill Americans abroad, etc.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Exactly, it's not just the 2nd amendment that is under attack,. It is all of them. The 1st with the Catholic Church, the 5th & 6th with Obama deciding he can kill Americans abroad, etc.

No doubt there are those that are challenging any and all advancements regarding RKBA, but even while doing so, we are advancing. We're not winning every battle, on every front; it's certainly not an enivitable certainty that these advancements will continue, but we have been making strides. You and Bill are right, and I agree, that on alot of other fronts, we're seeing the opposite effect. It's the dichotemy (sp?) I was pointing out.

 

[mrjarrell]

Dave Workman has a bit more on the case. Looks like SAF really rattled their cages.

Maryland ruling: State AG will appeal, antis demonize decision - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

 

[canav844]

I wonder if it will be appealed?

Dave Workman has a bit more on the case. Looks like SAF really rattled their cages.

Maryland ruling: State AG will appeal, antis demonize decision - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

That didn't take long

If upheld it will be interesting to see how it affects the District of Columbia as well. All other states in the 4th are shall issue, according to Handgunlaws.us.


Now after reading that story I'm curious to know who is campaigning for the 1st, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments to not exist outside the home; since Eugene Volokh is busy going after the 2nd.

 

[beararms1776]

I wonder if it will be appealed?

Very likely. Dontcha know, they can never leave well enough alone.

 

[NateIU10]

MD has 30 days to comply with the ruling. The AG is seeking to appeal. They are filing for a stay pending appeal, and that will likely be granted. There are fewer places that I've felt the need to carry than around my house, here in the beautiful bowels of downtown Baltimore City. There is at least 1-2 shootings every week within a mile of my house.

Judge Legg actually teaches a class at my law school coincidentally.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

MD has 30 days to comply with the ruling. The AG is seeking to appeal. They are filing for a stay pending appeal, and that will likely be granted. There are fewer places that I've felt the need to carry than around my house, here in the beautiful bowels of downtown Baltimore City. There is at least 1-2 shootings every week within a mile of my house.

Judge Legg actually teaches a class at my law school coincidentally.

Please thank him for upholding the Constitution for all of us if you get the opportunity.

 

[mrjarrell]

The judge chickened out and will essentially put things in a holding pattern till the 4th hears it.

Woollard Case Update - Maryland Shall Issue® | Maryland Shall Issue®

 

[Ted]

The judge chickened out and will essentially put things in a holding pattern till the 4th hears it.

Woollard Case Update - Maryland Shall Issue® | Maryland Shall Issue®

Eh. A temporary stay by the judge making the ruling is almost standard practice.