“Maryland’s requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to get a handgun permit is unconstitutional, according to a federal judge’s opinion filed Monday.”
“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” he wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
Dominoes staring to fall… CA next?
This is just one federal judge, but I think he got it right. Like the issue with abortion and free speech, the regulations cannot be onerous. We don’t require women to have a “good and substantial reason” before they can get an abortion (SCOTUS says it’s a right), and we don’t ask that people have a “good and substantial reason” for expressing their political beliefs.
Hey!
That would be cool.
I don’t NEED one, but I have been in situations where I would have felt a lot safer if somebody in the car had a gun, me or trusted friends.
Luckily, I have never needed it, but again, friends have.
I never thought this would be the shakedown on the DC handgun law, but it is, actually, a much better thing.
In California, until recently, you could carry an empty handgun openly, but no bullets, even in a pocket, on your person or in a car.
What’s the point?
Maybe the OP can better flesh out the relationship between the CA law and this one. I live in CA, but have no idea what the law is wrt gun ownership.
In California, the concealed carry license is issued at county level, the applicant must have “good cause”, be of “good moral character”, and undergo specific training.
The “good cause” is interpreted unevenly. There are counties where no cause is “good cause”. There are other counties where “cuz I wanna” is a “good cause”.
See California Concealed Carry - How to Get a CCW Permit
““Good cause” essentially means that you can produce evidence that a clear and present danger exists for you or your immediate family and that carrying a concealed weapon would mitigate that danger.”
Scroll down to #52, at bottom, for the Memorandum/Opinion;
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html
I’m pretty anti-gun myself, but I have to say I agree with the logic of this decision. Like it or not, gun ownership is a right and you shouldn’t need a good reason to exercise it. I’m in favor of reasonable restrictions but this one seems difficult to justify.
I tried to figure out once what the story behind MA’s gun laws were. From what I gathered, you basically had to beg and plead with local law enforcement, try several times while waiting for an appointment that wouldn’t be kept, wait for an extended period of time afterwards, and then if you managed to have the right locker or trigger lock you could have the gun for a few weeks before you’d have to start the licensing process again, due to how long it takes in the first place. I may have misunderstood the details and entire shaming process, as well as drastically overstated everything for the purpose of being a whiny bitch. Also, there was likely some dark sacrifices made to the gods of old if you wanted a concealed carry.
Anyway, yeah. Guns. Without reading the details yet it sounds like a good ruling.
I’d agree with the ruling. The Second Amendment doesn’t require cause.
I will however point out that the case was not quite as it’s being reported. Maryland requires an applicant to give a reason why they’re requesting a gun permit. Raymond Woollard has submitted the application in the past without any problem and been issued a permit and had it renewed. But when it was due for renewal in 2009, Woollard submitted the application with the section for his reason left blank. So the state denied him the renewal on the grounds that he’s legally required to give a reason and he had not done so.
As I said above, I agree with Judge Legg’s decision that requiring a reason is unconstitutional. But does anyone know if this restriction was anything but symbolic? Were there people in Maryland who submitted a reason and were denied a permit on the grounds that their reason was insufficient? Or did the state basically rubber-stamp everyone’s reason?
Well, I guess we can assume at least one person was dissatisfied, since they brought the case to the court initially.
I’m not sure that’s analogous. You have a right to bear arms, but you don’t have a right to concealed carry.
The case in MD was about the license to carry (although there is no distinction between open carry and concealed carry in MD, I saw it mentioned that open carry in MD would result in loss of the license).
In CA, right now, the only way you can carry is concealed with a concealed carry license. Open carry is illegal, whether loaded or unloaded.
So yes, it is quite analogous.
Are you talking about Woollard? Because I already spoke about him.
If people in Maryland were filling out the applications and actually being denied a gun permit then I agree that this was a problem and Woollard was right to take it to court.
But if all you had to do was write down “because I want a gun” as the reason you were applying for a gun permit and the state would accept that, then there really wasn’t an issue here. If that was the case then Woollard was probably just being a dick to start a legal battle over a non-issue.
Maryland is a “may-issue” state, meaning officials are not bound by law to issue a concealed carry permit to applicants. Maryland’s permit system is restrictive, rejecting permits for most citizens. Permits are typically issued to certain professionals (such as doctors), correctional officers, former police officers, private detectives and persons making deposits or receiving money. Permits are sometimes issued for personal protection, but only if there is documented evidence of recent threats, robberies or attacks. Documented evidence is defined as police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.
4 Provide evidence of recent threats and/or assaults. This information is mandatory for personal use permits and must be supported by police reports and/or notarized statements.
If that were the case, though, I have a hard time seeing it would have even gone this far.
Good point. Carry permits are extremely easy to get in New Hampshire, but the form does have a place for “reason”. When I first got mine I asked the cop about it, and he said “Most people just put self-defense, but it doesn’t matter, you can put anything reasonable.” I later found out that a lot of people put “because I have a right to”.
You had to do more than write down “because I want a gun” according to the link lawbuff was kind enough to provide. According to the Secretary of the Maryland State Police, there were four general categories of “good and substantive” reasons to issue a permit.
*Business activities that heighten risk including the need to carry large amounts of cash.
*Employment in regulated occupations like security guard.
*Assumed risk professionals like judges, lawyers and prison guards.
*Personal protection.
People who applied for a permit had to provide a good and substantive reason why they should be given one. i.e. They had to demonstrate why they needed the permit.
The relationship is that both Maryland and California are “may issue” jurisdictions, meaning that cause must be shown why a permit should be issued, and if it is determined by the local issuing authority that the reason isn’t good enough in his/her opinion the application will be denied.
Historically this has been a very corrupt way of issuing permits in that the issuing authority dishes permits out to friends, family and well-connected (i.e., wealthy, famous or otherwise notable) but denies them to average people under the guise of public safety. In New York City in particular it was a way to eliminate political rivals by planting guns on them and busting them for not having an unattainable permit. Southern California cities and San Francisco are famously impossible to get permits in, but in the northern part of the state it’s not really a big deal. Unfortunately, you can only get a permit from the jurisdiction you live in, so the people in the cities are shafted by politics.
This was a good read, and though the “A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs” makes a great quote, the ruling seems a bit more narrowly tailored than this quote would imply. Still, I think it was a good ruling. Looks like the Second Amendment is getting some punches back.
(Now, about that Fourth Amendment…)
According to what I read, the judge ruled that the “reason” requirement was being used as a defacto rationing system, whose purpose was to limit the total number of permits issued.