# Maryland gun law found unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848 "2012-03-05T19:45:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/21 "2012-03-06T03:22:25Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > 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. Could you provide an example or two of this phenomenon? My goofu is weak today. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/22 "2012-03-06T04:08:11Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 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. There was a nice smack on the head: > [@](#): > > …issuing permits specifically to those applicants who can demonstrate an increased likelihood that they may need a firearm would seem a strange way to allay Defendants‘ fear that when handguns are in the possession of potential victims of crime, their decision to use them in a public setting may actually increase the risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others. If anything, the Maryland regulation puts firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation by limiting the issuance of permits to groups of individuals who are at greater risk than others of being the victims of crime. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/23 "2012-03-06T04:15:08Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > You had to do more than write down “because I want a gun” according to the link **lawbuff** was kind enough to provide. Okay then, so it was an actual problem and not just a theoretical problem. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/24 "2012-03-06T04:15:12Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Could you provide an example or two of this phenomenon? My **goofu** is weak today. No comment on this issue, but I have to say I like the term I bolded. I plan to steal it. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/25 "2012-03-06T05:53:04Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Looks like the Second Amendment is getting some punches back. What punches has the Second Amendment sustained in recent years? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/26 "2012-03-06T06:21:36Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > What punches has the Second Amendment sustained in recent years? Do the punches really have to have come in recent years? Until 2010, Chicago had a handgun ban that lasted for twenty-eight years. In 1994 the Feds passed the Assault Weapons Ban but of course that expired in 2008. It’s illegal for people in the state of New York to possess magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds manufactured after 1998. Of course that law is difficult to enforce because magazines produced after 2004 don’t need to have the date stamped on them. It was very difficult to own a handgun in Washington D.C. but it’s become a bit easier in recent years. Yeah, the 2nd Amendment has taken some punches over the years. In recent years things have tilted in its favor though. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/27 "2012-03-06T10:28:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. I wasn’t aware, apparently a new law was just recently passed banning unloaded open carry except in rural areas. (Seems bizarre, but go figure.) But, that only applies to handguns in public places. You can still carry in the home or otherwise on one’s private property, loaded or unloaded, without a concealed carry license. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/28 "2012-03-06T14:17:23Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > It was very difficult to own a handgun in Washington D.C. but it’s become a bit easier in recent years. I would still characterize it as “difficult.” [Here is a series of blogged entries](http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/) by a woman named Emily Miller, who lives in DC and decided she wanted to get a gun after a frightening encounter: > [@](#): > > It was New Year’s Day 2010, and I’d been staying in the house to dog sit for friends who were on vacation. I’d returned from walking the dog when I saw a man coming from the house. “What are you doing?” I asked, sensing something was off with the situation. The Golden Retriever just stood next to me with a slack leash. > > “We’re here to clean the pool,” the man said. He looked nervous and his eyes were blood-shot. > > I was pretty sure my friends hadn’t called in a swimming pool emergency during the middle of winter. “No, we didn’t call for you,” I said. > > “Oh, then it must be the house next door,” he said, smiling nervously. He turned and walked away quickly. > > I’d left the front door unlocked since I was walking the dog for less than ten minutes. (I know, lesson learned.) After the man left, I was still suspicious so I went inside, grabbed my Blackberry and clicked on the icon for the camera. I walked down the street, and as I turned the corner, I saw about 15 scruffy young men standing around two pickup trucks. We were at the end of a woody, dead-end road. > > I nervously held up my Blackberry to take a quick photo of them and the license plates. Suddenly, the blood-shot-eyed guy darted out, blocking the shot. “What are you doing?” he asked. I looked around at all the men staring at me and was suddenly scared. “Nothing, I’m um, just going now,” I said as I put my Blackberry down instead of taking the picture around him and went home. > > Hours later, I was at a New Year’s Day party when my phone rang. It was my credit card company asking if my card was in my possession because there were odd charges on it. I looked at my wallet and saw that all my cash was gone and the cards. It suddenly dawned on me that the “pool guy” had been inside the house. > > I called 911 and the D.C. police met me at the house.When they heard the story, they called in a detective. I got a long lecture about facing down criminals alone. They searched the big house top-to-bottom to look for windows or doors left unlocked by the bad guys to come back for more. Now I was scared. I had promised to watch my friend’s dog, which meant I was spending the night. > > I was alone in an empty house with a useless dog. I spent the night in the master bedroom with a dresser pushed up against the inside of the door. I didn’t sleep much. I kept thinking how safer I would feel if I had a gun next to the bed. She goes on over the next several months detailing each and every step necessary for her to actually legally purchase and bring home a handgun in DC. It’s fair to say it’s difficult. Read the entire series, or, if you prefer the Reader’s Digest version, here’s an excerpt for her testimony in front of the DC Council during the months she was trying to get her gun: > [@](#): > > As of now, I’m in the 10-day waiting period to see if my registration application is approved for a handgun. Or as I’ve tracked it, I’ve completed 14 of the 17 steps the city requires to register a gun. For me, the safety class has been the biggest barrier to gun ownership - in time, expense and my personal safety. > > It took me a long while to find an instructor for the course - it seemed the District was making it as difficult as possible. As you know, the police give out the list of certified instructors with only their names and phone numbers. > > I called every single one of the 47 people on that list. And only found four instructors willing and able to teach the class. The prices were mostly in the range of $200 to $250. > > It doesn’t say it in the registration packet, but from making all these calls, I quickly learned that the instructors are not allowed to teach the course within the District city limits. > > I just don’t understand how it can be constitutional that I have to go outside Washington in order to exercise my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in D.C. > > All of the instructors are in Maryland and Virginia and teach the class out of the their homes - or more specifically, as one man said, in his basement. They all live from 30 minutes to an hour drive each way. None were near a Metro stop. I don’t know what a D.C. resident who doesn’t have a car would do to take the mandatory class. > > Above all that, the biggest problem is being a woman and trying to find a way to feel safe while taking a class at a strange man’s house. Since the list only gives the instructors’ phone numbers - but no important details such as address, website or business affiliation- they are almost impossible to investigate. > > I don’t believe it it right that the DC police require me to go to an armed stranger’s house - in another state - for any reason. I already don’t feel safe. That’s why I wanted a gun in the first place and still do. > > Another huge hurdle in the gun registration process is buying the gun. Nowhere in the 22-page packet does it say that Charles Sykes is the only gun dealer in DC. And since it is mandatory to use his services - because we aren’t allowed to pick up guns ourselves from stores in neighboring states - I think you should tell people in the instructions that they will have to pay his $125 transfer fee. > > Which brings me to the astronomical cost of registering a gun in DC. On top of Sykes’s fees, I paid $225 for the class. $35 for range fees and ammunition. The passport photos cost $20. Then I paid the city $35 for fingerprints, $13 for gun registration and $12 for a ballistics test. > > So I have spent a total of $465 in fees. And that doesn’t include the cost of the gun! > > I had no idea registering a gun would be this expensive. I think the registration packet should state these costs up front. This is a lot of money for me, and I have a good job. So I don’t know how a lower-income DC resident could afford almost $500 in fees to have a legal gun. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/29 "2012-03-06T14:21:02Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > 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”. Surely some put “because I Live Free”, no? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/30 "2012-03-06T14:47:59Z")
I haven’t read the entirety of the Emily Miller story linked to above, but my first thought was “Wouldn’t the ‘pool guy’ have stolen the gun too?”. Unless she’s planning on carrying it everywhere she goes, but if you’re that paranoid you don’t leave the house and leave the door unlocked either. That said, I too agree that the “you gotta give us a reason” approach is stupid and indeed unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/31 "2012-03-06T15:15:21Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I haven’t read the entirety of the Emily Miller story linked to above, but my first thought was “Wouldn’t the ‘pool guy’ have stolen the gun too?”. Unless she’s planning on carrying it everywhere she goes, but if you’re that paranoid you don’t leave the house and leave the door unlocked either. > > That said, I too agree that the “you gotta give us a reason” approach is stupid and indeed unconstitutional. Perhaps in her case, as she was housesitting. On the other hand, presumably she wouldn’t have left it out. The “pool guy” didn’t steal her Blackberry… sounds like it was a quick in-and-out. At home, we would imagine a gun lock or a gun safe as safety measures against that eventuality. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/32 "2012-03-06T16:18:44Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > I wasn’t aware, apparently a new law was just recently passed banning unloaded open carry except in rural areas. (Seems bizarre, but go figure.) But, that only applies to handguns in public places. You can still carry in the home or otherwise on one’s private property, loaded or unloaded, without a concealed carry license. So would you be okay if your right to free speech was restricted to your own home? In other words, for public safety and for God’s sake think of the impressionable children, you can’t speak in public or post things on the internet, but if you want to whisper non-treasonous things under your bed sheets, at night, with nobody else in earshot, then would you feel that your 1st amendment rights have been protected? ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/33 "2012-03-06T16:46:26Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So would you be okay if your right to free speech was restricted to your own home? No, but the Constitution says that freedom of speech shall not be _abridged_, whereas the right to bear arms shall not be _infringed_. The two are not equal. And I did not, in any case, state that I agreed with the law at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/34 "2012-03-06T16:48:49Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > No, but the Constitution says that freedom of speech shall not be _abridged_, whereas the right to bear arms shall not be _infringed_. The two are not equal. That’s an interesting comment. I know you’re not personally pushing this view, but for the sake of an intriguing argument, could you lay out how _abridged_ differs from _infringed_ in this context? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/35 "2012-03-06T17:04:22Z")
Well, I’m not **gatorslap** , but _abridge_ means to shorten or limit while _infringe_ means to invalidate or defeat (this is an obsolete definition - I’m not sure if it was prevalent at the time of the writing of the BoR - the non-obsolete definition doesn’t really work in this context). So it could be argued that rights which cannot be _abridged_ cannot be shortened or limited in any way (or at least not in any but the most necessary ways), while those that cannot be _infringed_ merely cannot be so limited as to be defeated or invalidated. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/36 "2012-03-06T17:11:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s an interesting comment. > > I know you’re not personally pushing this view, but for the sake of an intriguing argument, could you lay out how _abridged_ differs from _infringed_ in this context? I think the operative definitions here are: abridge - to reduce in scope; diminish; curtail infringe - to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress Very little regulation or restriction is permitted without doing the former, whereas a significant amount can be done without doing the latter. And I think the way the law/jurisprudence is now, is mostly correct. You can’t ban firearms altogether, but you can require permits and background checks and regulate the manufacture and import of guns. Similar regulations on free speech would not be Constitutional (and indeed, would not be tolerated). edit: Or, what Jas09 said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/37 "2012-03-06T17:13:20Z")
Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/38 "2012-03-06T17:28:30Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Well, I’m not **gatorslap** , but _abridge_ means to shorten or limit while _infringe_ means to invalidate or defeat (this is an obsolete definition - I’m not sure if it was prevalent at the time of the writing of the BoR - the non-obsolete definition doesn’t really work in this context). > > So it could be argued that rights which cannot be _abridged_ cannot be shortened or limited in any way (or at least not in any but the most necessary ways), while those that cannot be _infringed_ merely cannot be so limited as to be defeated or invalidated. As a gun-rights proponant, I love this distinction. It makes sense to me that the 1st Amendment should never be limited except in the interest of public safety (yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater, inciting a riot, etc.) yet the right to keep a firearm can be limited (you can have a handgun, rifle or shotgun but not a bazooka or thermonuclear device) as long as the State still allows reasonable gun ownership and usage. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/39 "2012-03-06T19:40:19Z")
> [@gurujulp](#): > > Hey! > > 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. I used to have a concealed carry permit and if having a gun makes you feel safer, then you are exactly the sort of person who **shouldn’t** carry a firearm. Having a firearm, made me very conscious that I might have to make a split-second life or death decision. Based on the self-defense literature I’ve read, this is the correct reaction. A firearm is no substitute for situational awareness. Fear is a useful emotion. Fear is Nature’s way of telling you that you are doing something stupid. If you don’t feel safe in a situation. Get out! Being armed doesn’t mean you’re bulletproof. If you can’t put put aside the feeling of safety that a firearm gives you , then you are actually making yourself less safe. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848/40 "2012-03-06T21:13:29Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > No, but the Constitution says that freedom of speech shall not be _abridged_, whereas the right to bear arms shall not be _infringed_. The two are not equal. > > And I did not, in any case, state that I agreed with the law at hand. That’s fascinating. Taken to its conclusion a law saying that you could lay a finger on an unloaded old flintlock musket on July 4th of each year at 4:43pm for 3 seconds, while supervised by 78 police officers would satisfy the 2nd amendment, but A law against threatening the life of the President would be unconstitutional. Surely , Antonin Scalia in all of his textual glory wouldn’t make such a fine distinction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maryland-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/614848.md?page=3)