The U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed gun-rights advocates by letting stand a Maryland law that requires people to show a special need for protection to get a permit for carrying a handgun in public.
Six months after leaving intact a similar New York law, the justices today turned away an appeal by a Maryland man who was denied renewal of his permit to carry a handgun. A federal appeals court upheld the law in March, saying it was a reasonable effort to protect public safety and prevent crime.
The rejection, at least for the time being, keeps the justices out of the fray over the constitutional right to bear arms. The nation’s highest court hasn’t considered a Second Amendment case since 2010, when it said people have a right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense purposes.
Under the appeals court ruling, “the Second Amendment has no practical impact beyond the threshold of one’s home,” argued Raymond Woollard, the Maryland man who challenged the law along with the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation. The National Rifle Association also backed the appeal.
Maryland is one of six states that generally require people to make special showing to get a carry permit. The state’s requirement doesn’t apply to police officers, prosecutors, judges and security guards.
The law protects citizens by “decreasing the availability of handguns to criminals via theft, lessening the risk that basic confrontations will turn deadly and reducing escalations of routine police encounters with citizens into high-risk situations,” Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler argued in court papers.
Enjoy your gun control enclaves. That's all you have. Forty of the fifty states are on my side, and Illinois is being dragged into the free world.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason I don't live in Maryland. I refuse to live in slave states.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise here. The Supreme Court already stated, in D.C. v. Heller, that conceal carry is not a right defined by the 2A. And I quote: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues." See here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
ReplyDeleteYour side keeps misunderstanding the ruling. Carry wasn't at issue in Heller. That will come in another ruling in the future.
DeleteBaldr,
DeleteThat just says that it doesn't establish an absolute right to carry any weapon without any restrictions. That does not say that carry is not a right--the language there leaves room for the finding of a right to carry subject to certain regulations.
"No surprise here. The Supreme Court already stated, in D.C. v. Heller, that conceal carry is not a right defined by the 2A."
DeleteConsidering that the Seventh Circuit and the Illinois Supreme used Heller to come to their decisions that carry outside the home cant be banned.
I'm still waiting for you gun control freaks to tell me what bear could possibly mean, if it doesn't mean outside my home.
Deletess loves to mention his favorite cherry, the Seventh Circuit decision.
Delete"Bear," as it was used in the 2A means OWN a gun IN ORDER TO participate in the militia. Keep pretending we never told you that, liar.
"The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."
Deletehttp://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.pdf
Mike, if Baldr wishes to attempt to ignore the decision, I'm happy to remind him. It was a fairly significant decision considering it resulted in what amounts to a court order requiring them to implement a permit system.
Mike,
DeleteYes! How Dare Sarge cite to the Circuit court case that supports him rather than the Circuit court case that doesn't! It's just not fair that he support an equally powerful precedent in his favor.
As for your definition of bear, I thought that was what you said keep means. Also, that doesn't match the precedent we have regarding what bear means--precedent stretching back over a century.
Mikeb, that is a bizarre definition of "bear." You might as well have said that it refers to a large, furry animal.
Delete