U.S. Federal Judge Overturns Statute ‘Requiring’ Citizens To Have ‘A Good And Substantial Reason To Wear, Carry, Or Transport A Handgun ~


Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist

The picture below says it all, the judge said it better.  Living in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia one has to jump through many hoops to receive a CWC license.  In “shall issue states” it’s no problem, in “will issue states its up to the Sheriff in the county in which one lives. 

Something that idiotic politicians on the left can’t seem to fathom is that they put us at the mercy of criminals who apply for nothing and are required to take no lesson or register their weapons.  This is a great day for America and freedom from tyranny.  The true criminals we must worry about are those in congress who vote to take away or restrict ownership of weapons.  Those days appear to be drawing to a close. 

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

“Grossly Violates The Second Amendment Of The Constitution!”

Political VelCraft

May 4, 2012 by Volubrjotr

Earlier today, Maryland federal district Benson Everett Legg decided the case of Woollard v. Sheridan. Plaintiffs on the case  are Robert Woollard and the Second Amendment Foundation. The lead attorney for plaintiffs is Alan Gura, the winning attorney in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

As explained in the district court’s Dec. 2010 ruling, rejecting a motion to dismiss:

Plaintiff Woollard initially obtained a handgun carry permit after he was assaulted by an intruder in his home in 2002. The permit was renewed in 2005. At that time, the intruder had recently been released from prison, providing a “good and substantial reason” for Woollard to carry a firearm. In 2009, Woollard again sought to renew his permit so that he could carry a handgun for self-defense. MSP Secretary Sheridan denied Woollard’s application, however, because Woollard failed to provide sufficient evidence “to support apprehended fear.”

At issue in the case is the Maryland statute which says that the Secretary of the State Police can issue a carry permit if  the applicant “has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Md.Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-306(a)(5)(ii).  (More below)

In today’s decision on the merits, the “good and substantial reason” requirement was ruled to violate the Second Amendment. The court held that the Second Amendment right is not limited to self-defense in the home. It also includes the militia and hunting. None of the Second Amendment rights can logically be confined solely to the home: “In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”

The internal quotation, by the way, is from Eugene VolokhImplementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009). Based on judicial citations, the Volokh article appears to be by far the most influential post-Heller  article on the Second Amendment.

The Maryland carry license law was not “narrowly tailored,” says the Woollard opinion. Moreover, “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights.” Rather, “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

The case is headed to the Fourth Circuit, which has a mixed record on Second Amendment issues. From there, Woollard could be the case in which the Supreme Court chooses to tell recalcitrant lower federal courts that Heller and McDonald really do mean what they say: that the Second Amendment includes the right to carry, albeit not in “sensitive places,” and the government may, if it wishes, require that carry be open rather than concealed.

The SAF press release is here, and a terse AP story is here. Congratulations to Alan Gura and to SAF President Alan Gottlieb!

Volokh

Related articles
About these ads

6 responses to “U.S. Federal Judge Overturns Statute ‘Requiring’ Citizens To Have ‘A Good And Substantial Reason To Wear, Carry, Or Transport A Handgun ~

  1. Thanks for posting this, Jim. Yes, it is a victory–so far. If one has to jump through firey cirucs hoops in a culture gone nuts to establish the word “necessary”, then the Second Amendment is void in all but the most extreme circumstances, making the requirement comical. Whereas in reality no such burden need be placed. The right itself is the reasoning, even IF a court or a whole gaggle of Progressive pols thinks that our culture is inherently safe as a CareBears movie.

    Thanks again.

    • Hi Wake good to see you back I had been wondering about you. I see your name all over pictures on the internet. I have a CWC permit. The hoops and the law one studied is amazing. But I can see the reasoning of our over lords, far better to have criminals with guns, no education, or training buy them illegally so they can make sure to keep the number of gun related deaths nice in high. Of course the biggest anti gunners like Feinstein and Chuck U. Schumer carry concealed weapons but tell us we can’t. Please don’t be a stranger…J.C.

  2. I need to say that I Volunteered to help the GOP/Republican Party with-in Mississippi today. I say and ask that all that read this do the same in their respective States.

    Business is bad here. I haven’t worked on a Computer in almost two months. Calls have stopped and it costs us right @ $135-150.00 a month for this business Phone & DSL. So…since I have so much time, I may as well apply it usefully…right? Saying this, I’m not sure I have $132.00 for my CCW Permit. Not even sure I would “CARRY” if I had it but we have one in each vehicle anyway. But I say to you….if you have the CASH…and you wish to “CARRY”, then DO IT! Be sure you are properly trained in the use of the weapon, know your rights and be aware of the State Procedures for the Legal use of that weapon and be prepared for the “STORM” when and IF you must Deploy that WEAPON. Be assured that you will be scrutinized by a Grand Jury in Most Cases if you Kill the Individual unless there are witnesses and a clear and cut situation. There are also Legal Websites you can join that will dispatch an Attorney in the event that you DO Dispatch someone that will respond within HOURS of the situation.

    Food for thought, Pilgrims….. food for thought…..

    Regards,

    The Buz Man

    P.S. To Redneck Woman: :)

  3. I did officially ‘like’ this post in order to show my support for the magnificent joy you and others are doing to inform the sheeple!

  4. It’s great to hear about a Federal Judge that can comprehend the simple language of the US Constitution although I reject the idea of a permit in it’s current form. I agree with the gun safety but not the costs. People turn the qualification requirements into a business and the right to protect one’s self, home, family or to exercise one’s right’s should not be a business for profit.
    CCW verse OP; While concealment might prevent some blue blooded liberal from freaking out so bad they hurt them selves at the sight of a small handgun, it does little to PREVENT crime. Secondly, Concealment as I said, requires carrying a small automatic which are less accurate and have less punch. The Accuracy troubles me. In the Martin(Fl)-v-Zimmerman case, it appears that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was shot point blank. Open carry with a full sized Pistol, this case would not have hit the radar. It would have never happened. Criminals conceal weapons. We profile everyone we see. An open carry prevents crime and allows an unarmed person to make an informed decision in an emergency.
    One other aspect of the right to bear arms, and qualification thereof, I’ve thought about all my life. While with my Grandfather at work at the age of 12, his place of business was robbed and I stumbled into the event as the perp was running away. I unloaded my .22 rifle at the white t-shirt. He fell 100 yards away. I was never emotionally troubled because I knew I did what was right and had to be done but you have to carry that all your life. Some people may not handle that very well. The States just might want to look into offering some type of counseling or psychological evaluation be required. It goes against certain aspects of ones rights, but there are people that should not carry much less have to use and be at peace with having to use deadly force. It’s a tough call!

    • Times are changing and more and more people are becoming aware of the need to defend oneself and property. Just this week in a rural area a 65 year old man fended off a gun wielding would be robber who walked in on him in his garage. He had a piece of door trim that had nails in it and began swatting at the gunman who must have been startled that this older man with only a board would defend himself and fled the scene. There was another incident where 3 gunman tried to rob 3 young 20 somethings as they left their house. One of the three girls had a pocket knife and stabbed one in the chest. The other two fled. While it is not a good idea to bring a board or a knife to a gunfight this just shows that people who are willing to defend themselves have a much better chance of survival. I would be willing to bet these folks will have a gun with them from now on…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s