Hey look what just happened in Maryland

[miles71]

SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL
For Immediate Release: 7/29/2010


SAF Press Release :: SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL

A CCW in Md is tough to get and is 99% of the time very restricted. Hopefully we are on the way in Maryland to a shall issue situation.
TD

 

[nicky4968]

I don't think the "shall issue" provision should come from any court. Even though I approve of "shall issue," I think this is a question for the Legislature.
It's unlikely the feds will find the man has a right to a concealed carry permit.
Let's focus our time and money on expanding the findings in Heller and McDonald.

 

[PDL]

How about let's focus our time and money on the second amendment, till it's actually recognized.

What part of not infringed or bear are we having trouble with? It don't just mean you can keep one in the home. Although, they're trying to sell it that way after both Heller and McDonald.

 

[Jason68]

I agree with Nicky, but...

Yes, it is the Legislature's domain. One problem in Maryland (I lived there 2005 - 2007, and testified at a senate hearing on CCW) is that the Chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, one Brian Frosh, is a personal friend of the Bradys, yes, those Bradys, and any bill having to do with public safety (all firearm related bills) does not leave committee without his say-so, and of course, he only lets anti-gun rights bills through. Folks have raised hell about it, and a CCW bill would likely pass, but as long as he holds that post, no CCW bill shall go to a vote. It is highly unlikely that a challenger could oust him, his district is very Democrat, and even pro-gun Dems there vote for him as he styles himself as an outdoor conservationist who wants to preserve hunting & fishing lands.

 

[miles71]

Gee, I was feeling good about this

Hopefully, since this suit is aimed at the State Police who decides on CCW permits, it could change the procedure for issue. Any step is progress for us in Md.

I mean gee, we dont have any crime problem.....................
TD

 

[oldRoger]

If Justice Thomas had prevailed, or if the McDonald decision had been written differently we would be in better shape.
At the risk of over simplification, what Heller-McDonald said was that our collective right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense could not be infringed without due process. Exactly what does “due process” mean in this case?
That has yet to be thrashed out in court. The reason “home and hearth” has been emphasized is because that is what these cases were about and the justices ‘opined” heavily in this area.

Jason68 is exactly right the courts will be very slow in their overriding of the legislature. Fix the legislature and change will come quickly.

 

[MWB]

nicky4968,

How can a Constitutionally guaranteed right be subject to legislative action? ANY statute or ordinance that in any way restricts such a right is void and of no effect - enforcing such a "law" is a criminal act. Don't forget that the Fourteenth Amendment (which extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to all levels of government) was justified as a means to ensure that the former slaves' right to self defense was protected against the legislatures of several states.

"Infringed" means to nibble away at the edges; "...shall not be infringed." is the most absolute limit on government power in the entire Bill of Rights. To speak of "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and BEAR arms in the face of such a prohibition against any restrictions is absurd. That nine people in black robes say that the sky is green does not, in fact, make the sky green.

Notice that the majority opinion in Heller examined the meaning of every word in the Second Amendment EXCEPT for "infringed."

 

[nicky4968]

A Constitutionally guaranteed right is not an absolute right, without limitation. The supremes just recently (finally) said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That doesn't mean it is without limitation.
At one extreme, if the right were absolute, no one would be denied the right to carry a firearm on an airplane. To advocate such would only bring the sincerity of those who advocate a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment into question.
At the other extreme, you would not be permitted to possess a firearm in your home. Or, if you could, it would have to be disassembled and locked up. If you "carried" it from one room to another, even to protect the lives of yourself and others, that would be a crime.
Obviously, when and how one can "keep and bear arms" is subject to the Legislature's power. If you don't like the laws in effect, get a new Legislature.

 

[MWB]

Again, notice that the majority opinion in Heller examines the meaning of each word in the Second Amendment - except the last. That selective 'analysis' casts doubt on the validity of that opinion. Reading Supreme Court opinions (both majority and dissenting) reminds me of Alice in Wonderland - logic and reality have no place.

"At one extreme, if the right were absolute, no one would be denied the right to carry a firearm on an airplane. To advocate such would only bring the sincerity of those who advocate a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment into question." - actually that is a straw man argument.

The right to defense against tyranny or crime is in fact absolute. Before one asserts a right to do ANYTHING on an airplane, the question, "Who owns the airplane?" must be answered. If you own the airplane, you can carry whatever you want on that airplane. If the owner of the airplane objects, you cannot carry a gun (or do anything else to which they object) on his/her property. Of right, you use the property of another by their leave under conditions defined by that property owner - or you do not use their property at all. Fundamental to the very concept of property rights is the owner's sole ability and authority to control the use of that property.

"Obviously, when and how one can "keep and bear arms" is subject to the Legislature's power." - sorry, you didn't prove this assertion. As a mere assertion, it carries no weight.

 

[oldRoger]

MBW
I wish you luck in your interpretation of Heller/McDonald. I can tell you that some Appeals Court decisions made after McDonald do not agree with your reading.
We will be given “due process” that is how the RTKABA was incorporated in McDonald. I am quite certain that your city/state will not be able to ban all handguns for all people from all homes. Some handguns, some people, and probably some homes can and in some places will be banned. Although banned is not a good word, restricted would be better.

SCOTUS did not opine on the right to bear outside the home. If I were to speculate it will be some years until the right to bear gets to SCOTUS.
If the make-up of the court changes by just one conservative justice in the intervening years, we will be out-of-luck.
Like it or not, we are at the mercy of the various legislatures until then. Meantime progress can be made in the statehouse far beyond what we will get from the courts.

Oldroger.

 

[MWB]

oldRoger,

Ultimately, Supreme Court decisions really do not matter - we effectively keep only those rights we are willing to defend. As Jefferson said, the Second Amendment really comes into play when government tramples the rights of the people beyond the people's willingness to tolerate it.

The third American Revolution seems inevitable at this juncture - government has lost all credibility with the productive class through its insane mortgaging of our future and its unprecedented, unconstitutional intrusions into every aspect of our lives and the political process is hopelessly broken. The productive class has no effective redress; they are now outnumbered by the parasites. 58% of the population are net tax consumers, leaving the remaining 42% to foot the bill. The 58% will not vote themselves out of a meal ticket, despite the fact that the meal ticket is unsustainable. The "money" (Federal Reserve notes) will soon reveal its true value (none) as the Fed continues to monetize a government debt that is impossible to actually repay. The only "good" news in all this is the old cliche, "The third time's the charm." Expect Atlas to shrug very soon.

 

[oldRoger]

Until and unless “ultimately” comes along, decisions of the state and federal judiciary will matter a lot.

Whether the current up rising can maintain steam and direction remains to be seen. Meantime many of us will chose to work within the system.

If you examine the difficulties the Founding Fathers had in converting the Articles of Confederacy to the US Constitution and then selling the Constitution, you will see how difficult that task was. A new and improved constitution would be even more difficult to write and sell under present circumstances.

 

[MWB]

I am not advocating revolution, merely pointing out what I consider a likely near future. By the way, the main reason that the Constitution was such a hard sell was that the 'Constitutional Convention' was actually a coup d'etat organized by New York banking interests to cash in Continental currency (purchased for pennies on the dollar by those bankers) at full face value. Seems like there really is nothing new under the sun.

To worry about the current Constitution is rather pointless given the fact that the only entity it claims to bind (the Federal Government) is not effectively bound. It also seems rather pointless to 'work within the system' when that system protects itself from citizen influence. Remember the 'Republican Revolution' of the mid-nineties? Not ONE item in the 'Contract with America' even passed the House, despite a super-majority. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Insanity can be defined as repeatedly doing the same thing with the expectation of a different result.

Back to the future:

The primary alternative possibility that I see is the current financial collapse going to completion. This could result in a complete infrastructure failure and mass starvation since our 'economy' would consist of subsistence agrarianism and barter after such a complete collapse. The earth's carrying capacity for humans at that level is around 500 million people, rather a bit fewer than the roughly seven billion currently sharing the planet.

The last depression differed from the current conditions in that money still had value. With the world's reserve currency about to become completely worthless, there will be no 'safety net', nothing to prevent complete failure.

How will the 'money' become worthless? Look at the current transfer-payment obligations of the federal government: this 'debt' cannot be paid except by printing more 'money'. Printing 'money' on the requisite scale (larger than the entire economy) will destroy any remaining confidence in that 'money'. This failure of confidence will be sudden because of the psychological factors governing the acceptance of fiat currency as 'money'; there simply will not be sufficient time to put alternatives in place.

One can ignore reality for only so long before the bill comes due.

Either way, we are in for what the old Chinese curse called, 'interesting times'

 

[Pasifikawv]

I don't think the "shall issue" provision should come from any court. Even though I approve of "shall issue," I think this is a question for the Legislature...

While I certainly agree that legislatures should be the one's making laws, I would have no issue with Courts setting the legislature straight when law-makers enact legislation that violates fundamental rights.

If my state legislature passed a law that blue-eyed people cannot vote, I would hope the Court's strike it down. Likewise, I don't have a problem with Court's striking down prohibition to the exercise of 2nd amendment rights.

Striking down an unconstitutional law is not the same as passing a law. If the act of the Courts striking down bad laws results in "shall issue" becoming the status quo by default... I have no problems with that...

Marxiland irks me to no end - especially their misguided gun laws. I cannot get to certain parts of my state or to friends in PA, OH, KY, etc. without passing thru Marxiland... I never violate MD laws, but complying is a real pain and an unnecessary inconvenience that makes no one safer...

I hope the US Congress tries again to pass interstate reciprocity legislation - and that they succeed... Fell short by only two votes in the Senate about a year ago...