• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Our neighbors in Maryland have won a victory!

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
A victory in Maryland! "Good and sufficient reason" is unconstitutional!

Federal judge rules MD's "good and substantial reason" requirement to obtain a concealed handgun permit is unconstitutional. Granted summary judgement to plaintiff Wollard.

A thread is already going on the MD page here, but I thought mention should be made here on the VA page.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?100586-Judge-rules-for-the-2A
 
Last edited:

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
I saw nothing in the ruling that would stay it pending appeal. Does that mean residents AND non-residents can now apply to MD without getting denied over the "good and sufficient" reason requirement?

Perhaps some of our legal experts can shed some light.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
A "CONCEALED" handgun permit for MARYLANDISTAN on an OPEN CARRY forum in the VIRGINIA thread.. Peter.. say it for me..

What does this have to do with Open Carry in Virginia?
The simple answer is that we are spoiled here in Virginia, and for some of our neighbors (hey, it's always good to share victory with the neighbors, isn't it?) un-permitted Open Carry is and will for the foreseeable future, remain a pipe dream.

The first step in changing Maryland from a de facto "no issue" state into a real-life "shall issue" state is something that merits reporting, even on a Virginia, Open Carry forum.

IMHO, of course. :D

TFred
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Note that the permit is simply to carry a handgun. The permit is required without regard to the mode of carry, just like in Tennessee or Georgia.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Note that the permit is simply carry a handgun. The permit is required without regard to the mode of carry, just like in Tennessee or Georgia.

That's true jm and it's really the only reason I can think of to even mention Maryland. They should be held up as an example of what not to be, same with Georgia and Tennessee.
Congratulations to the few that are trying to regain their rights but I have my own battles here.

After the discussions today with BillB , I'm just not real sympathetic to other states or a lot of their residents.

I see two types moving to Virginia. (One of my quaint stories):uhoh:

God created an entire country that was covered with beautiful woodlands and rivers.

Some States residents discovered it was fun to cut trees for no reason other than the fun of cutting trees. They were piled to rot and pollute the waterways.

The Residents started hating the sight of rotting trees and the taste of polluted water, so they moved to the next state.

Some got to their new home and said "Look at all the beautiful trees. Lets keep it that way".
And some said "look at all the beautiful trees, where's my chainsaw".

In the meantime there are a few in the first state trying to replant and clean up.
That's admirable but I have enough to do trying to keep their castoffs from destroying my back yard.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,539
Location
Quarryville, PA
How soon can they carry? Also what does this mean for VA CHP holders, could we possible be on the list for state honor?

They will not be carrying anytime soon. There will be lengthy appeals. Carrying would still require their legislature to pass a law allowing it/or repealing the prohibition, and that is not likely to happen. As for Virginia CHP holders, I think reciprocity is even further away.

In general, it is good news in that it is a step forward. Certainly a small victory for those in MD.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Gem of the day

Links are mentioned in the MD thread, but for those who want to read right away, here's the ruling:

http://ia700501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.52.0.pdf
I finally got around to reading the opinion.

Here's the Gem of the Day:

Page 19 of the opinion, in explaining why the State of Maryland's reasons provided were insufficient to support their "good and substantial reason" requirement for granting a carry permit:

"The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve."

A classic line that could be used to describe nearly every law ever conceived to control the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens!

It is very refreshing to see a court recognize this inherent weakness in a gun-control law. Hopefully future courts will be quick to use this same line of reasoning as they strike down other ridiculous gun-control laws as well!

TFred


Here's the full context of the Gem of the Day (with certain interesting parts bolded for effect):


Rather, the regulation at issue is a rationing system. It aims, as Defendants concede, simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home by limiting the privilege to those who can demonstrate "good reason" beyond a general desire for self-defense. In support of this limitation, Defendants list numerous reasons why handguns pose a threat to public safety in general and why curbing their proliferation is desirable. For example, they argue that an assailant may wrest a handgun away from its owner, and cite evidence that this possibility imperils even trained police officers. See Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J. 15, Docket No. 26. They note that when a police officer is engaged in a confrontation with a criminal, the presence of an armed civilian can divert the officer‘s attention. Id. at 16. In addition, Defendants urge that while most permit holders are law-abiding, there is no guarantee that they will remain so. They cite studies purporting to show that the majority of murderers have no previous felony conviction that would have prevented them from obtaining a permit. Id. at 35. Thus, they argue, a permitting scheme that merely denies permits to convicted felons is inadequate.

These arguments prove too much. While each possibility presents an unquestionable threat to public safety, the challenged regulation does no more to combat them than would a law indiscriminately limiting the issuance of a permit to every tenth applicant. The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve. Maryland‘s "good and substantial reason" requirement will not prevent those who meet it from having their guns taken from them, or from accidentally shooting themselves or others, or from suddenly turning to a life of crime. Indeed, 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." Id. at 15. 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." Id. at 40.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Seven states do not honor any other states CHP. Should MD win this battle I'm sure they will become number eight.

I'd bet money that if the State is forced to comply, their legislature will reword the statute making it just as difficult and in conformity with the ruling.

You don't see DC issuing bulk permits.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
We only got half the loaf on this one, but don't worry Maryland will fix it for us.

This "victory" is really only half a loaf. In it all bearing of arms outside the home is treated with intermediate scrutiny. If Maryland had intelligent litigators and wanted to keep as much anti-gun power as they could, they would not challenge this ruling. Of course we know that the political morons that run Maryland will direct their lawyers to appeal.
 
Last edited:

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Hostile mentality can be founf in the General Assembly here

There's just no accounting for legislating hate:

Legislative committee chairs weigh in on Md. handgun permit ruling
A ruling by a federal judge loosening handgun restrictions in Maryland has drawn different reactions from the chairmen of the two General Assembly committees that take up gun-related bills, with one of the legislators blasting the decision and the other reconsidering his position on a restriction that gun rights advocates have long sought to repeal.

...

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said Tuesday that the decision is “dangerous.”

“It’s a very radical decision, and I doubt that it will be sustained on appeal,” Frosh said. “I think we have a policy in Maryland that is safe and sane, and the idea that the presumption would be that anyone who wants wants one can walk around with a gun strapped to his hip or her hip is a dangerous one,” Frosh said.

As quoted in the earlier WaPo article:
This is a potentially very dangerous decision,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supported the state in the lawsuit. “People of Maryland have right to decide who can carry loaded guns in the public places that we all enjoy.”

“I don’t think this is a decision that will enhance public safety,” said Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “It will more likely harm public safety.”

The consequences of legislating on the basis of hate:
During a Feb. 21 hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, dozens of gun rights advocates crowded the committee room to testify about the difficulty of obtaining a permit to carry a gun in Maryland.

Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil), the lead sponsor of one of the bills, argued that the ability to carry a gun is an “unalienable right that comes from God” and grilled Maryland State Police Lt. Jerry Beason about the necessity of the “good and substantial reason” clause. Beason conceded that the phrase is “impossible” to define.

“Shame on the state of Maryland,” Smigiel said.

Shame on all you Hoplophobes. That includes you, Dick and Janet.
 
Top