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.