Skip to comments.Second Amendement Victory in Maryland!
Posted on 03/05/2012 9:14:02 AM PST by George - the Other
Victory For The Constitution in Maryland
We just received word that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland has granted a motion for summary judgement for plaintiff Ray Woollard in the Woollard v. Sheridan case that challenged the good and substantial requirement for issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.
"Because the ―good and substantial reason requirement is not reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, the Court finds this portion of the Maryland law to be unconstitutional. Woollard is entitled to summary judgment. "
"A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered ―reasonably adapted‖ to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Marylands goal of ―minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them,‖ id. at 40, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly. "
"At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Governments to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs."
(Excerpt) Read more at listbox.com ...
That sound you are hearing are the heads of the southern branch of the Kennedy clan (the Townsends, et. al.) exploding!!
This almost sounds like it could be used by a felon to reclaim his right to keep and bear if a reasonable time and some sort of payment to society has been met ..
e.g. .. someone convicted of a felony in the 50's, '60's, or '70's, having served the required time and or paid fines, restitution (whatever), could, after being an exemplary citizen .. could petition the court to have keep and bear re-instated?
Finally, some good news.
“A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.”
I can’t believe this is happening. It’s too good to be true. They’ll find a way to prevent us, somehow.
Awesome News. Now, when does the State act to address the unconstitutional gub laws. I want my rights.
It may be appealed by the State. It will be very interesting to see if it is.
That, truly, says everything that needs to be said.
That looks like "gub", it doesn't look like "gun".
Maryland Shall Issue says that this is only the beginning. The analysis and ramifications will be coming.
Can anyone say California?
We need this Judge here in IL.
Time to resubmit for a concealed carry !!!
The only thing is...as has been the case in (neighboring) DC, the law (or really its enforcement) won’t be changed, and every gun owner asserting his rights—if caught—will face a daunting legal battle to assert rights already established by the courts.
There are a heck of a lot of Liberals in Maryland.
California was my first thought as well. This is the trick that they use there.
Hopefully this ruling can eventually be applied to change the rules in CA.
Much depends on whether the State of Maryland appeals the ruling or not. Then what happens with the appeal matters, and if it is appealed to the Supreme Court.
This is very good because it is a clear and easily understood ruling.
A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he
That pretty much sums it up...
Ping to a good post.