Skip to comments.Supreme Court won't hear arguments against Md. gun law
Posted on 10/15/2013 1:28:59 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
WASHINGTON, DC - The Supreme Court won't review a decision upholding Maryland's law requiring handgun permit applicants to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" for carrying a weapon outside their own home or business.
The high court on Tuesday refused to hear from Raymond Woollard and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., who say the law violates the Second Amendment.
Woollard obtained a permit after a 2002 home invasion but was denied renewal in 2009. The Maryland law does not recognize a vague threat or general fear as an adequate reason for obtaining a permit, and state officials said Woollard failed to demonstrate any ongoing danger seven years after the home invasion.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, and the Supreme Court refused to review that decision.
Time for a Colorado-style recall, if that’s even possible in Moronland....
This is messed up. It’s the same as not having an almost completely unobtainable CCW permit, which is, of course, the idea.
Why does the SC recognize States Right’s here where the 2A is concerned but find all kinds of Commerce Clause excuses to mandate commercial behavior?
Go away Proles, we care not what ye think.
Guess the SCOTUS decides and the shotgun sings the song.
“Why does the SC recognize States Rights here where the 2A is concerned but find all kinds of Commerce Clause excuses to mandate commercial behavior?”
Because the USSC is a joke. There decisions are political and have nothing to do with constitutional law.
This has been so true for so long that it should be taught I our schools.
If only it were possible for supreme court “justices”...
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The spirit of this is in the second amendment - albeit watered down.
Disappointing, to say the least.
Apparently “shall not be infringed” is not clear enough for the ruling class to understand in words.
So, all of our Constitutional amendments come with Supreme Court agreement only. Scarey thoughts here... I can read English (even when written centuries ago) and it says no such thing.
“Ought not” doesn’t sound like a good phrase to have in a law. May as well say “maybe, kinda, sorta, if you want to.”
Good site. Thanks. Between them and ilinoisCarry, what I’m getting is that Woolard was not the best case for simply extending Heller to outside the home. Somebody in there is trying to build a sequence that will be able to pull Kennedy in the right direction, and if they adjudicate Woodland before this “pure” Heller extension case (maybe Palmer, maybe Hawaii), then Kennedy might break bad on us. Also, if one of the other, better cases gets heard, it reactivates Woolard, new case law to use, so this is only a temporary setback. We fight on.
Ergo - A state has the right to stop you from speaking unless you have a valid reason to do so. Reason to be judged by the political electric, of course.
Maryland “Frrrreeeeeeeaakkkkk State” PING!