Monday, March 5, 2012

Concealed Carry for Maryland?

A US District Court judge has ruled that Maryland's law on who can carry a concealed weapon is unconstitutional*. According to Judge Benson Legg the requirement that concealed carry permit applicants show "good and substantial reason" is an impermissible infringement on the Second Amendment. The AG's office has already said they will appeal.

17 comments:

Laura said...

It's about time Maryland joined the majority of the nation in actually paying attention to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

LJL said...

Actually, the Constitution says not a thing about concealed carry.

ppatin said...

"Right to keep and bear arms." What that means is certainly up to interpretation, but it's there.

From what I understand part of the reason that MD's statute got smacked down was because it's applied to unfairly and unevenly.

Remember when Ed Hale accidentally brought a gun to BWI? It turned out that he had a permit which means you can get one if you're rich and connected. You or I wouldn't have a chance if we applied for one though.

LJL said...

No concealed carry does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. The words "concealed carry" do not appear in the Constitution. You can keep your arms (provided you're not convicted of a crime and you're not a mental health patient), you can bear them, but you can't conceal them.

ppatin said...

Open carry is illegal without a permit in MD as well.

Laura said...

Yeahhh...in Maryland, a permit is required to carry a pistol off one's property...and yes, the permit system is applied unfairly. There is absolutely no reason why a famous person or politician can get a permit easily, but an average Joe cannot.

LJL said...

So carry them on your own property. Your rights are still not being violated.

ppatin said...

Obviously some people have differing interpretations of what the right to keep and bear means.

Out of curiosity why do you have such a problem with people carrying guns? The vast majority of states allow concealed carry and CCW permit holders have shown themselves to be a very responsible and law-abiding bunch of people. The people who carry guns who you SHOULD be worried about are already carrying them without a permit. Someone who's planning on committing a robbery/carjacking/rape/murder is not going to be deterred by concealed carry laws.

mj said...

we should have open carry, everyone walking around festooned with holsters.

FightinBluHen51 said...

LJL, do your 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights stop at your property's threshold? I didn't think so.

This is an enumerated civil right. It is now codified as a protected and incorporated civil right.

If Maryland has a system for allowing the "privileged" few to carry, than the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to extend that "privilege" to the average Joe. You know, something about the whole priviliges and immunities of our laws applying equally to all, and what not. Of course there is always the live free, or here, argument.

As Judge Legg ruled, the equal protection affording in 14A is not even needed as the 2nd Amendment trumps that secondary protection. This is a natural right that the founders understood carried with it great responsibility, yet were fore thinking enough to protect at the individual level, lest the state, and more importantly criminals, threaten their personal liberty.

LJL said...

I don't have a problem with keeping guns. Though I have none, I live in an area that has many hunters and gun owners. My problem is Laura's assertion that preventing concealed carry violates the Constitution, when that is not the case. The Constitution says nothing about concealed carry. If I'm mistaken, please show me where it does. The Constitution says plenty about freedom of religion (and expression and assembly), habeus corpus, etc., but not a word about concealed carry. It's more in the interest of accuracy. I'm not arguing right or wrong.

Anonymous said...

"The Constitution says plenty about freedom of religion (and expression and assembly)"

Yes and it also says you are free to practice NO religion if you so choose, you seem to have "conveniently forgotten the last part"

Laura said...

LJL, nowhere in my comments have i used the word "concealed." the way the law is written in Maryland, to carry AT ALL, concealed OR openly, requires a permit. all i want is the right to carry AT ALL.

i can't. you can't. my friend fightinbluhen can't. but you know who can? ANYONE famous. ANYONE in local politics. ANYONE who is well connected. not us normal plebes...we're not "good" enough, even though those of us who actually care enough to fight for it likely have more practice with a firearm than any of those people who could get a permit right now.

we want fairness applied when issuing permits. i don't see a problem with it. please explain why you have an issue with it.

Anonymous said...

Concealed or not concealed. I live in Pasadena and we exercise our 2nd amendment rights in these parts because of the close proximity to the city that bleeds.

Criminals might think twice about breaking down your door with the possibility of going out in a ziplock bag on a gurney.

Anonymous said...

That's what I'm talking about Brother!

FightinBluHen51 said...

Again LJL, your right to profess that Lord Jesus has returned or the right to shout that all you sinners are morons as God doesn't exist, are both applicable in open air, outside, for all to hear and see. That right follows you off the threshold at your property and onto the public streets.

The right for you to be secure in your personal effects, documents, and person does not stop dead in it's tracks at the surveyor's edge of your property line either. No police officer can look at you and say, "hey, long haired, hippie freak (not that you are a hippie freak) come over here I need to check your papers" without a warrant or just cause.

Likewise, no law enforcement agency can place a GPS tracker on your vehicles without your permission or a warrant.

All of these are enumerated rights that follow an individual beyond their home. They also are subject to reasonable restrictions per case law, historical context, and historical practice.

What makes 27 words any different?

You are correct in that "Concealed" is not protected. Many STATE supreme courts as well as the US Supreme court have upheld that concealed is not protected. Plainly, carry is protected in numerous case laws, ect. The extent to which carry (or in it's plain English sense, bear) is permissible is yet still in question from a jurisprudence stand point. Time, place, and manner (concealed or open) restrictions have not been challenged in many places inside the country. So there is much debate left, except for that in MD, on purely civil rights grounds, average citizens can now apply and should receive a permit per the rest of the clear process for which the state statue allows.

Anonymous said...

Most of you folks who are making the "concealed carry isn't in the Constitution" argument apparently don't understand how the legal system in the US works. We have a system of "proscriptive law" in the US. What this means is that we start from a position of total liberty--EVERYTHING is assumed to be legal--and then there are laws made to tell us what we can NOT do. The Constitution--or ANY set of laws do not tell us what we CAN do--only what is prohibited.

Since "concealed carry" is NOT prohibited by the Constitution, it is, under our system of law, de-facto, legal. And since the GOVERNMENT is specifically PROHIBITED from "infringing" on the "right to keep and BEAR arms", any laws that infringe on this fundamental human right are technically NOT allowed.

This recent court ruling is simply the Courts bitch-slapping the State, and making them get back in line with the Law of the Land, after decades of illegal, unconstitutional, and anti-civil-rights infringements on NATURAL RIGHTS.

Go back to Civics Class, people, and learn about how your country is SUPPOSED to work, before spouting off your slave-mentality propaganda...