Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I sure hope Maryland doesn't get to keep may-issue and "good and substantial" because Gansler claimed we can carry long guns.
That was obviously his goal. No surprise or guessing there. He said as much in his brief.
But that hope hinges on the Supreme Court taking back their order to DC in Heller regarding handguns. Maryland argues that handguns are especially effective at concealment and in confrontation - so they must therefore be banned. The Supreme Court ruled that handguns are especially useful in personal confrontation, and therefore especially deserving of protection. This was the basis of the "common use" standard, which Gansler ignores and avoids like a plague. He completely fails to address it.
Unlike the "presumptively lawful" language in Heller that everyone likes to hang their hat on - the language on handguns was not dicta. It was a significant part of the ruling because it directly addressed a challenged element of law. The rule for dicta is that if the results of a decision could not stand unchanged without the language, it is not dicta.
DC outright banned handguns and offered long guns as a solution. Heller said no to that and created a common use standard to find handguns protected. It then added language in the analysis to demonstrate that handguns deserve special protection for the very reason DC hated them: their ease of use and overwhelming popularity. DC offered the "thieves veto" defense and the Supreme Court smacked it down.
Handguns are protected. The Supreme Court is not California. This is challenged and we will prevail.