SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    X-Factor

    I don't say please
    Jun 2, 2009
    5,244
    Calvert County
    No this lawsuit is to strike the enforcement if "Good and Substantial Reason" to issue a LCTF.

    Once MD is forced to issue permits, then the sky is the limit on how you wist to do so.

    Except for Drinking and Carrying there is a law on that, the ironny I know a local MSP or two, who drink and are carrying at the same time. :sad20:

    So if it's found that legal open long gun carry is the exact same as oprn handgun carry then the open carry of handguns without a permis part of 4-203 would neednto go.
     

    Ethan83

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 8, 2009
    3,111
    Baltimoreish
    No this lawsuit is to strike the enforcement if "Good and Substantial Reason" to issue a LCTF.

    Once MD is forced to issue permits, then the sky is the limit on how you wish to do so.

    Except for Drinking and Carrying there is a law on that, the ironny I know a local MSP or two, who drink and are carrying at the same time. :sad20:

    § 5-314. Carrying, wearing, or transporting handgun while under influence of alcohol or drugs.

    Hm, it just says you can't carry a handgun while under the influence. I guess I'll have to get a nice single-point sling for my Yugo underfolder for when I go out to the bar :rolleyes:
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    So if it's found that legal open long gun carry is the exact same as oprn handgun carry then the open carry of handguns without a permis part of 4-203 would neednto go.

    No, it is legal already for open long gun.

    MD will have to issue you a LCTF, if you request one for "Self Defense". Unless of course, MD can prove you are not worthy (convicted felon, mentally unstable, etc...).
     

    X-Factor

    I don't say please
    Jun 2, 2009
    5,244
    Calvert County
    No, it is legal already for open long gun.

    MD will have to issue you a LCTF, if you request one for "Self Defense". Unless of course, MD can prove you are not worthy (convicted felon, mentally unstable, etc...).

    You're missing my point. If it's said that open long gun carry (currently legal...or at least gray) without a permit is found to be the same as open handgun carry without a permit (illegal currently ) then the law saying that permitless OC of handguns would have to change in 4-203. And as was said earlier, SCOTUS DID say that. So it could come into play now.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    You're missing my point. If it's said that open long gun carry (currently legal...or at least gray) without a permit is found to be the same as open handgun carry without a permit (illegal currently ) then the law saying that permitless OC of handguns would have to change in 4-203.

    That's my point, also. They are not the same. It is legal under the law for you to do as you wish with a long gun (even conceal carry it). You could tote around your M44 in a gun rack in your Subaru all day long, for any reason you see fit, and noone could arrest you for it.

    4-203 is an enforcement tool, to keep crime under control (limiting handguns on the street). Which is not being decided with "Woollard V. Sheridan".

    If you would want to have a handgun for anytime for any reason you would have to apply for a permit/LCTF. Once the permit is in hand, the sky is the limit.
     

    Trapper

    I'm a member too.
    Feb 19, 2009
    1,369
    Western AA county
    You're missing my point. If it's said that open long gun carry (currently legal...or at least gray) without a permit is found to be the same as open handgun carry without a permit (illegal currently ) then the law saying that permitless OC of handguns would have to change in 4-203. And as was said earlier, SCOTUS DID say that. So it could come into play now.

    I think what you're getting at, X-Factor, and what Inigoes isn't seeing, is the basis for a new case.
    That new case would be:
    "Loaded OC of a long gun is okay in MD, no permit required. Heller says that you cannot discriminate against handguns, as they are the preferred method for a reason. So, ipso facto, you (MD) must allow loaded OC of handguns."

    It would take another case being filed, but given Gansler's response (which could be used in that case) it seems to be a clear winner to me.
     
    Nov 5, 2008
    78
    I think what you're getting at, X-Factor, and what Inigoes isn't seeing, is the basis for a new case.

    I assumed he was responding to this...

    I think Gansler just handed the judge a gift-wrapped option: rule for public open RKBA, assign it intermediate scrutiny -which Gansler acknowledges includes citizen carry of loaded firearms without a permit, and then use Heller's direct guidance on handguns to extend the long-gun concession to handguns. Maryland is suddenly a no-permit required Open Carry state.
     

    Trapper

    I'm a member too.
    Feb 19, 2009
    1,369
    Western AA county
    I assumed he was responding to this...

    Correct. But given the later posts, it doesn't look like the judge can actually do that. He has to answer the question put before him, and that wasn't it. So, it probably can't be used in this case, but would make an excellent follow-on case.
     

    X-Factor

    I don't say please
    Jun 2, 2009
    5,244
    Calvert County
    I guess I was looking long term. IF it went all thy way to SCOTUS I guess it could be addressed, but may have to wait despite being an obvious state concession of contradiction. My point bwing that since the state conceded the contradiction, possibly akin to a "guilty", if it would be ruled on THIS time around and at this level.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    if it would be ruled on THIS time around and at this level.

    That would be bad ju-ju. We would hear Judicial activism from the roof tops.

    Does it fit nicely with Woollard? Yes it does, but first things first.

    Currently there is a big toe holding the door open (Motion for Summary Judgement under equal protection). Once there is a win, the foot will slide in nicely, allowing access for the rest of the body.
     

    shawn

    Active Member
    Oct 23, 2007
    708
    Alright, after a good deal of searching, the only thing that I could find about transport of long guns in vehicles is that they have to be unloaded and be in accordance with the prohibited places of concealed/open carry.

    Thats close to the information I recieved when I called the MSP firearms division.

    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=7050

    However, They told me that they treat non-handgun regulated firearms (AK-47, AR-15) the same as they do handguns.

    After reading the states MSJ it would seem that they are incorrect.

    So the long and short of it is now we could reasonably carry and ar/ak in our cars unloaded with a magazine in the outside pocket of the case and when we stop and get out insert a magazine and walk mostly anywhere with it slung on our back.

    Now should we chance getting arrested for doing something we know to be legal......thats a different story.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    MD doesn't have the character clause like most states.

    The closest that MD law comes to is

    § 5-306

    And if we had really pushed for a Shall issue Bill this year, someone could have offered an amendment to fix that...

    We have to stop doing their work for them, sometimes we honestly put ourselves on the defense.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    DC vs Heller opinion. Page 10

    in the course of analyzing the meaning of

    “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE

    GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is,

    as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate:

    ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing

    or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and

    ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict

    with another person.’ ”
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,460
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom