Snowden v Handgun Permit Review Board (1980)?

[Kharn]

I've spotted several references to 'Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 45 Md. App. 464, 413 A.2d 295 (1980)' but I havent been able to find a copy of it, does anyone have a link?

Links to other significant CCW-related decisions would also be welcome.

[Norton]

I've never been able to lay my hands on this one, though it's referenced a lot in the Scherr case.

[Ben]

It's attached, if I did it right.. It's depressing reading, like everything else about personal liberty in this nanny state.

Is anyone challenging the Maryland approach to handgun carry, which ignores the right to self-defense the S.Ct. found in Keller? If so we ought to be contributing to the legal fees.

[Kharn]

The court in Scherr found that because the 2A did not include a right to 'bear arms', the Constitution did not require he be granted a permit. Palmer v DC is suing for the right to CCW in DC under the right to bear arms, if they win, we can go back to the MD courts and demand permits.

Thanks for providing Snowden, I loved this passage:

If we accept Snowden's reasoning there would never be a time when a lawful person, fearful of his safety, would be denied a permit to carry a gun. Any vague threat would be sufficient to cause apprehension and, thus, the right to have a permit to carry a handgun. We think the phrase "good and substantial reason," as used in Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 36E(a)(6), means something more than personal anxiety over having one's name connected publicly with anti-drug and anti-crime activities. It means, we believe, something more than the concern the individual may have because he has been told by another, that she heard some unidentified men threatening to harm the applicant if he journeys to Meade Village. The statute makes clear that it is the Board not the applicant, that decides whether there is "apprehended danger" to the applicant. If the Act were read as Mr. Snowden would have the court read it, there would be no necessity for a review by the Board. Each person could decide for himself or herself that he or she was in danger. The State Police would become a "rubber stamp" agency for the purpose of handing out handgun permits. The carefully considered legislation would be rendered absolutely meaningless insofar as the control of handguns is concerned.

Translated into simple English: "Shall issue? That's retarded!"

[Ben]

MD puts the burden on the applicant to demonstrate a need for a carry permit, a construct that appears 180 degrees out from the S.Ct. approach. Waiting for another decision in DC doesn't make sense, because there's a second big issue of whether the Keller decision applies to states.

Seems like MD Shooters, if we're serious, would set up a test case and collect money to support it. I'm a relative newbie here, so I don't know if the MD Shooters is sufficiently cohesive to pull this off. If not there may be some other group to do it, but I'm not aware of any. Doing it right requires planning from the outset and money to see it through.

[Markp]

As I said in an earlier post, this is the wolf guarding the hen house. We cannot expect these people to act in a manner inconsistent with the desires of their political masters. They know who their handlers are, and we are not them.

Mark

[teratos]

Originally Posted by Kharn

The court in Scherr found that because the 2A did not include a right to 'bear arms'

WTF?


The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......


What part of that sentence did the Supreme Court miss?

[novus collectus]

Originally Posted by Ben

MD puts the burden on the applicant to demonstrate a need for a carry permit, a construct that appears 180 degrees out from the S.Ct. approach. Waiting for another decision in DC doesn't make sense, because there's a second big issue of whether the Keller decision applies to states.

Seems like MD Shooters, if we're serious, would set up a test case and collect money to support it. I'm a relative newbie here, so I don't know if the MD Shooters is sufficiently cohesive to pull this off. If not there may be some other group to do it, but I'm not aware of any. Doing it right requires planning from the outset and money to see it through.

MDShooters is not an organization, but we do have some organizing occur here though not under an official MDShooters banner. There is a registered organization that exists in Maryalnd called Maryland Shall Issue. Law suits like this takes oodles and oodles of money it if makes it to the highest state court. We are serious, but we aren't millionaires. Raising money for such a lawsuit is possible and who knows it may be done someday, but that is going to be a LOT of money.
If you want to help by donating to MSI now, please do so because even if there might or might not be a lawsuit, MSI will still be using the money working to change MD to shall issue in the MD statutes. Also join and sign up with MSI and become a member. The other thing that always helps besides money is having the numbers behind the name. Join many of the rest of us in being an MSI member.

[Kharn]

Ben:
Later this month the Supreme Court will decide if they will hear McDonald v Chicago, which is a case entirely about incorporating the Heller results against the states. Heller's lawyers billed DC for $3.5mil (winner gets reimbursed in civil rights cases), it'd be hard to come by that some of money on this website even for a 5-6 year loan. McDonald's our best chance for incorporation at the moment (Nordyke is the runner up, but that's 2 years away from a Supreme Court ruling instead of ~9 months for McDonald), and then there's Palmer that is arguing for the right to bear arms in DC. If the 2A is incorporated against the states, and protects the right to carry in DC, it is then extended to protect the right to carry in every state.

Teratos:
Snowden was a decision by the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland in 1980, not the US Supreme Court, and at the time the 2A did not protect anything beyond the National Guard's ability to own guns.

[teratos]

Originally Posted by Kharn

Teratos:
Snowden was a decision by the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland in 1980, not the US Supreme Court, and at the time the 2A did not protect anything beyond the National Guard's ability to own guns.

The Framers coffins have a rotisserie in them??? Cause they would be rolling over to hear that a court ruled the the 2A granted the right of the standing army to have arms. Dumb.

[Storm40]

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

We start therefore with a strong presumption that theSecond Amendment right is exercised individually andbelongs to all Americans.

Those were part of the Heller decision. Does this not serve to overturn Snowden or must there really be ANOTHER case in which SCOTUS says "yeah, it's an individual right and states have to keep their greasy mitts off"? At the very least, does this not set a precedent?

[Norton]

Originally Posted by Storm40

Those were part of the Heller decision. Does this not serve to overturn Snowden or must there really be ANOTHER case in which SCOTUS says "yeah, it's an individual right and states have to keep their greasy mitts off"? At the very least, does this not set a precedent?

Heller only applied to DC. That's why we're waiting for some of these other cases to get moving.

[ezliving]

I've brought this up before.

While we wait for the SCOTUS to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, the State of Maryland ignores The Maryland Constitution, specifically Article 2 of The Declaration of Rights.

Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/4...tml/00dec.html

What exactly will a good decision in McDonald do for gun rights in Maryland that is not already in The Maryland Constitution? The US Constitution and the entire Bill of Rights are already incorporated into The Maryland Constitution.

[Kharn]

McDonald would let us challenge the laws in federal court, where there is a better chance of getting conservative judges who do not wet their pants at the thought of gun owners walking around armed.

[Storm40]

We start therefore with a strong presumption that theSecond Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

I ain't no lawyer, so mebbe I'm missing some fine point of legal proceedings and precedent, but I still don't see how that isn't a ringing endorsement of the 2A being an individual right. Yeah, the case pertains to DC, but it seems to me that if that's plainly stated as part of the decision then its part of the settled law of the land. Is it really going to be that incremental?

[Kharn]

The US is split into two levels of government, the fed and the states. Each state is allowed to enact their own laws, as long as they do not run afoul of the fed's list of incorporated rights.

In addition to the 2A, the right to a grand jury indictment, and the right to a jury in a civil trial, have not been incorporated against the states which means the feds cannot force a state to recognize that right.

The big incremental cases are incorporation (possibly heard by the Supreme Court this year in McDonald v Chicago and NRA v Chicago) and bearing arms (Palmer v DC, currently in the federal district court for DC, probably 3-4 years away from Supreme Court). IF both cases go favorably, the states will have to recognize both the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. Lower courts will have to figure out exactly what those rights mean, but in MD since you need a rarely-issued permit to carry both openly and concealed, something will have to change.

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Originally Posted by ezliving

I've brought this up before.

While we wait for the SCOTUS to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, the State of Maryland ignores The Maryland Constitution, specifically Article 2 of The Declaration of Rights.

What exactly will a good decision in McDonald do for gun rights in Maryland that is not already in The Maryland Constitution? The US Constitution and the entire Bill of Rights are already incorporated into The Maryland Constitution.

The Federal position right now is that the Second Amendment, while recognized as an individual right by Heller, only applies to Federal Government actions. So what that provision in the MD Const. means is that the State of Maryland now follows the principal that the Second Amendment is a limitation on Federal actions.

[Yoboney]

Originally Posted by Kharn

The court in Scherr found that because the 2A did not include a right to 'bear arms', the Constitution did not require he be granted a permit. Palmer v DC is suing for the right to CCW in DC under the right to bear arms, if they win, we can go back to the MD courts and demand permits.

Thanks for providing Snowden, I loved this passage:

Translated into simple English: "Shall issue? That's retarded!"

Maryland is not a safe state. Therefore we all need guns for protection.