Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 13th, 2010, 12:24 AM #561
Oreo Oreo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,383
Oreo Oreo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,383
I'm betting the state does the most predictable thing & declares everything within 1000ft of a school is "sensitive areas" and all permits are restricted to outside these areas excepting private residences in said areas and those permits for security personnel who will additionally be permitted to carry at the sensitive place they are employed at. They probably won't think far enough ahead to question transport laws and passing through sensitive areas so you'll automatically be illegal if you're the subject of a traffic stop near a school where the state would require your weapon to be stored in locked case separate from ammo & in the trunk.
Oreo is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 01:35 AM #562
Dead Eye Dead Eye is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
Posts: 3,569
Dead Eye Dead Eye is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
Posts: 3,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oreo View Post
I'm betting the state does the most predictable thing & declares everything within 1000ft of a school is "sensitive areas" and all permits are restricted to outside these areas excepting private residences in said areas and those permits for security personnel who will additionally be permitted to carry at the sensitive place they are employed at. They probably won't think far enough ahead to question transport laws and passing through sensitive areas so you'll automatically be illegal if you're the subject of a traffic stop near a school where the state would require your weapon to be stored in locked case separate from ammo & in the trunk.
Then there is the ever popular carrying to work, but you can't leave it anywhere, because your employer won't allow it in, or on, the premises.
Dead Eye is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 09:35 AM #563
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
OK, here's what the lawsuit is asking:

Quote:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against
Defendants as follows:
1. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii);
2. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from denying a permit to carry firearms on grounds that the applicant does not face a level of danger higher than that which an average person would reasonably expect to encounter.
3. An order commanding Defendants to renew Plaintiff Woollard’s permit to carry a handgun;
4. Costs of suit, including attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
5. Declaratory relief consistent with the injunction; and
6. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Restrictions on when to carry or the conditions required to carry (moving cash, etc.) are all predicated on the "enhanced level of danger" inherent in those actions. In other words, MD says you must demonstrate a heightened level of need to carry a gun because personal self protection is not enough - the cash is the enhancement that makes carry possible (in their world). So it is reasonable under the current regime to restrict carry to only those times when the enhancement is in effect -- when you are carrying cash, for instance.

The suit seeks to stop the practice of requiring that enhanced, "heightened" danger for permits. This would also apply to the practice of making restrictions that are also dependent upon the same heightened risk. Those restrictions flow from the law and practice under challenge.

Quote:
I'm not as confident that we have reached the point where 2A issues will be subjected to strict scrutiny. In Heller, the court ruled out rational basis scrutiny, but stopped there.

It seems to me the court left that open. Perhaps McDonald and Heller did not provide the opportunity to refine the majority thinking.

I'd be curious to read your opinion on this issue.
As for the use of Strict Scrutiny versus "something else", I'll agree nothing is guaranteed. Much of what we discuss here is predicated on a strict review of restrictions on the 2A.

The Supreme Court has spoken on this in the past. Essentially, a right deemed "Fundamental" is afforded strict protections. But this is not absolute - different aspects of the right can be subject to varying reviews. This applies in the First Amendment as well - churches are still subject to zoning laws even though they are afforded strict protection for the religion they espouse. They cannot say "God commands me to build a 10,000 car parking lot in this residential neighborhood" and tell the zoning people to burn in Hell (this has been tried, by the way).

Likewise 2A. Scalia said it best when he said Heller does not allow you to anything you want, wherever and whenever you want. So the argument now is not whether some part of 2A requires strict scrutiny (the "Fundamental nature" of it pretty much guarantees that) - the arguments will be over what part of 2A gets this protection.

Anti-2A forces are already drawing their line: 2A is afforded protection in the home. In other words, "keep arms" is protected. They won't actually come out and say "strictly", but I think they would split the baby there if they could. They argue that "bearing" also applies only in the home.

The challenge for those who are against this civil right are hard. Something about 2A is "Fundamental" and the Heller and McDonald opinions both said it was "personal protection" at the core of the right. The amendment is rather short, and the "collective versus individual right" was settled handily in Heller. But the Court did not break down exactly what scrutiny to afford any part of 2A.

The hard part for MD is going to be splitting that baby: keep and bear. The text of 2A is rather short and to the point. The previous argument over interpretation (collective/individual) is settled. According to Heller and McDonald, that leaves a clear meaning: 2A is an individual, fundamental right to self defense. The challenge for MD/NY/DC and others is somehow appending the words "in the home" to the end of that meaning. Problem is, the Constitution says no such thing and this Court is not the type that just adds words to amendments as they see fit.

I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture for our side. I'm spending most of the time looking at this from the other side - I ask "how do I restrict 2A" under the current rationales. Just how do I thread that needle?

When it comes to the stated purposes of the right - "individual protection" - it is going to be a tough thing to restrict to just the home.

But NFA, machine guns, etc. are those pieces that I can see successful arguments for restrictions at a lower than strict basis. I know it disappoints everyone, but we'll probably be stuck fighting those in the court of public opinion and legislation. It will be easier, but it'll still take time.

Quote:
I'm betting the state does the most predictable thing & declares everything within 1000ft of a school is "sensitive areas" and all permits are restricted to outside these areas excepting private residences in said areas and those permits for security personnel who will additionally be permitted to carry at the sensitive place they are employed at. They probably won't think far enough ahead to question transport laws and passing through sensitive areas so you'll automatically be illegal if you're the subject of a traffic stop near a school where the state would require your weapon to be stored in locked case separate from ammo & in the trunk.
Lots of law in that line and you are right that they can/will take that position. But they will get smacked down. 1000' puts me two city blocks from a school I cannot see. Or a daycare provider who happens to also do preschool in her house. The state cannot just declare areas "sensitive" and then not post them, but then also charge you criminally for getting stuck in that minefield.

The state will need to notify you of restrictions (signage). If enough of the state or city is declared "sensitive" by the state, you can bet they will be sued and lose. They cannot make "creative" ways of restricting your rights. If the 1000' exclusionary zones make a city center all but impassable, they will have a tough fight on their hands. Likewise the argument over picking your child up from school - the exclusionary zone would restrict your ability to defend yourself on the way to and from that zone. Some states have handled this in law, other not. I think there is a good fight to be made here that would also apply to transport to/from any "excluded" zone, including private property/work.

Creative restrictions have been tried numerous times with other rights. Permits for religious practice, charging a tax to vote, etc. I'm not saying they won't so it, only that it is unlikely they will succeed in the long term.
Patrick is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 09:58 AM #564
BenL's Avatar
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,349
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
BenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
+1...been spending a lot of time looking them over lately. Hmmm, Walther PPS or Kahr PM9...
Dan was showing me a 220 Carry that may have my name on it.
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

..........................................-Hanlon's Razor

"No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

..........................................-16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
BenL is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 10:05 AM #565
Wynter's Avatar
Wynter Wynter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sykesville, MD
Posts: 473
Wynter Wynter is offline
Member
Wynter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sykesville, MD
Posts: 473
Just joined NRA yesterday. Will be joining MSI and SAF next week. Why isn't the NRA in this fight???
__________________
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Wynter is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 10:06 AM #566
kronusthebonus's Avatar
kronusthebonus kronusthebonus is offline
Jackwagon
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 645
Images: 2
kronusthebonus kronusthebonus is offline
Jackwagon
kronusthebonus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 645
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynter View Post
Just joined NRA yesterday. Will be joining MSI and SAF next week. Why isn't the NRA in this fight???
Too busy soliticing ? Who knows what the NRA does these days...
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

- Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
kronusthebonus is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 10:30 AM #567
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynter View Post
Why isn't the NRA in this fight???
Strippers and Coke.

The NRA doesn't do much, but they know how to party. Especially with more than $100 Million a year of our money at their disposal.

Patrick is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 10:40 AM #568
kohburn's Avatar
kohburn kohburn is offline
Resident MacGyver
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PAX NAS / CP MCAS
Posts: 6,531
kohburn kohburn is offline
Resident MacGyver
kohburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PAX NAS / CP MCAS
Posts: 6,531
I think the NRA mostly lobbies politicians
__________________
Quote:
The measure of a man’s life is the well spending of it, and not the length.
***Plutarch
kohburn is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 11:47 AM #569
miles71 miles71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belcamp, Md.
Posts: 1,589
miles71 miles71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belcamp, Md.
Posts: 1,589
I just keep thinking about the founding fathers sitting in a room, writting the constitution, saying to themselves "Thats good, how could anyone take that the wrong way? Seems very clear the way it is worded." and then "how about those amendments, they seem like good clarification. Especially that 2nd one, lets keep it short and to the point."

Wonder what they would think if they came back and saw how the world is nowadays.
TD
miles71 is offline  
Old August 13th, 2010, 11:49 AM #570
hairba111's Avatar
hairba111 hairba111 is offline
XGMG2
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Close to Tim Hafer's shop, Hagerstown
Posts: 4,714
Images: 4
hairba111 hairba111 is offline
XGMG2
hairba111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Close to Tim Hafer's shop, Hagerstown
Posts: 4,714
Images: 4
Wonder what they would think if they came back and saw how the world is nowadays.
TD[/QUOTE]

They would say, "TO ARMS, TO ARMS! Down with tyrants!
__________________

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."


When it comes to firearms, a license or permit only ALLOWS us to own or carry a firearm. The SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES that we CAN! We don't need to be ALLOWED to. Therefore licenses and permits are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
hairba111 is offline  
Closed Thread

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Tags
woollard


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service