Suing Maryland for CCW?

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!
  • NEAL4470

    Member
    Jan 28, 2008
    60
    Pasadena, MD
    Has anyone tried to sue the state, after having been turned down for a carry permit? Maybe a whole group of people should apply and once denied by MSP, a class action lawsuit could be filed?

    It's time for us to fight hard for the basic right to defend ourselves.
     

    NEAL4470

    Member
    Jan 28, 2008
    60
    Pasadena, MD
    Thanks for the info. I'm not surprised by the courts decision, I guess the 40 some states that allow CCW are all wrong in the eyes of Maryland.

    It's frustrating, I like living in Maryland but wish they would show me the respect I deserve.
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,856
    Thanks for the info. I'm not surprised by the courts decision, I guess the 40 some states that allow CCW are all wrong in the eyes of Maryland.

    It's frustrating, I like living in Maryland but wish they would show me the respect I deserve.

    You can do something about it :innocent0

    marylandshallissue.org
    ;)
     

    one-star

    Active Member
    Mar 9, 2009
    834
    Yes, and they've failed:

    http://www.courts.state.md.us/publications/amicus/amicus11_05.html#Scherr

    caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/marylandstatecases/cosa/.../780s04.pdf

    There's also Snowden v State of MD but I can't lay my hand on it right now.

    It would be interesting to see the a reconsideration of this case based on the evolution of the law since then

    " The Court also rejected Scherr’s claim that the denial of a handgun permit violated his Second Amendment rights. Contrary to Scherr’s assertion, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes no “declaration” that apprehended danger exists in every person’s life. Moreover, Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the states and therefore imposes no restriction on a state’s power to enact handgun legislation."-H. Robert Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,856
    Exactly as I've been saying....when we get the incorporation ruling, we will file the suit based on this. ;)
     

    CharlieFoxtrot

    ,
    Industry Partner
    Sep 30, 2007
    2,527
    Foothills of Appalachia
    Exactly as I've been saying....when we get the incorporation ruling, we will file the suit based on this. ;)

    AMEN! Just waiting to pounce, so to speak. The only good thing about those two decisions is that Snowden and Onderdonk rely so heavily on the premise that the 2A doesn't apply to states that when we get an incorporation decision it pretty much invalidates them.
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,856
    AMEN! Just waiting to pounce, so to speak. The only good thing about those two decisions is that Snowden and Onderdonk rely so heavily on the premise that the 2A doesn't apply to states that when we get an incorporation decision it pretty much invalidates them.

    Yes, and all the more reason why we need to be building our war chest in preparation for the day when it comes time to file the suit.

    If every member of this forum were just a $10 member of MSI, we'd have several hundred thousand dollars within just a couple of years.
     

    Crazytrain

    Certified Grump
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 8, 2007
    1,641
    Sparks, MD
    Someday someone will explain to me why an "incorporation ruling" is actually necessary, and not automatically conferred.
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,856
    Someday someone will explain to me why an "incorporation ruling" is actually necessary, and not automatically conferred.

    The Heller decision only applied to DC.

    It was incorporated by the 9th circuit but we're in the 4th circuit. Thus, we have to get a SCOTUS incorporation ruling that it applies to all of the states.
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,372
    White Marsh
    Yes, and all the more reason why we need to be building our war chest in preparation for the day when it comes time to file the suit.

    If every member of this forum were just a $10 member of MSI, we'd have several hundred thousand dollars within just a couple of years.

    Talk about value for your money. Who wants to be the next newest member of the organization that is the best defender of your gun rights in this state? It's only $10! We're talking less than two packs of cigarettes, about three beers at the bar, or a few cups of overpriced coffee. Let's get 'er done.
     

    240 towles

    master of puppets
    Mar 31, 2009
    4,251
    ?
    It would be interesting to see the a reconsideration of this case based on the evolution of the law since then

    Contrary to Scherr’s assertion, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes no “declaration” that apprehended danger exists in every person’s life. Moreover, Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the states and therefore imposes no restriction on a state’s power to enact handgun legislation."-H. Robert Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board

    I thought the bill of rights applied to the people of the nation, and that the states had no authority to attack the rights given to citizens of the united states. Perhaps MD should just decide to not honor the right to seperation of church and state, or the right to a speedy trial, or maybe they should just announce that governor O'malley is king and make us all pay tribute unto him. It's just so damn frustrating after awhile.
     

    xd40c

    Business Owner-Gun Toter
    Sep 20, 2007
    2,067
    East Earl, PA
    It's an old story:

    "Oh...the 2nd amendment doesn't apply here? What other parts of the Constitution don't apply here???
     

    one-star

    Active Member
    Mar 9, 2009
    834
    Someday someone will explain to me why an "incorporation ruling" is actually necessary, and not automatically conferred.

    Basically, for the longest time the courts held that the Bill of Rights only applied to federal laws not state laws....this allowed for the Jim Crow laws in the South. It took an activist court under Warren and Burger to begin to expand the whole bill of rights and later amendments to the States and do away with pesky things like the "Separate but Equal" doctrine. Once the conservatives came back into power in the Nixon/Regan years there was a noted reluctance on incorporation in general which killed the chance for its application to the 2nd amendment.

    So in the end you can thank the concept of incorporation on activist liberal judges, and the delay in giving you your 2a rights on conservative literalist judges.....take a moment to think about that the next time someone rants about judicial activism and the evils of legislating from the bench.
     

    Trapper

    I'm a member too.
    Feb 19, 2009
    1,369
    Western AA county
    So in the end you can thank the concept of incorporation on activist liberal judges, and the delay in giving you your 2a rights on conservative literalist judges.....take a moment to think about that the next time someone rants about judicial activism and the evils of legislating from the bench.

    It doesn't matter who did it, wrong is wrong. Whether some liberal judges saw the truth of the document or some conservative judges didn't, really doesn't matter to me.
    Judges should be neither liberal nor conservative, they should should be looking at the history of the law, and the text itself and determining its application. There should be no "interpretation", it should be evaluated based on the text. If the text is unclear then historical papers and documents from the legislators should be used. I, for one, believe the second is pretty f'ing clear. "The right of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed". The fourteenth is just as clear. Yet our government does its best, from the local level on up, to disarm the citizenry and decide which of the amendments in the Bill of Rights it wants to apply. "The 1st doesn't apply if your 'swearing', thats disturbing the peace", "you have a right to free assembly, but only with a permit and when following these rules". The BS goes on and on.

    Let me tell you something "reasonable restrictions" on anything seldom are reasonable and are generally just restrictive.
     

    Storm40

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 13, 2009
    1,373
    Harford County
    "The right of the people, except in states which choose not to agree with the plain reading of the constitution, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal gov't and only the federal gov't. The states are free to do damn well whatever they please."

    How could you not see it that way? It's SO CLEAR!

    Incorporation of amendments is an argument and a process of those who choose to willfully misread the constitution for their own agenda. Really, it can't be any clearer. "The People" means all citizens of the United States. Every bit of the Constitution applies equally to everyone. Period.
     

    Lindsay's Dad

    Active Member
    Oct 21, 2008
    113
    Monrovia
    "The right of the people, except in states which choose not to agree with the plain reading of the constitution, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal gov't and only the federal gov't. The states are free to do damn well whatever they please."

    How could you not see it that way? It's SO CLEAR!

    Incorporation of amendments is an argument and a process of those who choose to willfully misread the constitution for their own agenda. Really, it can't be any clearer. "The People" means all citizens of the United States. Every bit of the Constitution applies equally to everyone. Period.

    You know what Storm, The first part of your posting is more true than you would like to think. At least if you ask some Constitutional Purists. There are some that believe the concept of "incorporation" was an unconstitutioanl act of an Activist Judiciarary. They would have you believe that the BOR was and is simply a limitation as to what the Federal Government can do. The State Governments ARE free to do what they damn well please. It is up to you and I to stop THEM.

    I wonder how they would explain the exixtance of BATFE if the feds have no Constitutional power to legislate anything concerning Firearms.

    The Heller decision, when it held that the 2A is/was/ always shall be an individual right, invalidated every Federal gun law ever written, in my opinion. Because afterall isn't the Federal Law prohibiting me from owning a bright shiny brand new select fire rifle an infringement.

    JMO
    LD
     
    Last edited:

    andyman

    Former Senior Member
    Dec 29, 2008
    844
    pg county
    Storm I agree with your frustration, however I read this a little different. (I know I'm opening a can here) I though the constitution was to direct the fed's role in these laws not the states. Right now the federal gov does not prevent you from carrying a firearm except for some very specific conditions. What does restrict you rights is our state law and administration. Our beef should be with our local and state oficials who are trampleing our "self evident" rights.

    andy
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    The Constitution lays out some very basic rights. My impression is that these are rights which apply to every citizen of the United States. The States may pass laws, as long as they DO NOT restrict any of the rights in the Constitution. All amendments are equal, except the Second it seems.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,934
    Messages
    7,259,584
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom