Fourteenth Amendment

I would like your opinions on a thought that I have been pondering. Maryland law (Legislature) says that our 2A rights are not being violated because of the Fourteenth Amenment, by giving the Attorney General and State Police the power to deny CCW permits. I am referring to Maryland being a "may issue", versus a "shall issue" state.
Well, I think it is violating our rights. It violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ; No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United Statesnor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I would like to see something like the DC vs. Parker case in Maryland challenging the 14A. The Fourteenth Amendment gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms against state regulations just as the Second Amendment does against regulations by the national government.

I would like to see something like the DC vs. Parker case in Maryland challenging the 14A. The Fourteenth Amendment gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms against state regulations just as the Second Amendment does against regulations by the national government.

Click to expand...

I think everybody is holding their breath until this case is over, and then the tanks of freedom will start rolling.

These kinds of lawsuits are EXPENSIVE, and MD ccw isn't a big enough fruit to try and pick from the tree.......Now the DC ban....that's a real whopper.

I am hoping the DC thing will open the gates to MD becoming shall-issue.

But it would sure be nice if the MD constitution could be amended to guarentee 2A rights, like the PA one has- PA actually says something about self defense or right to life or something, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms-there is no doubt what it means, no regulated militia part to dicker over.

Yes, it would be exspensive. But I would be willing to have my tax dollars go towards fighting it. I wonder why it took 30 years for someone brave like Sarah Parker to challenge DC. This one person got the ball rolling. This may be what we need.

foxtrapper said:

I am hoping the DC thing will open the gates to MD becoming shall-issue.

But it would sure be nice if the MD constitution could be amended to guarentee 2A rights, like the PA one has- PA actually says something about self defense or right to life or something, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms-there is no doubt what it means, no regulated militia part to dicker over.

Click to expand...

The problem with attacking the problem with a change to the Md Constitution is the required support required in order to make it happen. Basically its a perfect storm......you need to get the Legislature and Executive behind it in order to pass......

Again, if we can resolve this issue at a Federal level then by default we will largely resolve it at the Md State level because of the deference to the US Constitution for issues not specifically addressed in the Md Const.

I am going to apply for a Maryland Permit this winter.
Does anyone know a good pro gun lawyer that would be willing to assist me?

Part of the problem in MD still applies to the interpretation of "The People". MD still thinks the people is the state of MD when it concerns the 2nd Amendment, even though the people in the other first five amendments are the individual people. They also feel that the National Guard satisfies the militia part of the 2nd Amendment, even though the National Guard was made so much later than the Constitution. I really don't get the whole National Guard/Militia substitute came about. it's like we assume that the founding fathers new we needed some sort of citizen army to avoid a standing army, yet it took a couple hundred years for somebody to come up with such an army? I don't think so. The militia is the citizen army, and it is not the National Guard as we all know. I don't even want to go into the whole standing army problems, I already see the danger of a standing army that can be sent to invade other countries without declaring war.

I really think that the Supreme Court will not hear the case in DC. They will let the lower ruling stand so that it has no bearing on other states. It's a small victory for the citizens of DC that way, and the states will not benefit from the ruling. Sure it can be used as leverage, but if they do not make a blanket ruling, it doesn't become the law of the land; only the law of DC.

I wish we could get an attorney general in MD that would change the opinion of the state when it comes to the 2nd amendment. I often wonder why the opinion of the previous attorney general has not been challenged in court. He's the one that says the 2nd amendment is a state right, so the state can ban whatever they choose. Until this interpretation is challenged, then the 14th amendment is not technically violated.

There are so many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that it would take the Supreme Court to decide, and I don't know if I trust them to make a sound decision. I think too many people focus on the commas in the text and declare that the militia is a qualifying factor in the right to keep and bear arms. I've heard it explained that the militia is just another piece of the 2nd amendment, similar to the 1st amendment enumerating the different freedoms of speach, religion, etc. If they would interpret the 2nd amendment in this way, then the right to a militia, to keep arms, to bear arms, and to secure a free state would be guaranteed no matter whether we have the national guard or not.

Deacon51 said:

I am going to apply for a Maryland Permit this winter.
Does anyone know a good pro gun lawyer that would be willing to assist me?

Click to expand...

Yes

The Maryland 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.

Click to expand...

On it's face one would think that this implies that the 2nd Amendment is recognized by Maryland as "Supreme Law of the State". Though this is apparently not the way Maryland takes it, at least not without taking a minority interpretation of it.
Then you throw in all the confusing issues with the 14th and 'States Rights', sovereignty, preemption, etc. and it's one big mess.
There is the MD AG opinion and rebuttal that covers some of this on this MSI page. The MD DOR article 2 issue that I bring up is not presented.
Maryland also did not ratify the 14th, seeing it as unnecessary particularly WRT segregation/slavery issues which was the main talking point of the 14th. So going back further one could presume that it did not include a RKBA clause because it considered it well known that such a right was nonviolate and thus not required to be enumerated. I haven't looked into the history of the Md constitution as much as I have the US one.

Overall I think the 14th Amendment was poorly drafted and considered. The state of the nation at the time had a lot to do with it. Their should be an Amendment which states that no amendments should be made at such a time as the people can be persuaded by government propoganda to accept wording which is unclear, or something like that. But I also think their should be a law that prevents unclear legislation in general.

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.”
--Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Federalist No. 62, 1788)

Click to expand...

Deacon51 said:

I am going to apply for a Maryland Permit this winter.
Does anyone know a good pro gun lawyer that would be willing to assist me?

Click to expand...

Although if you anticipate litigating a denial you might as well wait until Heller is decided.

CharlieFoxtrot said:

Although if you anticipate litigating a denial you might as well wait until Heller is decided.

Click to expand...

Thats likely a year away...or more....IF they take the case and IF they find in our favor....and Heller v DC isn't about right to carry per se...although one COULD point to a finding that SCOTUS affirmed that the 2A IS an individual right not a collective right.....remember that Parker v DC did not contest rules, regulation or carry...it was about Individual ownership, the BAN on handguns by DC and the law about not being allowed to have a functional firearm in the home for self def.

A positive decision by SCOTUS will not likely change the entire landscape on this issue overnight...rather it will provide us with support to contest wider issues wrt 2A.

I think I have a pretty good case. I would need a lawyer to help me draft my statement, and I will need to ensure my employer is on board.

... but you'd have a much better case if SCOTUS decides that 2A in an individual right.

The USSC has used the second amendment as an example for defining the "the people" in many decisions.

Every living breathing creature has the right to defend itself, I don't know why these liberal idiot lawmakers can't understand that. Do we just let bears eat us? Does a raccoon not fight when in a trap? Do we take the claws and fangs away from all the lions, so that only hyenas have the upper hand?