JanesDad
Member
Here's an update about the Woollard v. Sheridan case written by John Pierce.
Here's an update about the Woollard v. Sheridan case written by John Pierce.
"declared Maryland’s requirement that applicants articulate a “good and substantial reason” unconstitutional both in general and as-applied to Mr. Woollard."
So according to the article, you don't have to request "Self Defense" on the app.
In my case I have a G&S but as I read it I should also be included in the broader "unrestricted" category as well.
"declared Maryland’s requirement that applicants articulate a “good and substantial reason” unconstitutional both in general and as-applied to Mr. Woollard."
So according to the article, you don't have to request "Self Defense" on the app.
In my case I have a G&S but as I read it I should also be included in the broader "unrestricted" category as well.
The Metro section of the "Washington Times" had an article by David Hall titled "Appeal of voided Md. gun-permit law awaits ruling." Some interesting numbers: "According to state police, Marylanders filed 5,216 permit request last year and 251 of them were rejected- 179 on grounds that applicants did not have an adequate reason". I don't recall seeing such a large number of applications before. Perhaps I just missed it. The number seems high to me.
Why is your G&S reason better than my 14th amendment right to equal protection?
That sure isn't a 97% approval rating! But the better question would be how many have applied this year? How many applied since the ruling?
Actually is is close to 97% Using the numbers in the Article I get 96.2%
Actually is is close to 97% Using the numbers in the Article I get 96.2%
But remember...
A huge number of those applications are for security, armored car, etc., which are more for the employer than the individual, and are "easy" apps.
If it was possible to break those out of the numbers given, I would guess the "approval rate" (which I've always considered suspect and mostly inapplicable to the cause at hand) to be closer to 10 or 15%.
Because we don't currently have equal protection. If your politically connected, rich and or a business owner then maybe you can protect yourself with a hand gun.
Everyone else needs to seek alternatives, perhaps a rape whistle.
Since it has historically been a proxy for “politically connected, white, donor,” it is easy to understand why the state would want to protect those they have rewarded. But that’s the problem. A discretionary system guarantees that cronyism, racism, bigotry and administrative inertia will all poison the process.