BALTIMORE (AP) — The Second Amendment right to bear arms is not limited to the home and Maryland’s requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to get a handgun permit is unconstitutional, according to a federal judge’s opinion filed Monday.

The right to bear arms has historically been understood to allow for militia membership and hunting, which extends the right beyond the home, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote. States can channel the way residents exercise their rights, but because Maryland’s goal was to minimize the number of firearms outside homes by limiting the privilege to those who could demonstrate “good reason,” it had turned into a rationing system, he wrote.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002, but was denied a renewal in 2009 because he could not show he had been subject to “threats occurring beyond his residence.” Woollard appealed, but was rejected by the review board, which found he hadn’t demonstrated a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution. The suit filed on Woollard’s behalf by the Second Amendment Foundation in 2010 claimed that Maryland didn’t have a reason to deny the renewal and wrongly put the burden on Woollard to show why he still needed to carry a gun.

“People have the right to carry a gun for self-defense and don’t have to prove that there’s a special reason for them to seek the permit,” said his attorney Alan Gura, who has challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago. “We’re not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there’s a right to bear arms.”

The lawsuit names the state police superintendent and members of the Handgun Permit Review Board.

“We disagree with this ruling,” Assistant Attorney General Matthew Fader said in a statement. “In light of the very important implications of the ruling for public safety, the defendants will be appealing to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants will also be seeking a stay of the ruling pending appeal.”

Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which assists states and cities in facing gun law challenges, expects the 4th Circuit to overturn the ruling.

“The Supreme Court has recognized the right to have guns in homes, but there is no right in public places,” Lowy said. “What Maryland does is reasonable. It allows law enforcement to make judgment based on substantial reasons why someone needs to carry a loaded gun in public. That’s not rationing and certainly not unconstitutional.”

But Gura disagrees, noting that many states require gun permits, but six states, including Maryland, issue permits on a discretionary basis. He’d like to see Maryland develop a licensing system that is “objective and straightforward.”

This suit is one of several federal suits the foundation is bringing across the nation, but it is the first time the foundation has had success before reaching the appeals level, according to foundation Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“Momentum is moving in our direction,” he said.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a western Maryland Republican who has introduced a bill to protect the right to obtain a firearm for self-defense or to protect one’s home or family, applauded the ruling.

“As Judge Legg correctly ruled, the burden should be on the government to prove that an American is unfit to exercise this Constitutional right,” he said.

(Copyright 2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Comments (488)
  1. slackware says:

    I thought the SCOTUS finally incorporated the 2nd amendment, so all these illegal state laws are moot.

    I’ve carried in Maryland, and guess what. I didn’t shoot anyone, I didn’t threaten anyone. But if a cop were to go for his gun, I would have DEFENDED myself.
    Since they were the only ones with guns, they were the only criminals I worried about. Bet that dumb banker wished he had thought of that when they stood around while the DC police and nut cases were intimidating and threatening his family.
    But since carrying a sword is also ok in maryland, I don’t see why you aren’t wearing one every time you leave the house. A good sharp sameri should deter the normal nut case threat. Then if they take it from you then you are justified in pulling your gun and shooting them. You have proven that only the gun worked for the jury, and they are the only ones that matter.

    But what good is a gun when they will just ban the bullets for the gun. In DC he had a SCOTUS decision for himself, and still they denied him his gun. No only giving them the gun one bullet at a time will work with these goons.
    After you replace enough political hacks and cops, they will get the idea that there views are wrong and change them.
    I remember they only had to throw out one sheriff in Alabama, and all he did was raise the permit fee $20. Maryland seems to be a lot more stupid about holding there officials accountable.

  2. Mulch 47406 says:

    Very good site thank you so much for your time in writing the posts for all of us to learn about.

  3. articles spinner.eu says:

    My brother suggested I may like this blog. He was totally right. This submit actually made my day. You can not imagine just how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

Leave a Reply