more good news...Maryland Gun Law Found Unconstitutional

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I agree with this ruling.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The ruling was the right decision but this bit still scares me a bit.

[Beet]

The purpose of the right is a 'well regulated militia.' It's hard to see how that extends into an open-ended right.

[John Dibble]

The purpose of the right is a 'well regulated militia.' It's hard to see how that extends into an open-ended right.

The Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller set the precedent that the right to bear arms is as an individual right that doesn't have to be connected to a militia.

On the other hand that same case notes that there can be restrictions on carrying outside the home, so requiring a permit is likely to be constitutional. (though an outright ban may not be) However, requiring a "good and substantial reason" to be given a permit would rightly considered too subject to individual interpretation and bias, and is the kind of thing that gets struck down often. Specific criteria for denying someone a permit needs to be established here.

[Beet]

The purpose of the right is a 'well regulated militia.' It's hard to see how that extends into an open-ended right.

The Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller set the precedent that the right to bear arms is as an individual right that doesn't have to be connected to a militia.

Judicial activism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"good and substantial reason" doesn't fully describe the rules that were in place. They consisted of specific criteria and there were multiple avenues of appeal, plus previous controlling cases. It was not something where one bureaucrat's own interpretation of the phrase "good and substantial reason" would have been enough. In other words, there already were specific criteria; this judge simply didn't like them.

[John Dibble]

The purpose of the right is a 'well regulated militia.' It's hard to see how that extends into an open-ended right.

The Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller set the precedent that the right to bear arms is as an individual right that doesn't have to be connected to a militia.

Judicial activism.

I disagree, therefore judicial activism? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Either way lower courts are bound to Supreme Court precedent so that's how this court would have had to interpret it. A lower judge would HAVE to interpret it as an individual right.

"good and substantial reason" doesn't fully describe the rules that were in place. They consisted of specific criteria and there were multiple avenues of appeal, plus previous controlling cases. It was not something where one bureaucrat's own interpretation of the phrase "good and substantial reason" would have been enough. In other words, there already were specific criteria; this judge simply didn't like them.

He had good enough reason to be granted a permit the first time - what changed so that he couldn't renew?

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

The purpose of the right is a 'well regulated militia.' It's hard to see how that extends into an open-ended right.

The Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller set the precedent that the right to bear arms is as an individual right that doesn't have to be connected to a militia.

Judicial activism.

Bullsh*t.