Maryland Rules 2A does not cover carry outside home

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by kkennett, Jan 6, 2011.

  1. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Maryland's Court of Appeals (it's highest court) has ruled that the 2A does not cover the carrying of a gun outside of the home. The opinions says that if that's what the Supreme Court meant in their Heller dicta, it will have to say so plainly. Basically a middle finger, if I read it right. Could be the next big case.

    http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2011/16a10.pdf
     
  2. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    To be clear, this is a challenge to both concealed and open carry, unpermitted. The defendant had no permit. Maryland is not a "shall issue" state. They require that you demonstrate to the goverment "good and substantial reasons" for carrying a gun outside your home.
     

  3. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,784
    315
    83
    I'll have to read the ruling on that, I don't recall anything in the 2A that referenced a well armed militia that stays at home. I do remember something about 'shall not be infringed'. I'm guessing that, because the 2A doesn't explicitly state carry outside of personal property, the court deemed it not to be inclusive.
     
  4. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    As to whether this is a good Supreme Court case, unfortunately Mr. Williams did not apply for a permit, so he may run into standing issues about challenging the permitting statute.
     
  5. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Maryland is basically staking out its blue state position and saying that the Sup Ct is going to have to make them if they want further changes. Mr. Williams didn't apply for a permit, which doesn't allow him to challenge the permitting statute for not being "shall issue". Had he done that, we would have a prime case for the Sup Ct. As it is, we do not. I think other cases coming along in CA and others demanding equal treatment for permits have a better chance.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,025
    1,419
    113
    Cert reply brief in Williams v. Maryland
    Posted by David Hardy · 27 July 2011 07:07 PM
    Steve Halbrook and Dan Peterson have filed a reply brief on their petition for certiorari in Williams v. Maryland, which upheld a conviction for carrying a handgun outside the home. When first I heard of the case, I was concerned about the defendant's having to challenge because he hadn't applied for a permit, but it looks as if they nailed that down, tightly.

    Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (0)

    http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/ ... brie_1.php

    Reply brief available at the link.
     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,340
    612
    113
    I love how they frame the question presented to the Court:
    ... this case presents perhaps the most critical
    issue of all: are the words “bear arms†devoid of
    meaning, thereby limiting the Second Amendment to
    the right to “keep arms†within the four walls of one’s
    dwelling? If so, it is an extraordinarily constricted
    constitutional right, that bears little resemblance to
    the robust right clearly envisioned by the Framers and
    exercised throughout American history
    .


    This is good, too:

    The Maryland court did not hold that the carry statute and
    permitting process withstood constitutional scrutiny.
    It held that there will be no scrutiny at all.
     
  8. Jmark

    Jmark Active Member

    2,189
    0
    36
    MD may as well be listed as "almost never issue" state. Very, very few can qualify to carry and if they do, like someone transporting a lot of cash for a night deposit, can only carry in those circumstances specified.
     
  9. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    It is intentionally unqualified, (reference the period after "shall not be infringed").
     
  10. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Pretty good reply brief, I thought. This question will be answered soon, one way or other. Cases challenging no permits in Illinois, this case, CA cases: somebody will get review shortly.
     
  11. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate ... l-statutes

    (Emphasis added) We are a Republic.
     
  12. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,375
    66
    48
    Can you imagine how much worse things would be if we didn't have a Bill of Rights at all with at least their wording to stand on? And to think the Framers thought a BoR is unnecessary.

    On the other hand, Hamilton was exactly right here, but I still wonder that without the explicit recognition spelled out, if it'd have been worse.

     
  13. rashley

    rashley New Member

    548
    0
    0
    Rugerer, I think that pretty much sums up the basic schism between the two schools of thought regarding constitutional law, doesn’t it? Either the gov’t can do anything not forbidden by the constitution, or they only have those powers expressly granted therein.

    If this is silly or so obvious as to not need mentioning forgive me. I’ve VERY tired and slightly high on caffeine. :mrgreen:
     
  14. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    I've always thought the Tenth Amendment was pretty clear on that.
     
  15. rashley

    rashley New Member

    548
    0
    0
    One would think, but that's not really the reality is it? I mean, think about how far they've stretched the "interstate commerce" thing.
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,025
    1,419
    113
    Everybody read the brief! :D
     
  17. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,367
    29
    48
    That was actually quite entertaining.
     
  18. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,375
    66
    48
    I did read it. That was my point. I can't help but imagine these sorts of legal fights, over everything possible, free press, free religion, free carry, etc., would have been much worse without being able to point to explicit wording that proved a specific right was in mind and recognized. Alan Gura likes to point out that First Amendment questions weren't generally settled until the early 1900s. It's turning out that the BoR is providing us with a "last stand" position to fight from on many issues.

    Here, the brief had the word "bear" to turn it's argument on.

    Without that, we'd argue over everything like we argue over the "right to privacy". The Constitution doesn't list it in so many words, so is it therefore a "privilege" and not a "right"?

    "The people surrender nothing, they have all the power."
    "Yes, well, but not that power. That power wasn't ever meant to be with the people. The nation would go to ruin if we let the people do that."

    All that said, I agree, the brief was a fun read.