Mr. Woollard wins!? Good and substantial clause for handgun permits unconstitutional.

[ProGun Progressive]

I won't believe it until I see the opinion...but this is a huge deal if true.

And probably a sign that you should pack it in Horowitz, Brady, Peters, Hamm, etc.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...s+and+Money%29

[NOTAGUNNUT]

"Because the ¨good and substantial reason requirement is not reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, the Court finds this portion of the Maryland law to be unconstitutional. Woollard is entitled to summary judgment. "

"A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered ¨reasonably adapted to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland's goal of ¨minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly. "

"At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government's to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

They said exactly what I've been saying here FOR 12 YEARS!

[sigmalady]

Nota, you forgot the link. I want to read this.

[NOTAGUNNUT]

Nota, you forgot the link. I want to read this.

No link. I got an e-mail

[sigmalady]

No link. I got an e-mail

Thanks.

[Mitchum]

There's Already Another Thread On This

[NOTAGUNNUT]

There's Already Another Thread On This

well... at least you're right on that. You've been wrong on this for years!

Now that the threads have been merged, you're wrong again!

[THE_1]

I just got an email from AGC regarding decision. Good news. It will be interesting to see if and how this translates into policy changes at MSP.

[Mitchum]

It won't. They are already getting a stay.

[NOTAGUNNUT]

Here's a link to the decision.

http://marylandshallissue.org/share/...rd_Opinion.pdf

a stay will only cost taxpayer money to delay the inevitable.

It's a very cut, and dry decision, leaving no options for the State but to comply.

[bmore_ken]

The Court wishes to emphasize the limits of this decision. While it finds Maryland’s
requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate “good and substantial reason” to be
unconstitutional, the Court does not address any of the State’s other regulations relating to the
possession and use of firearms, many of which would qualify as presumptively lawful. Nor does the Court speculate as to whether a law that required a “good and substantial reason” only of
law-abiding citizens who wish to carry a concealed handgun would be constitutional.
Finally,
the Court does not speak to Maryland’s ability to declare that a specific applicant is unfit for a
permit because of some particular aspect of the applicant’s character or history

Long way to go. Supreme Court

[NOTAGUNNUT]

Long way to go. Supreme Court

Maybe you're aware of some legal standing, ore precedent that an appeal can be based on.

If there were one, the State should have already presente it to try to win here.

The fact is that there is none that demonstrates that the State's interests supercede the Bill of Rghts.

This State will spend millions in an excercise consisting of only postponing the inevitable.

[Mitchum]

That puts me 1 ahead of you!

[Red Baron]

They said exactly what I've been saying here FOR 12 YEARS!

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. >grin<

[NOTAGUNNUT]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. >grin<

Here's a quandry!
every law enforcement officer in the State has sworn an oath to uphold, and defent the Constitution of the United States.

Maryland's law has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal Judge.

Every law enforcement officer(and politically elected official up to, and including the Governor of the State) that enforces the unconstitutional law has broken their sworn oath to uphold, and defend the constitution of the United States.

Now we find out if the oath means anything, or if it's just a formality.

[georjec2]

Here's a quandry!
every law enforcement officer in the State has sworn an oath to uphold, and defent the Constitution of the United States.

Maryland's law has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Federal Judge.

Every law enforcement officer(and politically elected official up to, and including the Governor of the State) that enforces the unconstitutional law has broken their sworn oath to uphold, and defend the constitution of the United States.

Now we find out if the oath means anything, or if it's just a formality.

I agree with you 100% !!!

[krucam]

Yes, we got a win today in Federal District Court in Woollard!

Opinion can be found at the Maryland Shall Issue release:
http://marylandshallissue.org/2012/0...woollard-case/

Some material from Judge Legg's Opinion:

There is no compelling state interest in depriving people of the means of self-defense. The state may have an interest in reducing gun violence and accidents, but it cannot presume that the exercise of a constitutional right will cause the sort of harm it is allowed to curtail. Defendants cannot point to the impact of their practice – the deprivation of constitutional rights – as their interest.

"At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason‖ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Maryland‘s requirement of a ―good and substantial reason‖ for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State‘s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court will, by separate Order of even date, GRANT Woollard‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012

[ProGun Progressive]

They can appeal, but their appeal will be to the 4th Ckt in Richmond, which will be decidedly pissing up a steep rope.

Ken is crying somewhere right now.

[NOTAGUNNUT]

Vindication for years of posts feels.......

Damned good!

[Baltimatt]

Mr. Woollard wins!?

How many people know who Mr. Wollard is? I hate cryptic thread titles.

Supreme Court rules on Maryland's "good, and substantial reason" clause.

Supreme Court? Maybe a U.S. District Court.

There's Already Another Thread On This

Gee, a nice big font but no help with a link to the existing thread.