A victory!

[armedandsafe]

This is going to get interesting. We now have conflicting opinions from different court jurisdictions, so a higher court will have to decide between them.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...or-ccw-and-saf

A bombshell federal district court ruling in Maryland could pave the way for further Second Amendment challenges of state and local gun laws because the judge ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not confined to one’s home, and that citizens do not need to provide a “substantial” reason for obtaining a carry permit, because the right to bear arms is all the reason one needs.

Pops

[Dirtypacman]

This was good news

[glens67]

A judge with smarts. Finally
Could you imagin only being able to exersize your first amendment right in the privacy of your home?

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

This is going to get interesting. We now have conflicting opinions from different court jurisdictions, so a higher court will have to decide between them.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...or-ccw-and-saf


Pops

Hope the right higher court and judge hears it.

[raven818]

That's a good thing. But, I've never heard of having to have a " substantial reason " for a CCW. Here, we just say we want one, qualify and that's that. And having to say what kind of weapon you want it for, isn't in the application.

Unfortunate that a judge had to make a ruling on it.

[norahc]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS

In an opinion filed Monday, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg says a requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun infringes their Second Amendment right to bear arms. He says it isn’t sufficiently tailored to the state’s public safety interests.

[pickenup]

More and more are waking up.

[Gun Geezer]

Wonder of wonders, a Judge who actually bothers to read the Constitution.

[time2shoot]

One step closer to geting it right yayayayaya!

[BETH]

YES!!!!!!

[norahc]

I missed this thread when I posted it in the Constitutional RKBA forum.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=103320

[marlin795]

I'm waiting for them to finally say it's unconstitutional to require a CCW and you to be 21 to carry a handgun. Irks me as I'm 20 and hey, can't carry a handgun, um the Constitution doesn't say anything that only 21 year olds can carry handguns. That's my argument if I ever get caught with my handgun ever. I'll go to court to fight for it it's my right as an American to carry a handgun. period.

[Jim K]

I doubt that will stand in MD. The Demos and liberals own the state and the state police tell the legislature what to do.

Jim

[Old Guy]

I will hold out some hope but it is a very liberal and left leaning state. It would be nice to go armed all the way to the border of New Jersika without having to disarm. For that matter all the way up to Canada would be good to. Oh to dream!

[gvw3]

If this is right for Maryland What about IL?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...,3349784.story

Seems to me if a federal judge ruled this it should apply to all states.

[ryan42]

In Indiana you use to state your reason to the statepolice supertindent why you needed a permit to carry.If you put because its my constitutional right it got rejected and you had to re apply.Now you dont Have to do that you just go online put your information do your electronic finger prints,pay your fee and you got it in 5 days.

[redneckchris]

Originally Posted by marlin795

I'm waiting for them to finally say it's unconstitutional to require a CCW and you to be 21 to carry a handgun. Irks me as I'm 20 and hey, can't carry a handgun, um the Constitution doesn't say anything that only 21 year olds can carry handguns. That's my argument if Ihttp://www.thefirearmsforum.com/images/editor/italic.gif ever get caught with my handgun ever. I'll go to court to fight for it it's my right as an American to carry a handgun. period.

I'm 100% on your side--mostly because you're simply pointing out the painfully obvious truth of the matter.

Our government overlords have been kind enough to grant me permission to exercise my right to arm myself, assuming I continue greasing the right palms(permit fees)and following the needlessly complicated rules regarding "lawful" firearm possession. But I always have and always will arm myself with or without permission. And I fully support your absolute RIGHT to do the same. This country needs more kids like you!

When people hear my thoughts on gun rights(absolute), they usually hit me with what they think will be a "gotcha!" question: "But redneckchris they say, if, as you contend, EVERYONE has the right to carry a gun according to the Constitution;paroled murderers, rapists and thieves and other dangerous people would be "allowed" to have guns, surely you don't think THEY should be "allowed"...right?" I pretend to be stumped for a moment or two by this brilliantly constructed and oh-so clever moral dilemma (to give them time to enjoy what will be their final moments of moral superiority), then I say:"Check it out you dirty hippie--I absolutely do NOT think murderers, rapists, thieves or hippies SHOULD be allowed to carry guns, but I know for a fact that they ARE allowed. They are in fact GUARANTEED the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, just like you, me and everybody else." "So until the Constitution is amended to read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all the people except for ex-cons and hippies shall not be infringed", I will fight (figuratively and literally) for their absolute right to arm themselves."

And in a perfect world, we wouldn't be discussing what rights a paroled killer does and does not have, 'cause he'd be dead a few hours after being found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers. Hippies are another matter--I guess I'd just have to accept a world that includes boorish, smelly, self righteous losers listening to lousy music and packin' heat. Oh well--if that's the price of freedom, I guess I'm willing to pay.

[Jerryboy]

Originally Posted by redneckchris

I'm 100% on your side--mostly because you're simply pointing out the painfully obvious truth of the matter.

Our government overlords have been kind enough to grant me permission to exercise my right to arm myself, assuming I continue greasing the right palms(permit fees)and following the needlessly complicated rules regarding "lawful" firearm possession. But I always have and always will arm myself with or without permission. And I fully support your absolute RIGHT to do the same. This country needs more kids like you!

When people hear my thoughts on gun rights(absolute), they usually hit me with what they think will be a "gotcha!" question: "But redneckchris they say, if, as you contend, EVERYONE has the right to carry a gun according to the Constitution;paroled murderers, rapists and thieves and other dangerous people would be "allowed" to have guns, surely you don't think THEY should be "allowed"...right?" I pretend to be stumped for a moment or two by this brilliantly constructed and oh-so clever moral dilemma (to give them time to enjoy what will be their final moments of moral superiority), then I say:"Check it out you dirty hippie--I absolutely do NOT think murderers, rapists, thieves or hippies SHOULD be allowed to carry guns, but I know for a fact that they ARE allowed. They are in fact GUARANTEED the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, just like you, me and everybody else." "So until the Constitution is amended to read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all the people except for ex-cons and hippies shall not be infringed", I will fight (figuratively and literally) for their absolute right to arm themselves."

And in a perfect world, we wouldn't be discussing what rights a paroled killer does and does not have, 'cause he'd be dead a few hours after being found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers. Hippies are another matter--I guess I'd just have to accept a world that includes boorish, smelly, self righteous losers listening to lousy music and packin' heat. Oh well--if that's the price of freedom, I guess I'm willing to pay.

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

[Jerryboy]

as i said in another post, if someone is too dangerous to own and carry a gun, then they're DEFINITELY too dangerous to be outside of prison!

[redneckchris]

--in prison or in the ground.

[carver]

Originally Posted by redneckchris

I'm 100% on your side--mostly because you're simply pointing out the painfully obvious truth of the matter.

Our government overlords have been kind enough to grant me permission to exercise my right to arm myself, assuming I continue greasing the right palms(permit fees)and following the needlessly complicated rules regarding "lawful" firearm possession. But I always have and always will arm myself with or without permission. And I fully support your absolute RIGHT to do the same. This country needs more kids like you!

When people hear my thoughts on gun rights(absolute), they usually hit me with what they think will be a "gotcha!" question: "But redneckchris they say, if, as you contend, EVERYONE has the right to carry a gun according to the Constitution;paroled murderers, rapists and thieves and other dangerous people would be "allowed" to have guns, surely you don't think THEY should be "allowed"...right?" I pretend to be stumped for a moment or two by this brilliantly constructed and oh-so clever moral dilemma (to give them time to enjoy what will be their final moments of moral superiority), then I say:"Check it out you dirty hippie--I absolutely do NOT think murderers, rapists, thieves or hippies SHOULD be allowed to carry guns, but I know for a fact that they ARE allowed. They are in fact GUARANTEED the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, just like you, me and everybody else." "So until the Constitution is amended to read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all the people except for ex-cons and hippies shall not be infringed", I will fight (figuratively and literally) for their absolute right to arm themselves."

And in a perfect world, we wouldn't be discussing what rights a paroled killer does and does not have, 'cause he'd be dead a few hours after being found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers. Hippies are another matter--I guess I'd just have to accept a world that includes boorish, smelly, self righteous losers listening to lousy music and packin' heat. Oh well--if that's the price of freedom, I guess I'm willing to pay.

I'm with you 100%! The real facts are that anyone can get a gun! It doesn't matter if they intend to use it to commit a crime, or not. If everyone carried a gun, who would the criminal choose as his next victim? Of course he could always run down to the nearest "No Gun Zone", and find all the victims he wants! The Constitution does specify who is to have a gun, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".