Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Code of the Duel | Main | Kansas overrides veto, passes liberal CCW »

Md bill -- "shall issue" for women

Posted by David Hardy · 23 March 2006 03:05 PM

25 Maryland delegates have cosponsored a bill to establish shall issue for women, while retaining may issue for men.

It's an interesting approach. Generally, gender discrimination is subject (if I remember correctly) to some level of review greater than rational basis and less than strict scrutiny. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find data establishing that women are victims of violent crime more often than are men, in proportion to the population of each. (They're also less likely to be perpetrators, but that's not so relevant to the bill since the screening process is the same for both genders -- it just provides that men must prove a need for self defense, whereas women need only show they want it for self defense).

(Hat tip to reader Adrian, who spotted the bill)

· State legislation

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Kevin Baker | March 23, 2006 3:27 PM | Reply

I don't see how that's going to get past "equal protection."

Kevin P. | March 23, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply

I don't have a source handy, but men are disproportionately victims of violent crime in general. Women are disproportionately victims of certain violent crimes like rape and domestic violence.

Men also disproportionately commit violent crime in general. There might be some interesting statistic about how women in general are victimized more than they victimize others, but that doesn't seem germane to concealed carry.

I don't think this approach could pass muster with equal protection, but it makes political opposition more difficult. Not that I have any problem with that :-)

The Mechanic | March 24, 2006 11:24 AM | Reply

What ever happened to the old Constitutional version of we all stand equal before God and equal before the law? This is just another attempt by modernist liberals to fracture society by having unequal protection, as in caste system societies. i.e. women being granted a higher social position. Strict construction interpretation has our rights derived from God, not granted by legal decree (a work of man).

Jeff | March 24, 2006 11:27 AM | Reply

I agree that this probably will not pass equal protection review, but I will boldly assert that it should. Equal protection requires that the individuals who are being treated differently are "similarly situated." In the realm of personal security, men and women are just not similarly situated. In our age of political correctness, the Court would probably delude themselves into the idea that we are all equal. But it just ain't so.

Court Jester | March 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply

What about female judges?

Leave a comment