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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« ABA has a new subcommittee dealing with right to arms | Main | Colorado Sup Ct strikes down ban on CCW permittees carrying »

2A victory in Maryland, Wollard v. Sheridan

Posted by David Hardy · 5 March 2012 08:17 AM

District Court opinion here.

The Maryland handgun carry permit statute requires the applicant to show that he "has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." Plaintiff had had a home invasion, was issued a permit for a time, then was denied it since he could not show a current threat.

The court applied intermediate scrutiny, and notes that the requirement has no significant link to reducing crime. Rather it operates a rationing system. Maryland argued that guns in general pose risks -- law-abiding owners might not always be law-abiding, criminals might steal them -- to which the court responds that you could make the same argument to support a system which arbitrarily issued a permit to every tenth applicant. Maryland also argued that use in self-defense might escalate a situation or lead to accidental injuries -- to which the court replies that that is a peculiar argument, since the permit system supposedly ensures that carry permits go to those most likely to become a victim of crime, and thus most likely to use a gun in self-defense.

It's a great win, courtesy of Alan Gura and SAF...

Hat tip to Gene Hoffman of CalGuns....

· Chicago aftermath

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Mayor Joel Stoner | March 5, 2012 10:19 AM | Reply

Sounds like a start to challenges of California's may issue laws.

Scott | March 5, 2012 11:05 AM | Reply

Another win from the SAF!

Jeff | March 5, 2012 1:40 PM | Reply

Will this decision immediately affect other applicants, if not appealed by Maryland?

Scott | March 5, 2012 2:14 PM | Reply

So no to strict scrutiny, no to prior restraint, and no to equal protection. These would be too hard for the court to make such a quantum leap.

Matthew Carberry | March 5, 2012 3:02 PM | Reply

Baby steps, well, big boy steps in this case.

The Courts can lead on this and then, when the non-issueness of allowing lawful carry demonstrates itself, the people and Legislature of the states can make the final moves. Just like Shall-Issue led to Con. Carry in every state that has it (VT doesn't count, -very- old court case got them theirs from the get go).

They got the gun control they wanted over time and by inching a foot in the door. We just need to kick it back out, but faster since we can show the ineffectiveness of their regimes.

Leave a comment