Woollard reversed

Can you confirm it?

Can see Illinois appealing to the Supreme Court for sure.

Dave,

I think you meant "may-issue" permit system, Maryland didn't have "shall-issue."

Wow, what an opinion. Signed on to the state's arguments that more guns could mean gunfights at traffic accidents. Cops would have to treat all people as potentially armed (which of course they don't have to do today???). Might mean more "man with a gun" calls.

If that's all it's going to take to limit the right to carry outside the home, then the fight is pretty much over in the anti-gun states, and gun control remains in play in all the others.

What part of must not infringe on is not understood by those who swore oath to the constition when taking office.
The governing officials of Maryland have always choosen to restrict the "rights" of law abiding citizens while empowering the criminals with less jail time,no deterent laws such as the elimination of the death penalty.
Myself as many others are, will choose to leave this state for other surrounding states like Pa,Del.WV VA. and take with it our buisness,jobs and unwantingly paid high taxes to leave this once great state so it may become the same entitlement enslaved state it has become. All the while we will enjoy our god given freedoms while Maryland can enjoy it's freedom denying welfare dependant, lack of "revenue" generating failure.

Just another law sold as "limiting gun crime" that does nothing to stop the criminals that will carry guns regardless of the law

Ridiculous. Let me see if I understand the court's reasoning:

The fundamental right to carry a gun outside your home, assuming such a right exists (which the court says it is assuming), does not prohibit the government from limiting the carrying of guns in public to a select few people in favored classes, or who can show a special need (practically nobody), because the right must be balanced against the government's policy (which we will not second guess as to effectiveness, etc.) of limiting the number of guns in public (for reasons of officer safety, crime-reduction, etc.).

In other words, if I am reading the opinion right:

The right to carry in public, protected by the second amendment, may rightly be denied you, by law, on the ground that the law, in its general application, will reduce the exercise of the very right that the second amendment protects. Huh?

The district court was correct--there is no balancing of interests in this case, where the statute places what is in effect an insurmountable burden on the exercise of the right to bear arms outside ones home. The founders already balanced the interests when they adopted the second amendment, enshrining the right to bear arms in the highest law of the land.

The Supreme Court CAUSED the problem in 1833 in Barron. Then the SC tries to fix their idiocy through incorporation BUT incorporation includes added holes to protect the state from the people.

Then claims are made using the can't yell fire BS and that makes all Rights NOT absolute. Where the ignorant lose it is when they compare freedom of speech (a privilege) to keeping and bearing arms (a Right). And too many folks, especially those making and interpreting the laws, have no idea about Rights NOT being privileges or immunities because Rights come from God and P&I come from the state.

We don't need no stinkin' badges. It will take the majority of the people to tell the government to shove it where the sun don't shine. Until we do, we have failed to do what the Framers did love and keep liberty.