Appeal of voided Md. gun-permit law awaits ruling

The Washington Times ^ | 28 May, 2012 | David Hill

[marktwain]

A federal judge is considering whether to block enforcement of a recent court ruling that would relax Maryland’s handgun-permit law.

The state is currently appealing a March ruling by U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg that struck down as unconstitutional Maryland’s law requiring people seeking concealed-carry permits to provide a “good and substantial reason” for needing a gun.

Judge Legg issued a temporary stay against the ruling shortly after the state filed its appeal, allowing the state to continue enforcing the “good and substantial” restriction. He is now weighing whether to end the stay or extend it until after the case is heard by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state filed its final argument on the matter last week, but the timeline for a decision is unknown.

State officials argue that ending the stay could compromise public safety and cause logistical headaches if Judge Legg’s ruling is eventually overturned.

Plaintiffs say a stay will only extend the state’s denial of residents’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Whatever the outcome, the case could set an important precedent and provide more fuel to the argument over whether the Second Amendment extends to public places or applies just to one’s home.

Maryland’s current law requires that residents seeking permits to carry guns outside the home show that they are in potential danger or need a gun as a retired law-enforcement officer or to perform certain workplace responsibilities.

The law was challenged in 2010 by Raymond Woollard, a Navy veteran living in Baltimore County who received a gun permit in 2003 after his home was broken into, leading to an armed altercation.

Mr. Woollard renewed the application in 2006, but was denied renewal in 2009 by Maryland State Police and the state’s Handgun Permit Review Board on grounds that he

[marktwain]

It is very hard for me to see how "may issue" laws could be constitutional. Where else are public officials allowed to decide, on their whim, who can exercise Constitutional rights, and who may not? It is hard to see how this falls under due process or how it does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Maryland “Freak State” PING!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

BANG!

[DMG2FUN]

“Maryland’s handgun-permit law.”
Does requiring a permit to exercise a right. Infringe on that right?