Posted on 01/20/2003 2:51:56 PM PST by joesnuffy
Maryland Police: Disabled Man Has 'No Good Reason' for Handgun
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2003
Maryland has denied a physically disabled citizen a permit to carry a concealed handgun because he does not have a "good and substantial reason" to be armed.
Dan Sullivan worked as an emergency trauma nurse before muscular dystrophy severely limited the use of his legs. He can now walk only with the assistance of two canes.
What Sullivan calls his "visually obvious physical disability" makes him an attractive target for criminals, he believes. It also makes it almost impossible for him to flee or physically defend himself from an assault. Despite those facts, Maryland State Police denied Sullivan a permit for a concealed handgun.
"Maybe I need to go get a prescription at night, and I'm leery about going out at night because I can't run away from the criminals," Sullivan explained. "The elected officials seem to have very little concern for the safety of the disabled, you know. We're not a real concern to them."
Police in Maryland require that applicants who seek the permit for personal protection provide "documented evidence of recent threats and/or assaults, supported by police reports and/or notarized statements."
Erich Pratt, spokesman for Gun Owners of America, called the requirement "ridiculous."
"People may die getting all of this documentation," Pratt said. "That's just crazy."
Sullivan said the prerequisite led him to ask state officials what he believed was an obvious question.
"Exactly what type and how many threats and assaults have to be endured before one would qualify?" he asked.
The state police's licensing division told Sullivan he could appeal its determination to the Handgun Permit Review Board, which he has done. Two Maryland politicians were somewhat more responsive to Sullivan's inquiry.
Democrat Pols Know What's Best for You
"It is disturbing to think there are citizens who feel that they have to remain confined in their homes because it is not safe to be on the street," wrote Maryland Senate President Mike Miller (D). "However, I am not sure that carrying a weapon is the solution to that problem."
Miller offered no alternative solution, other than to refer Sullivan's letter to someone else. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D), who lost her bid for governor in November 2002, agreed with Miller on both counts.
"It is disturbing that some of our disabled citizens fear they will be attacked because of their disability if they leave their homes," Townsend wrote. "But I also agree with Senator Miller that allowing these same citizens to carry concealed weapons simply because they are disabled is not the answer to the problem."
Pratt was appalled at both letters.
"How callous for people who have police protection themselves throughout most of the day to say to an average citizen, 'You don't need to have a gun to defend yourself,'" he said.
"These would be atrocious letters written to anybody, but it's made worse by the fact that here's a guy who can barely walk," Pratt continued. "To tell him that he can't protect himself basically says that he will have to stay at home."
But Pratt added that, based on the vehement anti-Second Amendment records of Townsend and Miller, he was not surprised by the content of the letters.
'Elitist'
"It's elitist. It's callous. And obviously," Pratt concluded, "it's written by people who don't care whether this man lives or dies."
CNSNews.com asked Maryland Assistant Attorney General Mark Bowen, who works with the state police, to explain the criteria to meet the requirement that a citizen have a "good and substantial reason" to obtain a concealed-handgun permit.
"To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any," Bowen said. "It turns out to be whatever's accepted by the Handgun Review Board as acceptable. And again, there is no specific list of what that constitutes."
Sullivan said he feels caught between the criminals and the police, an uncomfortable place to be in a state with one of the highest rates of violent crime in the country.
"The police aren't responsible for our safety," Sullivan said, referring to Maryland and U.S. Supreme Court decisions that police cannot be sued for failing to protect a citizen from criminals. "Yet the state is denying us our own ability to protect and defend ourselves. I think that's a significant problem."
The Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board will review Sullivan's application appeal Feb. 5.
Maybe we should help the guy out by sending him death threats.
They don't need no stinkin' rules, don't need no stinkin' 2nd Amendment, they'll make up the law as they go along.
I'm glad I don't live in Maryland.
Maybe not, but the United States Constitution specifically does enumerate the RKBA.
Can a state's constitution and laws trump the US Constitution? I say NOT!
And, while you're at it...make sure to get rid of that fire extinquisher in your kitchen...I don't think THAT'S the solution to a fire. Just call the Fire Dept...>>>sarcasm
You first.
Upon review of the Maryland Constitution, you are correct.
However, it does state the following:
"Art. 44. That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of peace; and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.
Art. 45. This enumeration of Rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the People."
Thus, Art. 44 gives the U.S. Constitution, Amendment II, jurisdiction with the boundaries of the State of Maryland.
Also, Art. 45 states, just because the Maryland Constitution does not mention RKBA, does not mean the right does not exist and is retained by the people.
As a side note: Why is this disabled person, mentioned in the original article "begging" for permission to exert his rights?
Rights are rights. Exert them.
A CCW "law" can never be enacted in Missouri because our constitution prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons.
I have argued many times with CCW advocates that a "law" cannot change the constitution; only an amendment to the constitution can make the necessary change to allow CCW.
An amendment to the constitution will probably never happen because of the "soccer mom" mentality of St. Louis County and the big city politicos opposition to "blacks" being armed.
However, the good news is that just like Maryland, Missouri grants jurisdiction, within our state boundaries, of the U.S. Constitution, so that Amendment II does apply within Missouri boundaries and the Missouri Constitution on the right to keep and bear arms is unambigous and clear:
"Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
I must confess that when I ride my motorcycle on Sunday mornings, in the spring, summer, and fall, I would like to "bear" my "arm(s)."
And that is not the "arms" that my hands and shoulders are connected to.
But my wife, who claims she is not a St. Louis County "soccer mom," will not "allow" me to exert that right, yet.
Wish me luck in my attempt to change her mind.
Not since the ratification and enactment of the 14th amendment.
But previous to that amendment, some state's did specifically allow for U.S. Constitution to have jurisdiction within it's boundaries.
Maryland and Missouri, both specifically allow for U.S. Constitution jurisdiction.
This issue of U.S. Constitution jurisdiction was the specific reason for the war of northern aggression against the southern states.
To prevent such another war, the U.S. Constitution had to be amended because Lincoln was wrong and the Confederacy was right, when it came to the question of jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of a state. That is why we have the 14th amendment.
Ultimately, with the passage of the federal Civil Rights Act, is why the federales could displace George Wallace from the steps of the University of Alabama in 1963 when he claimed the federales had no jurisdiction to insist that blacks be admitted to the university and he tried to block their admittance.
Jim, I thought you might find this particular article of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.