Posted on 08/25/2024 7:46:35 AM PDT by MtnClimber
What Maryland is trying to do, with the help of the Fourth Circuit, is to make gun ownership so burdensome as to discourage it, and self-defense, entirely.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision held, with crystal clarity, the Second Amendment is an individual right, which extends to keeping and bearing arms not only in one’s home or on one’s property, but in public, with some limited exceptions. Not only did Bruen reaffirm the Second Amendment as a fundamental unalienable right--no second-class right—it established strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial analysis, for Second Amendment cases. Equally important was this holding:
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
In other words, anti-liberty/gun schemes are only constitutional if there was a clear historical analogy at the time of the founding. As one might suspect, some states—Like Maryland—are determined to ignore the Second Amendment and Bruen.
Under current Maryland law, no one may own, rent, or even touch a firearm without a 16-hour class which includes live fire. There is an 8-hour class required for each permit renewal. Only upon passing the 16-hour course, can one apply for a permit, and the State Police have 30 days to approve or deny applications. So while Maryland is, at least ostensibly, a “shall-issue” state the state puts as many barriers as possible in the path of gun owners, including a seven day waiting period for purchase, and gun registration.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
These strict gun laws must be why Baltimore has such a low murder rate and almost no armed robberies.
I hate this state.
When I lived in England in the 70s I wanted to continue shooting rifles and pistols as I did in the USA. My neighbor was a cop and I asked him what the procedure was. It was long and complex and very expensive and I would not be able to have the weapon at home. It must be kept at gun club under lock and key. I told my friend the cop, “it is not worth the trouble to do all that.” He said, “that is the whole idea of this.”
It tells you how pernicious Commie ideology is once it sets in. Our country has to first right the ship, and then, hopefully, have enough time to return to law and order days. Commies abhor any law they don’t agree with.
You really need to read the highly suppressed and now out of print 1982 Senate report on the RKBA. I have a paper copy from the US Government printing office.
Here is an on line copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
"...Not only did Bruen reaffirm the Second Amendment as a fundamental unalienable right...."
No, Bruen didn't "reaffirm" 2A as an individual rite, it directly cited the Heller decision as already having done so.
... Held:
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.
(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, ... the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation....
Bruen only addresses 2A as an "individual right" pursuant to establishing context for a point about possessing a firearm in the cause of self defense.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
maryland continues to suck the big one as a state. I “lived” there for 30 years before escaping to a free American state...not Maryland which is a den of lefties, greenies, lots of lawyers, government employees, many diverse illegal invaders, politicians and their corrupt ilk. The state government is a simmering cesspool of leftie insanity. Escape if you can...it is quite hopeless there.
👍🏻
Blue states will continue to do this as long as there are no consequences. Multiple or even class action lawsuits for denial of civil rights under color of authority would be a nice start.
CC
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.