Posted on 03/27/2011 5:35:10 AM PDT by marktwain
On Christmas Eve, 2002, Raymond Woollard and his family were attacked in their Baltimore, Md., home by a burglar. Woollard and his family managed to subdue the intruder, but had to wait 2 1/2 hours for the police to arrive.
The home invader was convicted of First-Degree Burglary and given a sentence of three years’ probation.
Woollard was granted a handgun carry permit after this attack on his home and family. His permit was renewed in 2005. When he went to renew his permit in 2009, he was denied because he couldn't provide proof that he was in danger.
Woollard appealed this denial to Maryland's Handgun Permit Review Board. It affirmed the denial, stating Woollard had “not submitted any documentation to verify threats occurring beyond his residence, where he can already legally carry a handgun.”
This, obviously, is absurd.
Where in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does it say citizens must "demonstrate proof" or "submit documentation" to verify a need before availing themselves of a Constitutional right?
Must a Catholic "demonstrate proof" that he has a need to attend a Catholic Church before he's "allowed" to enjoy the freedom of religion accorded in the Constitution? Must a registered voter "submit documentation" of need before casting a ballot? Must you be screened by a government agency before writing a letter to the editor?
Yet, states across the country try to pull this on law-abiding gun owners. Maryland's arbitrary denial of Woollard's handgun permit could have national repercussions because, quite frankly, it cannot withstand the legal scrutiny it is going to get.
Last July, the Second Amendment Foundation and Woollard sued Maryland authorities in U.S. District Court, "because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims."
In the lawsuit, Woollard et al v. Sheridan et al, the SAF alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is ‘necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
Woollard and the SAF want a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.
As the suit makes its way toward its day in court, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence on March 22 filed an amicus brief, urging dismissal, saying that the changes sought would be "bad law and even worse policy."
Brady Center President Paul Helmke said in a statement that Maryland has "wisely rejected the gun lobby's agenda of 'any gun, anywhere for anybody.' Now the gun pushers want the courts to gut Maryland's laws and let virtually anyone carry a hidden handgun in public."
No. Not "virtually anyone." A law-abiding father, Navy veteran, and American citizen who should not be required to "demonstrate a need" to exercise a Constitutional right.
For more, go to: -- National group weighs in on case challenging state gun-permit laws
-- Maryland’s “May Issue” Gun Regulations Under the Gun
-- Washington Post Covers Gura's Maryland Case
-- SAF SUES MARYLAND OVER PERMIT DENIAL
-- Gun-Control Laws Challenged After Supreme Court Ruling
-- Good Things Happen In Threes
You are always un damger,,,idiots!!!
There is a certain beauty to that logic, which appeals to the left-leaning mind. Their institutions will protect the individual from harm. Those individuals causing the harm will be brought to reason in the long term, and hopefully institutional justice in the short term.
My wish to shoot any SOB who enters my home illegally to do me and my family harm is viewed as quite primitive. Constitution? Bill of Rights? Archaic. Not applicable to modern life. Besides the person or persons I might have to shoot have rights, too!
I know Baltimore quite well. Any honest citizen of Baltimore who is not prepared to defend his or her home, or him-or-herself with the best weapons available is naive. The Left be damned.
Where does it say in the 2nd. Amendment that I need a permit in the first place.
This is Maryland where liberals elected Hoyer, Mikulski, Cardin. Marylands own 3 stooges.
Where M.O.M. O’Mally raises taxes and steals money from every fund to pay his entitlement and help La Raza.
I HATE this f’n state! (less than 23 months to retirement and then back to Texas!)
I agree...but I have only 13 months. Freak state Hello!
I left in 2005 and I will never go back, except to visit family.
Oh my God...you mean “virtually anyone” might be permitted to exercise a Constitutional right??? The HORROR!!!!! This is simply another instance when the “law” must be ignored.
After six years in yankee land, I too will be heading south...this summer. Not soon enough, unfortunately!
Merry Land 2A ping!
When seconds count, the police are only hours away.
I am a native, It’s my home , I just try to change it, but the Demmies are strong here
Yes I know about this but I don’t think it’s gone to trail yet.
Merryland District Court will not be favorable I suspect. Plan on it going to the 4th Circuit who used to be conservative but not so much lately. This may go all the way to the Supremes. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Sorry to hear about your imprisonment. I know that sometimes--as in your case, employment--one has to live in that miserable state.
Going back and forth between Pennsylvania and Virginia I have to pass through it, and (sigh) the guns I have are locked up and the ammo separated just in case I might get this instantaneous urge to slay some passer-by.
Maryland firearms laws suck.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Well, I’ve been following this case closely, and the 4th circuit just did us no favors. A 3 judge panel just ruled that a man who was arrested prior to national parks carry (and then convicted after it passed), was in deed guilty of a crime (I guess the whole jurisprudence of not following an unconstitutional law doesn’t count, but you know that’s not the whole case law school of thought way).
Well, the 4th punted the issue. To steal from a friend of mine, they “didn’t put on their big boy pants for that day.” Meaning they defined the core of the right to be “in the home” and punted to SCOTUS (in an area that circuits are supposed to rule effectively upon).
I keep hoping that Dougy Gansler’s crew will screw the pooch so bad with their briefs (which they almost have done), that we might win at the District Level (which is a pretty big stretch). Though, considering Gansler implied we have the “right to carry regulated long guns concealed or openly without a permit” as defense to why they restrict handgun permits, we might have a shot, but it’s a long one after this ruling.
Thanks for the info. Please ping me if you know anything further.
If you want the holy bible of analysis on 2A things...(especially this case) swing on over to www.mdshooters.com and check out the MD 2A and National 2A forums.
The Woollard case thread alone is over 120 pages and almost 2500 replies with 130k thread views.
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=40649
Details of the 4th circuit national parks carry case (prior to the law change) are on this thread...
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=54494
Thanks I’ll take a look.
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.