Subscribe to Outdoor Life
Get 1 Year for Only $10
The Gun Shots Recent Posts
Categories
Recent Comments
Archives
The Gun Shots |
August 12, 2010
An Incomprehensible 'Apprehended Danger' - 4
by John Haughey
 Maryland suit challenges state's bizarre reasoning in denying renewed gun permit for home-invasion victim. A Maryland lawsuit could prove to be the next significant legal battle in the defense of Second Amendment rights in the wake of Supreme Court rulings in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller and this year's McDonald v. Chicago cases. The Second Amendment Foundation and Baltimore County resident Raymond Woollard filed a lawsuit in late July in U.S. District Court in Baltimore challenging Marylandís restrictive open-carry gun law. "Imagine a world in which you had to go to the government and show a good and substantial reason to exercise your constitutional rights," said one of Woollard's lawyers. "[However] we are not arguing there shouldn't be background checks, fingerprints, mental examinations or training requirements." Woollard and the SAF argue that Marylandís restrictive open-carry gun law is unconstitutional. According to Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman, the SAF filed the suit on behalf of Woollard after his gun permit renewal was denied because he could not demonstrate "a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." Woollard's story demonstrates how dangerously spurious and downright silly this arbitrary denial is. On Christmas Eve 2002, as his family gathered to celebrate the holiday, Woollard's home was invaded by a man who wanted to fight. Woollard and the thug grappled for possession of a shotgun, The man was eventually subdued and held at bay by Woollard's son, who had grabbed another gun. They called police, who took "approximately 2.5 hours to arrive" because they could not decide in which county Woollard's home was in. Despite this, Maryland denied Woollard's 2009 application to renew his gun permit because he could not demonstrate "a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." What is a "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" anyway? For that matter, what does "apprehended danger" mean, exactly? For more, go to: - Gun-rights group files federal complaint against Maryland's gun restrictions; - Lawsuit challenges Md.'s handgun restrictions; - Complaint; - SAF Sues in Maryland Over Handgun Permit Denial; - SAF's new Maryland lawsuit shows why 'shall issue' law is best; - Maryland group donates $10K to Bellevue's SAF for court battles; |
Outdoorlife.com is part of the Field & Stream Network, a division of Bonnier Corporation.
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Comments (4)
This world is going CRAZY!
I hope the treasonous sons of *hores get what is coming to them. It is only an outrage when it happens to one of THEIR family members. Remember this when you VOTE!
why do they want the bad guys to run wild in the streets and the law abiding citizen has to cower in his own home!
It would be a wonderful world if the people behind such denials of the ability to protect oneself would be the victims of an invasion such as Wollard and his family suffered. I can't comprehend the reasoning these beaureaucrats use to decide whether or not a person may be in danger at any point in the future.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
It would be a wonderful world if the people behind such denials of the ability to protect oneself would be the victims of an invasion such as Wollard and his family suffered. I can't comprehend the reasoning these beaureaucrats use to decide whether or not a person may be in danger at any point in the future.
why do they want the bad guys to run wild in the streets and the law abiding citizen has to cower in his own home!
I hope the treasonous sons of *hores get what is coming to them. It is only an outrage when it happens to one of THEIR family members. Remember this when you VOTE!
This world is going CRAZY!
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)