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
Comments (12)
good news:welcome our website ___(( vipsho pper.us )) ( Please enter
the website
Please believe that we will be very good
)
love shopping friend accept credit card and so mang payment
( Please copy stick this website )
Welcome to my web site please patiently watch will have your favorite items
____(( vipsho pper.us ))
jordan air max oakland raiders $34--39;
Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;
Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;
gstar evisu true je ans $35;
coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;
DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;
CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $32;
jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $37;
EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $16;
coach okely Adidas CHANEL DG Sunglass $18;
DSMbirddog,
I kinda figured that you were just making a point but hey, you never know. You are right about the absurdedy of this law.
No, Smitty I didn't get shot. I was just pointing out the idiocy of this Maryland business. In that state you can only get a permit if you are in danger? That's backwards in my book. That's pure crap.
DSMbirddog,
Did you really get shot?
Keeping and bearing isn't a privilege, it is a right.
As such, any condition on the right (with the exception of being prohibited by due process, on an individual basis) is unconstitutional.
Period. These "show good cause" laws are DOOMED. Watch the dominos fall.....
Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this?
The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.
The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.
Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)
To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
Maryland is a joke along with NJ, IL, CA, NY, WI and Washington, DC. Everything is based on the rights of the criminals and not the citizen.
In addition, banning high capacity gun magazines will do nothing but work against the law-abiding citizens and not the thugs.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/gun-...
Murders with fire-arms per state:
California = 3.7 per 100,000
Illinois = 2.99 per 100,000
Maryland = 6.06 per 100,000
New Jersey = 2.56 per 100,000
New York = 4.47 per 100,000
Washington, DC = 18.84 per 100,000
Wisconsin = 1.7 per 100,000
Let me see if I have this right. If I live in Maryland, I have to demonstrate a need to protect my right to life outside of my home?
Let me see if I have this right. If I live in Maryland, I have to demonstrate a need to protect my right to life outside of my home?
There appears to be common theme with gun laws. They prohibit good people from owning guns while doing very little with the thousands of criminals with guns.
Thats why you law abiding citizens on the coasts that are not liberals, antigunners, antihunting, ect... need to move to the heart land of America where the constitution is still a legal document that is "somewhat" followed. I am sure there is a bacteria or some disease in the ocean that effects coastal states citizens! In all seriousness this man and along with saf & nra should hand these state beaurecrats and the brady's their @$$ on this.
This is absurd. Let's see, I'll get a permit to carry as soon as I get out the hospital and this GSW heals up.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
There appears to be common theme with gun laws. They prohibit good people from owning guns while doing very little with the thousands of criminals with guns.
Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this?
The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.
The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.
Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)
To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
Maryland is a joke along with NJ, IL, CA, NY, WI and Washington, DC. Everything is based on the rights of the criminals and not the citizen.
In addition, banning high capacity gun magazines will do nothing but work against the law-abiding citizens and not the thugs.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/gun-...
Murders with fire-arms per state:
California = 3.7 per 100,000
Illinois = 2.99 per 100,000
Maryland = 6.06 per 100,000
New Jersey = 2.56 per 100,000
New York = 4.47 per 100,000
Washington, DC = 18.84 per 100,000
Wisconsin = 1.7 per 100,000
This is absurd. Let's see, I'll get a permit to carry as soon as I get out the hospital and this GSW heals up.
Thats why you law abiding citizens on the coasts that are not liberals, antigunners, antihunting, ect... need to move to the heart land of America where the constitution is still a legal document that is "somewhat" followed. I am sure there is a bacteria or some disease in the ocean that effects coastal states citizens! In all seriousness this man and along with saf & nra should hand these state beaurecrats and the brady's their @$$ on this.
Let me see if I have this right. If I live in Maryland, I have to demonstrate a need to protect my right to life outside of my home?
Let me see if I have this right. If I live in Maryland, I have to demonstrate a need to protect my right to life outside of my home?
No, Smitty I didn't get shot. I was just pointing out the idiocy of this Maryland business. In that state you can only get a permit if you are in danger? That's backwards in my book. That's pure crap.
DSMbirddog,
I kinda figured that you were just making a point but hey, you never know. You are right about the absurdedy of this law.
Keeping and bearing isn't a privilege, it is a right.
As such, any condition on the right (with the exception of being prohibited by due process, on an individual basis) is unconstitutional.
Period. These "show good cause" laws are DOOMED. Watch the dominos fall.....
DSMbirddog,
Did you really get shot?
good news:welcome our website ___(( vipsho pper.us )) ( Please enter
the website
Please believe that we will be very good
)
love shopping friend accept credit card and so mang payment
( Please copy stick this website )
Welcome to my web site please patiently watch will have your favorite items
____(( vipsho pper.us ))
jordan air max oakland raiders $34--39;
Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;
Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;
gstar evisu true je ans $35;
coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;
DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;
CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $32;
jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $37;
EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $16;
coach okely Adidas CHANEL DG Sunglass $18;
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)