Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Maryland Gun Permit Requirement

[SecularMotion]

A federal ruling striking down part of Maryland's requirements to obtain a permit to carry a handgun won't go into effect next week after all.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Wednesday granted the state's request to delay an order issued last week by U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg.

The appeals court ordered that state requirements on those seeking a permit to carry a gun must have "a good or substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" remain in effect until an appeals hearing the week of Oct. 23.

http://elkridge.patch.com/articles/federal-appeals-court-reinstates-maryland-gun-permit-requirement

[ileus]

1. Wonder what other right they'd like to approve of before you can use it?

This is why you can't give them another inch.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. Maybe Marylanders are too stupid to know that the 2nd Amendment IS

a good or substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.

[Hoyt]

4. Says who, but those addicted to guns?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. whatever.

[rrneck]

7. Says who indeed.

What credibility do you claim? I mean, beyond self serving judgementalism?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. if he had any sense he would be headed to SC and taking up bwb on that bet

he would at least TRY.

no try in him. none at all.

[rrneck]

9. Just another keyboard commando with an axe to grind

and not much of an imagination to grind with.

[rl6214]

14. Since you own guns (illegally) I guess you are addicted to guns

[Hoyt]

20. Don't own any illegally, or carry them, or care to add to the few I have from my dad.

over 30 years ago.

[rl6214]

22. A quote from you: "As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

That would make them illegal for you to own.

So you got rid of them then? Sold them for profit to a couple of ex-robber buddies?

[Hoyt]

24. Read the posts before that. Used FFL and used money to help my mom.

Most were old guns from 1800s. None were the type weapons needed to get you guys' hormones flowing.

[Union Scribe]

25. When you used that FFL

did you lecture them about what a right wing bigoted murder-enabler they must be, like you do here? Seems they're okay when they're serving your purposes eh?

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Getting told by an admitted robber and arms dealer that *other people's* guns are bad- Priceless!

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Got it. Arms dealing is acceptable when YOU need the money.

[PD Turk]

27. Would only be illegal if

Would only be illegal for him to own them if he was convicted of being a robber. Maybe he quit his thieving ways before he got caught

[villager]

28. "Might as well face it, they're addicted to guns"

Except, of course, they're incapable of facing it.

[Glaug-Eldare]

3. Join Maryland Shall Issue and make this ancient history.

It's been forty years since Marylanders could carry handguns for personal protection. For black Marylanders, it's been one hundred eight years. It's time to take back our rights.

Maryland Shall Issue


[IMG][/IMG]

[Hoyt]

6. Do you have a list of leadership? - always get a kick out of reviewing the folks who lead these type

organizations.

[Ashgrey77]

10. and away he goes with the goalposts again.........

[Hoyt]

11. Do you have a list, or just more gun cultist BS?

[Ashgrey77]

15. And that has what to do with the OP?

Having to demonstrate "need" to exercise a civil right is pretty weak IMHO.

[Hoyt]

17. Guns are not a civil right, but it's like trying to convince Tbaggers otherwise.

[Loudly]

26. Amen brother. It is an illusory "right."

Cannot BE any such right logically consistent with the genuine ones.

[PavePusher]

32. Huh? Which are which?

Can you provide a detailed list and explaination, please?

[Loudly]

34. Rest assured.

Access to the means of convenient murder is not on the list.

[PavePusher]

35. Translation: You have no answer.

Hint for you: Murder is a matter of intent, not tool. Think about that.

[Loudly]

36. Your answer is that punishment of the murderer is enough of a response.

It is not.

Prevention of the gun violence in the first place should be the baseline.

And dressing up guns and ammo as a "right" is in contravention of that.

[PavePusher]

37. How about prevention of all criminal violence?

Since gun violence only makes up approx. 8% of all violent crime, according to the DoJ.

And you still haven't addressed my original question.



http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

[Loudly]

38. What percentage of the homicides were committed using a gun?

[Ashgrey77]

33. Let's do a top 10,

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Loudly]

39. Thank you. That took work.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. Unfortunately, it's a delicate situation for volunteers.

I'd love to give you a page of biographies, but our situation doesn't lend itself to it. It's an all-volunteer group, and most of the leadership prefers to keep their activism (in person and online) separate from their professional lives. Some members are in law enforcement, state government, public schools, law practice, or other fields where opposing the administration's policies can have negative consequences. Some are just private people who are concerned about being harassed or embarrassed in their personal lives by those who disagree with us. Others simply prefer to remain "part of the crowd" without drawing attention specifically to themselves. There are probably a few who would happily reveal their identities and discuss their history, but I'm not sure which ones they are, and I'd rather not blab on their behalf.

I'm sure this answer doesn't satisfy you, but it's the truest one I can give you while respecting my neighbors' privacy. Maybe sometime down the road, we'll be mainstream enough in MD that we won't perceive any negative consequences to "coming out" as 2A activists. As for me, I just don't like giving PII out on public forums.

You've got a good point, though, and it's something I might bring up with the leadership. Our last President definitely wasn't bashful, and it may have helped to have a defined HMFIC. It's nice to know where the buck stops.

[Ashgrey77]

16. He just wants a list of names so he can move those goalposts again,

and denounce whatever you have to say. Argument, for arguments sake. He just wants what he wants, and what "he" thinks is best, screw everyone else. In his own words we're just "cultists".

[Hoyt]

18. I bet they don't want their names released. Right wing gun organization probably doesn't

want the sponsoring bigots listed either, or those who profit from guns and back this crud.

[Glaug-Eldare]

21. Can't say I didn't know what the answer would be

I don't know of any corporate sponsors, but we'd probably welcome a few!

Have you considered the possibility that post #12 was written earnestly, and not merely as a cover for cross-burning rednecks?

Perhaps as a counterexample I could ask you to give me the names of a dozen of your friends without their permission. After all, what do they have to hide from us? They're not Klansmen, are they?

[rl6214]

23. "Have you considered the possibility that post #12 was written earnestly, and not merely as a cover"

From hoyt?



Stop, you're killing me

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. I see you still haven't grasped that the people you don't like have the same rights you do.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0364_0479_ZS.html

Shelton v. Tucker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_v._City_of_Little_Rock

Bates v. City of Little Rock

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 18, 1959
Decided February 23, 1960
Full case name Bates et al. v. City of Little Rock et al.
Citations 361 U.S. 516 (more)
Prior history Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas
Subsequent history 229 Ark. 819, 319 S. W. 2d 37, reversed.
Holding
State governments cannot compel the disclosure of an organization's membership lists when it inhibits freedom of association.

U.S. Const. amend. I and XIV


Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government to compel the disclosure of an organization’s membership lists via a tax-exemption regulatory scheme.

This is a companion case to NAACP v Alabama ex rel Patterson (1958), which also held that NAACP membership records are protected by First Amendment freedom of association, and Talley v California, which held that Talley, a civil rights activist, could not be fined for an anonymous flyer. These cases help establish the right to privacy under the First Amendment, expanded on in Rowe v Wade

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_91/

NAACP v. ALABAMA

Term: 1950-1959
1957

Location: Alabama State Capitol
Facts of the Case

As part of its strategy to enjoin the NAACP from operating, Alabama required it to reveal to the State's Attorney General the names and addresses of all the NAACP's members and agents in the state.
Question: Did Alabama's requirement violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision: 9 votes for NAACP, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Association

Yes. The unanimous Court held that a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members. Nothing short of an "overriding valid interest of the State," something not present in this case, was needed to justify Alabama's actions

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/search/display.html?terms=first%20amendment&url=/anncon/html/amdt1bfrag8_user.html

...Freedom of association as a concept thus grew out of a series of cases in the 1950’s and 1960’s in which certain States were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the State. “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.”198 “[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,”199 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the State had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.

Applying the concept in subsequent cases, the Court again held in Bates v. City of Little Rock,200 that the disclosure of membership lists, because of the harm to be caused to “the right of association,” could only be compelled upon a showing of a subordinating interest; ruled in Shelton v. Tucker,201 that while a State had a broad interest to inquire into the fitness of its school teachers, that interest did not justify a regulation requiring all teachers to list all organizations to which they had belonged within the previous five years; again struck down an effort to compel membership lists from the NAACP;202 and overturned a state court order barring the NAACP from doing any business within the State because of alleged improprieties.203 Certain of the activities condemned in the latter case, the Court said, were protected by the First Amendment and, while other actions might not have been, the State could not so infringe on the “right of association” by ousting the organization altogether.204

A state order prohibiting the NAACP from urging persons to seek legal redress for alleged wrongs and from assisting and representing such persons in litigation opened up new avenues when the Court struck the order down as violating the First Amendment.205 “[A]bstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion. . . . In the context of NAACP objectives, litigation is not a technique of resolving private differences; it is a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community in this country. It is thus a form of political expression. . . .

“We need not, in order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, whereby Negroes seek through lawful means to achieve legitimate political ends, subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly. For there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity.”206 This decision was[p.1059]followed in three subsequent cases in which the Court held that labor unions enjoyed First Amendment protection in assisting their members in pursuing their legal remedies to recover for injuries and other actions. In the first case, the union advised members to seek legal advice before settling injury claims and recommended particular attorneys;207 in the second the union retained attorneys on a salary basis to represent members;208 in the third, the union maintained a legal counsel department which recommended certain attorneys who would charge a limited portion of the recovery and which defrayed the cost of getting clients together with attorneys and of investigation of accidents.209 Wrote Justice Black: “[T]he First Amendment guarantees of free speech, petition, and assembly give railroad workers the rights to cooperate in helping and advising one another in asserting their rights. . . .”210

[rl6214]

13. Are we all to assume you oppose this move

Since you didn't post any commentary? I would agree with you there, Marylands gun laws are crap.