Maryland COSA hands down a firearms ruling.

[Pushrod]

Says that the 2nd does not bind the State, and we do not have a 'Right' to keep and bear arms post 'Heller'.

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2009/1999s08.pdf

To begin, we note that there is no Maryland corollary of the federal constitutional
right codified in the Second Amendment.4 Furthermore, we have held previously that the
Second Amendment is not applicable to the states.

In Maryland, the militia is “well regulated” by Article 65 of the
Code . . . The General Assembly thus has made the manifestly
reasonable judgment that the needs of the militia can be met
with State-owned firearms held in secure locations. No tenable
argument can be made that the needs of the State militia can
only be met by affording private citizens access to the kinds of
firearms that would be restricted under House Bill 1283.
79 OAG 206 (1994).

They also reiterated that the Heller decision upheld Cruishanks:

the fact that the Heller Court reaffirmed the holding in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), that “[t]he [S]econd [A]mendment . . . means no more than
that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

They also state, even if the 'Right' as described in the 'Heller' decision were to be incorporated by the Supreme Court, it still would not over rule Marylands law that only allows a handgun to be carried in very narrow circumstances:

CL § 4-203 provides that a person may not “wear, carry, or transport a handgun,
whether concealed or open, on or about the person” or “in a vehicle traveling on a road or
parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the State.” .... even if the right articulated in Heller, namely
the right to keep and bear arms in the home for the purpose of immediate self-defense, were
to apply to the citizens of Maryland, this statute does not infringe upon that right.

So they are going to thumb their noses at our Rights, even if it is incorporated into the states. I see more legal challenges being needed if the SCoTUS incorporates the 2nd, and Maryland is saying for the record now that they will still trample our Rights no matter what decisions are made.

[ylexot (Premo)]

Well, I guess that means that the states can ignore free speech, etc as well.

[Tilted]

Ahh, let them make their little symbolic decrees. They are just taking one last opportunity to make an ideological statement, and express their 'feelings' on the subject.

Soon they, and the rest of the Maryland state courts, will begin to be left out of this particular conversation - and they know it. So, prattle on Maryland Court of Special Appeals, prattle on. With any luck, pretty soon nobody will have to listen.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by ylexot

Well, I guess that means that the states can ignore free speech, etc as well.

I was gonna say that. I woulda used way more words to do it but, that woulda been my point!

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by ylexot

Well, I guess that means that the states can ignore free speech, etc as well.

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I was gonna say that. I woulda used way more words to do it but, that woulda been my point!

This is a totally different situation. The First Amendment has clearly been incorporated against the states. In fact, freedom of speech, in specific, was one of the earliest guarantees to be incorporated against the states. With regard to the Second Amendment not applying to the states yet, the COSA was probably right. At the very least, one can't argue that it was clearly wrong.

What I disagree with is the assertion that Maryland Code § 4-203, as is, would not be in violation of the Constitution, according to Heller, if and when the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. There is certainly much room for debate on that issue, though.

The good news is, if McDonald v Chicago goes the way I think it will, we will eventually get that debate - and an answer one way or the other.

[ylexot (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

This is a totally different situation. The First Amendment has clearly been incorporated against the states. In fact, freedom of speech, in specific, was one of the earliest guarantees to be incorporated against the states. With regard to the Second Amendment not applying to the states yet, the COSA was probably right. At the very least, one can't argue that it was clearly wrong.

What I disagree with is the assertion that Maryland Code § 4-203, as is, would not be in violation of the Constitution, according to Heller, if and when the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. There is certainly much room for debate on that issue, though.

The good news is, if McDonald v Chicago goes the way I think it will, we will eventually get that debate - and an answer one way or the other.

Article 2 of the MD Constitution:
The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the MD Constitution or law says or doesn't say...the US Constitution is the supreme law. If the US Constitution gives a right, we have it no matter what the MD Constitution says. The MD Constitution could specifically say that the people cannot own firearms and it wouldn't matter.

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by ylexot

Article 2 of the MD Constitution:
The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the MD Constitution or law says or doesn't say...the US Constitution is the supreme law. If the US Constitution gives a right, we have it no matter what the MD Constitution says. The MD Constitution could specifically say that the people cannot own firearms and it wouldn't matter.

And, if and when the Constitution of the United States says (red added):

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 (by state and local governments).

then, the state of Maryland will be bound by the Second Amendment.

However, as it stands now, the Constitution says (red added per Supreme Court interpretation):

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 (by the Congress or the federal government).

That has been the interpretation of the Supreme Court. So, yes, the state of Maryland is bound by what the U.S. Constitution says. However, the U.S. Constitution does not say that states can not infringe the right to keep and bear arms - that is, or course, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the body which ultimately gets to decide what the Constitution says. It says what they say it says.

Amendments 1-8 of the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states - they only applied to the federal government. They were not intended to protect us from state actions, and that is what the Supreme Court found in Barron v Baltimore (1833). It is only because the Supreme Court has subsequently found that some parts of it do apply to the states, that those parts do. It is very likely that the Court will find as such for the Second Amendment in McDonald v Chicago, later on in this term.

As things stand now, the COSA was just following Supreme Court precedent (meaning it was following the U.S. Constitution).

[ylexot (Premo)]

Ok...I wonder what moron argued that case. It seems pretty clear to me that the Bill of Rights lists those unalienable rights endowed by our Creator (to paraphrase)...

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440

I rest my case.

[exnodak]

Originally Posted by ylexot

Article 2 of the MD Constitution:
The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the MD Constitution or law says or doesn't say...the US Constitution is the supreme law. If the US Constitution gives a right, we have it no matter what the MD Constitution says. The MD Constitution could specifically say that the people cannot own firearms and it wouldn't matter.

You have the concept basically correct (IMO). But there is more. The language of Article 2 incorporates by direct reference ALL Federal law. That eliminates any argument concerning incorporation of one U.S. Constitutional amendment with any other because this Maryland article does it as a matter of Maryland Law. In other words, the Slaughterhouse decisions have a completely different meaning in MD.

[ImnoMensa]

What else did anyone expect from O'Malley and his punk assed democrat Judges and Politicians.

We need to oust some Democrats and get some patriots in there.