Maryland's 'Supreme Court' rules on 2A issue

[Tilted]

This one is hot off the presses. The Court of Appeals of Maryland (which is what we call our 'Supreme Court') has just ruled that § 4-203(a)(1)(i) of Maryland's Criminal Law Article, which generally prohibits the wearing, carrying or transporting of a handgun on one's person without a permit, does not violate the Second Amendment because it it doesn't restrict "gun ownership for personal protection in the home." Apparently, the Court of Appeals of MD reads Heller such that the Second Amendment doesn't necessarily protect more than that. I've not read the opinion yet - going to do that now - but, at first blush, it's hard for me to imagine how that reasoning doesn't conflict with this Fourth Circuit ruling from last week.

 

[ItalianScallion]

I say: show me where the 2nd Amendment says "only in the home"!

 

[Tilted]

I think this opinion is rather lightweight, and I'd like to think that's not just because I don't like the result. It runs through some obligatory cites from Heller and McDonald, but then seems to completely ignore them when it comes to figuring out what those cases mean in relation to the present case (at least in so far as they reference the right to 'bear arms'). It rather openly, and arrogantly I think, completely dismisses the dicta found in Heller and McDonald, and essentially justifies itself by pointing out that other post-Heller and post-McDonald courts have made similar findings (though, in fairness, that's part of what opinions do to support their findings).

There just doesn't seem to be much substantive discussion of why, in light of Heller, the Second Amendment should be read to only necessarily protect the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. And, I think my first impression was right - this ruling is in pretty obvious conflict with the U.S. v Chester ruling.

 

[ImnoMensa]

I think this opinion is rather lightweight, and I'd like to think that's not just because I don't like the result. It runs through some obligatory cites from Heller and McDonald, but then seems to completely ignore them when it comes to figuring out what those cases mean in relation to the present case (at least in so far as they reference the right to 'bear arms'). It rather openly, and arrogantly I think, completely dismisses the dicta found in Heller and McDonald, and essentially justifies itself by pointing out that other post-Heller and post-McDonald courts have made similar findings (though, in fairness, that's part of what opinions do to support their findings).

There just doesn't seem to be much substantive discussion of why, in light of Heller, the Second Amendment should be read to only necessarily protect the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. And, I think my first impression was right - this ruling is in pretty obvious conflict with the U.S. v Chester ruling.

Certainly the decision is lightweight.

Lightweights made it.

 

[philibusters]

It took the Courts about 80 or 90 years after they started handling First Amendment cases in earnest to really develop the field of law around the First Amendment (they are still tweaking it, but they now most of the major issues have fairly solid rules and tests to apply). The First Amendment has more clauses and deals with both speech and religion so it has more issues to address, but I think its like going to take the courts decades before there is a real Second Amendment body of law.

Once there is a well established body of law the state courts will fall in line, but until then they will improvise so that the First Amendment means what they think it should mean.

 

[chernmax]

I say: show me where the 2nd Amendment says "only in the home"!

What if someone is homeless, is he denied his right to carry then? Courts were ruling during the presidential election that Public Park addresses could be used to establish residence in order to vote! Idiot Judge, hope it gets appealed!

 

[Lugnut]

What if someone is homeless, is he denied his right to carry then? Courts were ruling during the presidential election that Public Park addresses could be used to establish residence in order to vote! Idiot Judge, hope it gets appealed!

If he registered the park addresss as his HOME address and it was aceepted, I suppose that means he can carry within the confines of the park huh?

 

[Tilted]

It took the Courts about 80 or 90 years after they started handling First Amendment cases in earnest to really develop the field of law around the First Amendment (they are still tweaking it, but they now most of the major issues have fairly solid rules and tests to apply). The First Amendment has more clauses and deals with both speech and religion so it has more issues to address, but I think its like going to take the courts decades before there is a real Second Amendment body of law.

Once there is a well established body of law the state courts will fall in line, but until then they will improvise so that the First Amendment means what they think it should mean.

Yeah, more than two centuries after the founding of the Republic and approaching a century and a half since the passing of the 14th Amendment, and Second Amendment / Guns Rights jurisprudence is still in its infancy - but at least it's starting to get sorted out now.

I agree with you about the way it will likely play out, but I don't agree with the way it will play out. As has been the case with First Amendment jurisprudence, we're likely to get a bunch of ad hoc rules, guides and tests that get established over time because they feel right, or work-able, or prudent, rather than because they are what the Constitution demands. I don't necessarily have a huge complaint with the general state of First Amendment law, but its condition, and tests and rules of applicability, aren't mostly the product of sincere efforts to comport as best as possible with the First Amendment.

 

[Tilted]

What if someone is homeless, is he denied his right to carry then? Courts were ruling during the presidential election that Public Park addresses could be used to establish residence in order to vote! Idiot Judge, hope it gets appealed!

That's a good point. I wonder if a jurisdiction accepting that the right to bear arms only refers to bearing in one's home for self defense creates a win-able equal protection claim, on behalf of functionally homeless persons, with regard to the right to keep arms.

 

[Pushrod]

There just doesn't seem to be much substantive discussion of why, in light of Heller, the Second Amendment should be read to only necessarily protect the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. And, I think my first impression was right - this ruling is in pretty obvious conflict with the U.S. v Chester ruling.

Which I guess, in a way, is good for us. With conflicts in the lower courts, it will have to be bumped up to the federal level and hopefully at some point to the SCotUS.

 

[awpitt]

This one is hot off the presses. The Court of Appeals of Maryland (which is what we call our 'Supreme Court') has just ruled that § 4-203(a)(1)(i) of Maryland's Criminal Law Article, which generally prohibits the wearing, carrying or transporting of a handgun on one's person without a permit, does not violate the Second Amendment because it it doesn't restrict "gun ownership for personal protection in the home." Apparently, the Court of Appeals of MD reads Heller such that the Second Amendment doesn't necessarily protect more than that. I've not read the opinion yet - going to do that now - but, at first blush, it's hard for me to imagine how that reasoning doesn't conflict with this Fourth Circuit ruling from last week.

Well, let's hope Williams appeals this to the US Supreme Court and it get over turned.

 

[Tilted]

Here's an interesting, though not necessarily particularly consequential, ruling out of D.C. The District's 'Supreme Court' (i.e. the District of Columbia Court of Appeals) ruled that someone who had pled guilty of possessing an unregistered firearm (in their home) back in 1996, could get their conviction set aside based, essentially, on that (effective) prohibition on firearm possession now being regarded (by the U.S. Supreme Court) as unConstitutional.

 

[chernmax]

Here's an interesting, though not necessarily particularly consequential, ruling out of D.C. The District's 'Supreme Court' (i.e. the District of Columbia Court of Appeals) ruled that someone who had pled guilty of possessing an unregistered firearm (in their home) back in 1996, could get their conviction set aside based, essentially, on that (effective) prohibition on firearm possession now being regarded (by the U.S. Supreme Court) as unConstitutional.

But then DC may require you to provide proof that you bought the gun legally and saved your 14 year old receipt!

 

[BOP]

Which I guess, in a way, is good for us. With conflicts in the lower courts, it will have to be bumped up to the federal level and hopefully at some point to the SCotUS.

Maybe. You're forgetting that there are 4 wild-assed liberals on the bench, which means you have to bag all 5 of the remaining justices. No easy task, given the hot-button issue in question.

 

[Tilted]

A petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for this case (i.e. Williams v Maryland) earlier this month. The state of Maryland has until May 5th to respond.

 

[BOP]

What if someone is homeless, is he denied his right to carry then? Courts were ruling during the presidential election that Public Park addresses could be used to establish residence in order to vote! Idiot Judge, hope it gets appealed!

Only if that person votes for the Annointed One. Otherwise, homeless is homeless.