SAF files lawsuit in Maryland over handgun permit denial

Apparently Maryland missed the ruling in the case of McDonald v. Chicago where the Supreme Court of the United States held that the 2nd Amendment protections of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms applies to the states and would, therefore, preclude their denial of a handgun permit sans some issue of criminality. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a lawsuit in federal court:

The Second Amendment Foundation and a Baltimore County, MD man today sued Maryland  authorities in federal court because the man’s handgun permit renewal was turned down on the grounds that he could not demonstrate “a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Joining SAF in the lawsuit is Raymond Woollard, who was originally issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family gathering in 2002. Woollard’s permit was renewed in 2005, after the man was released from prison. That man now lives about three miles from Woollard. Defendants in the case are Terrence B. Sheridan, who is the Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and three members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein and Charles M. Thomas, Jr.

SAF and Woollard are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and Cary J. Hansel of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake of Greenbelt, MD.

The lawsuit 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.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.

I said something similar a few weeks ago:

A right possessed by the citizens of America is a right, to be exercised or not by the citizens at their discretion and, under the Constitution, without interference by the government. It’s not a matter of why you need to exercise the right or whether you can justify why you want to. It’s a right. It’s your right  to do whatever we’re talking about and it’s no one else’s decision to tell you you can’t. The fact that another citizen might not trust you to exercise that right in accordance with whatever level of proficiency they think you should have is irrelevant – it’s your right.

The McDonald decision was quite plain about this and I cannot understand what some boneheaded clerk up in Maryland who thinks otherwise has got going on in his head. If they’ve got an ounce of sense, they’ll recognize they’re on the wrong side of this and will act accordingly. The carry permit should be granted immediately and their laws should be amended to show that they’ve been superseded by Supreme Court decision.


One comment

  1. Most Excellent! I stole this and posted on FB, thanks for being such an excellent advocate Ric.

Comments are closed.