Federal District Court Strikes Down Maryland’s Restrictive Concealed-Carry Law
By Melancton Smith • Monday March 5, 2012 2:13 PM PDT • 6 Comments
U.S. District Judge Benson E. Legg, sitting in Maryland, has issued a ruling (Wollard v. Sheridan) in an interesting Second Amendment case. The State of Maryland requires applicants for concealed carry permits to demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to carry the gun. Wollard wanted a permit because his home had been broken into, he had been attacked, and the burglar was now released from prison. Maryland said this was not a good enough reason to be issued a permit. The district court held that this regulation violated the Second Amendment. After making clear that the Second Amendment applied both inside and outside of homes, the court issued its core decision.
The requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate good and substantial reasons to carry a handgun does not, for example, advance the interests of public safety by ensuring that guns are kept out of the hands of those adjudged most likely to misuse them, such as criminals or the mentally ill. It does not ban handguns from places where the possibility of mayhem is most acute, such as schools, churches, government buildings, protest gatherings, or establishments that serve alcohol. It does not attempt to reduce accidents, as would a requirement that all permit applicants complete a safety course. It does not even, as some other States’ laws do, limit the carrying of handguns to persons deemed suitable by denying a permit to anyone whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun. Rather, the regulation at issue is a rationing system.
A mere rationing system, the court continued, is not tailored to advance a substantial government interest. There was simply no “fit” between the regulation and the goal of public safety. Because the regulation impermissibly infringed on Wollard’s Second Amendment rights, the court struck down Maryland’s regulation.
Here we see how courts are applying Second Amendment rights recognized in Heller. Advocates of liberty should be pleased with this decision.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Constitution, Criminal Justice, Gun Control, Law, Second Amendment 
One vote for liberty
Paul | Mar 5, 2012 | Reply
I lived in Massachusetts when I applied for my pistol permit. The police officer asked me what I wanted the permit for? He then said, “Hunting and target RIGHT” I said I want a concealed carry permit. He then repeated “Hunting and target RIGHT”. Then he said the chief doesn’t give out concealed carry permits unless I have a job in which I’d need it. I didn’t want to start an argument with the officer over the Second Amendment and have the officer tell me I couldn’t get it.
Al | Mar 5, 2012 | Reply
Thank God there is still at least one federal judge capable of issuing a ruling based upon the Constitution and common sense
steve olson | Mar 5, 2012 | Reply
>It does not ban handguns from places where the possibility of mayhem is most acute, such as schools, churches, government buildings, protest gatherings, or establishments that serve alcohol.
Of all places, those where the possibility of mayhem is most acute would be those where it would the most insane to ban the legal carrying of weapons. has the “rational basis” rule been replaced by an “irrational basis” rule?
Richard | Mar 5, 2012 | Reply
I just hope that judge doesn’t retire while we have an anti gun president in office.
John | Mar 5, 2012 | Reply