Maryland's Handgun licensing law struck down as unconstitutional

https://www.reuters.com/legal/maryl...three-judge panel of,bear arms" under the U.S.


A three-judge panel of the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote blocked enforcement of a 2013 Maryland law that required people to undergo training and background checks before applying for licenses to buy handguns, saying it violated the right to "keep and bear arms" under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

A democrat appointee dissented in the 2-1 ruling but the two on the majority seem to be on solid ground based on BRUEN

Now the background checks seem OK but to require training to merely buy a handgun is blatantly unconstitutional

 

Training to buy is clearly over the line. Training for CCW permit?….

It all comes down to responsibly. I’ve always seen the need for training and knowledge of firearms as a basic need for owners and those who carry. But, it shouldn’t be required by law. Sadly, though, many don’t see the need for that kind of education and training.

 

I agree. I have no issue with a SHALL ISSUE CCW that requires passing a shooting test etc. the problem is, gun banners want to use training requirements as an obstacle that they keep making higher.

 

I don't see that happening

 

I have an issue with the CCW permit. You’re putting your name on a government list…. To ask permission to practice a god given right!!!! I have a huge issue with that. Pro second amendment my ass

 

I don't support licensing open carry. But under Bruen I believe a state having shall issue concealed weapons licenses meets the test

 

The problem I have with a test is who sets the standard. Over a dozen timesI have asked lefties proposing such what training would constitute a training course and a logical testing standard; I have never received an answer. I have also posed the question, other than sounding leftist good, what is the objective? No answered to that either.

 

I think I have noted that problem constantly. Their goal is to restrict gun ownership not to make sure those packing are competent

 

Under Bruen means nothing to me. The constitution says shall not be infringed and they did not put that there as a talking point or a joke. The CCW is unconstitutional and I will stand by that claim till I die.

Tench Coxe said the people have the same sword and shield as a soldier and the state nor the federal government has the authority to infringe upon that right. You either believe in the second or you don’t. Pick a side

 

OK here's the issue. the federal government was never given any gun control powers so federal gun control is not proper either due to the second or Tenth amendment

states had lots of powers. prior to incorporation, states could restrict carrying concealed weapons as long as that didn't conflict with state constitutional provisions. with incorporation there was going to be a conflict between once constitutional (at a state level) restrictions on carrying firearms concealed and incorporation. It is my reading of the second that as long as people can carry firearms openly, then state laws are not going to be found to violate the second as long as CCW permits are SHALL ISSUE.

Your position seems to be that incorporation wiped away any and all once constitutional restrictions

 

My position is clear. I don’t believe the state nor the federal government has a constitutional authority to control arms by any means at all. Do they have a historical authority? Yes because we as a naive bunch of idiots allowed it. Do they have a constitutional authority? By no f***ing means do they have that authority. Tench Coxe backed that claim in the Pennsylvania Gazette. You are a gun advocate so I know you know what I’m talking about, and I don’t have to give the full 9 yards on the story. The question is do you believe in the second as it was designed to be or only as history has allowed it to play out?

if you support historical norms rather than the original intent you support restrictions and that the constitution isn’t absolute. You can’t play both sides.

 

well I can tell you that your position is not one that any court will accept. states had traditional powers to restrict the use of firearms, who could own them and in some cases where and how you can carry them.

and certainly it would be insanity to say that state governments cannot restrict

1) where one can discharge firearms
2) children, fugitives and those deemed mentally incompetent from buying or carrying firearms
3) carrying firearms into courthouses, or jails
4) the use of firearms to assault, harm, intimidate innocents in order to facilitate a criminal activity

 

However people in history and still to this day carry firearms in courthouses so long as the the state and federal government allows it. I’m not going to argue the history cause you’re right. But was it originally designed to be that way? No it wasn’t. If you claim otherwise I will argue that till I’m 6 feet in the ground.

 

I realize I’m putting you in an awkward boat. But I want to know where you stand. Do you believe in the original intent or the historical use of the second amendment?

just as another note no founding father or second founding father argued those who break laws are not capable of being restrained from rights. To the contrary they all acknowledged that they can be stripped for punishment. So don’t throw that at me like it’s insane. You m talking original intent. And if you claim the state or the federal government can restrict that right then you are in fact discrediting tench Coxe

 

there were restrictions at the state level before the constitution was adopted and they remained to this day even after McDonald

 

OK I will state again

1) I don't believe the federal government's use of the commerce clause is proper and violates the second (involving arms that a citizen can normally keep and bear) when the federal government tries to restrict the ownership or acquisition, possession or use (save prohibitions involving federal property) of firearms and the tenth amendment is an even more restrictive block

2) I believe states have the proper authority to regulate the use of firearms, and in some cases the possession of firearms as long as those traditional police powers do not violate state constitutional provisions nor do they prevent citizens of age who have not been adjudicated to be felons, mental incompetents etc from keeping and bearing arms. Traditional state police powers to regulate where one uses firearms are perfectly constitutional

 

So you believe “shall not be infringed” was a joke

 

not at the federal level. you just seem to ignore that states had all sorts of police powers that were constitutional prior to incorporation.

why don't you tell me what gun laws you support

1) children not being able to buy or carry guns
2) prohibitions on discharging firearms in urban areas
3) bans on fugitives, felons or the mentally incompetent buying or possessing firearms
4) carrying firearms in courthouses or jails

 

1, and 3.


The reason being is age limits were discussed yet ultimately left ou of the second. However being they were discussed (16 years) I find that somewhat arguable but not definitive.

as for fugitives that was discussed and said criminals could be stripped of their rights.

do you believe that Tench Coxe had legitimately described the boundaries of the second?

 

I believe the right to own keep and bear firearms can be stripped through due process of law and i do believe it is an individual right-something the anti gun left had to admit with passage of the Lautenberg amendment. I also believe that certain constitutional rights may be delayed until one meets a certain age. I believe state government has legitimate powers to curtail the use of firearms in some areas or possessing firearms in well protected areas such as courthouses or jails

 

And you also believe the government has the authority on who carry’s concealed. You are a gun supporter but you are not in support of freedom to bear arms. You support the “if” that’s a slippery slope

 

I took two oaths to support the constitution and I have spent 40+ years studying the constitution. I also believe the government has certain powers that remain even with incorporation. Incorporation certainly meant that some state powers were abrogated but not all of them. The second protects keeping and bearing which MOST scholars believe also includes owning acquiring and carrying. Not using so laws against discharging firearms in a city limit certainly does not run afoul

Do you think a state courthouse cannot prohibit people from carrying guns into the courthouse
how about prohibiting children and felons on parole from buying guns?

 

I believe it’s unconstitutional to prohibit 16 and older being that was the age discussed in the right to bear arms yet ultimately was left out. I also believe there are historical examples of citizens carrying arms into courthouses in the 1800’s. There are even current states that allow guns in courthouses, Mississippi comes to mind. They obviously do ban them in states though and I do find that against the original intent of the constitution.

that was my answer, so now I will ask you. Do you believe in the second as described by Tench Coxe?

 

I believe that Tench Coxe never intended the second to apply to the several states