Judge: Gun Owners Need Not Justify [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Judge: Gun Owners Need Not Justify


Denied
03-05-2012, 16:54
If this had been posted before, just suck it up.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/

dakrat
03-05-2012, 17:00
:patriot:

Sbh87
03-05-2012, 19:29
:dancingbanana:

High Altitude
03-05-2012, 20:48
One state at a time.

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1oIyLtGvF

xmanhockey7
03-05-2012, 20:51
“We disagree with this ruling," Fader said in a written statement that noted the "very important implications of the ruling for public safety."
There will be blood in the streets if Maryland becomes shall issue.

NicholsT55
03-06-2012, 04:37
There will be blood in the streets if Maryland becomes shall issue.

That's the stance that the anti-gunners take regarding any attempt to relieve the draconian gun laws in Maryland.

Even with current laws, a hot Saturday night in Baltimore will end with several gun-related deaths. Maybe knowing that their potential victims can shoot back will help to reduce the death toll.

Stefan
03-06-2012, 04:46
I live in PA but spend much of my waking hours in MD. I hope things change in Md.

Stefan

Lowjiber
03-06-2012, 06:59
...Maybe knowing that their potential victims can shoot back will help to reduce the death toll.
At least even the "score".

Today's score...Criminals 7: Victims 0

Tomorrow's score...Victims 4: Criminals 3

:whistling:

SCmasterblaster
03-06-2012, 11:11
I used to live in MD. It is good to see some good news from MD.

B.Reid
03-06-2012, 13:02
WOW a judge that can read the Constitution, good for him.

Civilian sheep Dog
03-06-2012, 19:55
As it should be

Free Radical
03-06-2012, 20:24
Clearly a step forward in establishing the difference between a need and a right.

EAJuggalo
03-07-2012, 16:51
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/6/gun-owners-win-a-round/
This was in the Washington Times today from Emily Miller, who just jumped through all the legal hoops to purchase a legal gun in D.C.

I found this quote from a D.C. Councilman particularly revolting.
Mr. Mendelson said that his committee will not address the carry laws in D.C. until the Maryland case “plays out.” He called it “new ground in jurisprudence” that will be appealed. The at-large Democrat said that the Woollard decision wouldn’t relate to the District because the plaintiff was in a rural area far from political big shots.

“I do think carrying has severe implications for the nation’s capital,” he told The Washington Times, citing the common rationale given by local officials. “We’re different from Maryland because we have motorcades, the president around town, members of Congress going to the supermarket unescorted.”

Russ, let me know if that is too much of the article to post and I'll gladly reduce it.

eruby
03-08-2012, 10:02
I'm still elated over this court victory, but am a realist and know that Maryland will do whatever it can to keep the status quo.

More court wins are coming for us, and in time, we will get 'shall issue' but it's a long row to hoe.

SpringerTGO
03-08-2012, 10:56
“I do think carrying has severe implications for the nation’s capital,” he told The Washington Times, citing the common rationale given by local officials. “We’re different from Maryland because we have motorcades, the president around town, members of Congress going to the supermarket unescorted.”

You really have to feel sorry for all those members of Congress going to the supermarket unescorted.
I know I hate it when I don't have an escort. It's just so unsafe. :rofl:

tercel89
03-08-2012, 12:25
at least even the "score".

Today's score...criminals 7: Victims 0

tomorrow's score...victims 4: Criminals 3

:whistling:

awesome!!!!!

OctoberRust
03-08-2012, 13:41
So when's california's turn for this attorny to take action against?