Maryland judges uphold state anti-handgun law

GGReporter · 11-05-2009, 07:32 AM

Courts in New Jersey and Illinois have concluded that the Second Amendment poses no obstacle to local governments enacting stringent anti gun laws. Now a Maryland appeals court has followed suit. A three judge panel ruled last Thursday that the Second Amendment does not interfere with a Maryland law that generally restricts state residents from carrying handguns.

More...

Cyrano · 11-05-2009, 09:44 AM

Judge Albert Matricciani wrote this as part of his decision:

Even if the Second Amendment did apply, it would not invalidate the statute at issue here. CL Sec. 4-203 provides that a person may not "wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person" or "in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the state."

One may presume this is because Maryland takes a dim view of handgun ownership and goes out of its way to make it difficult to own one legally. However, I do have to ask what part of the concept that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land Judge Matricciani does not understand; and that not comprehending this, what is he doing working as a lawyer, never mind sitting as a judge?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Even if one accepts the premise that the prefatory clause concerning a well-regulated militia is the operative part of the Second Amendment (which is absurd on the face of it, both grammatically and legally), the Maryland state law that says you can't carry or transport a handgun outside your own home is plainly in violation of the declarative clause of the Second Amendment. The thing that gets me is that while state governments and state courts generally have no problem with the concept of incorporation as expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment with the other nine rights clearly established as being rights of the individual under the Bill of Rights, they want to exclude the Second Amendment as somehow applying only to the body politic and not individuals.

The Constitution is not a Mongolian barbecue restaurant where you choose what you want the cook to prepare, selecting only foods you like to be part of your dinner. If the concept of incorporation per the Fourteenth Amendment is valid - and I have yet to see a serious argument that it is not - then the entire Bill of Rights is part of the laws of all 50 states, whether the state constitution says so or not. This is the principle the McDonald vs Chicago case is seeking to establish, not just that the Second Amendment alone applies to all 50 states, including their counties and municipalities.

When - be optimistic! - that case is decided our way, the states to which we apply epithets like the "Peoples Democratic Republics" are going to have to reexamine the laws on firearms ownership. The smart ones (if any legislatures to which that epithet applies can be said to be smart) will simply adopt programs that require background checks and passing safety tests and written examinations before issuing pistol permits. The stubborn ones like Massachusetts and Maryland will look to find ways to continue their legal oppression, which in turn will provoke more legal challenges.

11-05-2009, 07:32 AM	#1
GGReporter Magazine Staff Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,276	Maryland judges uphold state anti-handgun law Courts in New Jersey and Illinois have concluded that the Second Amendment poses no obstacle to local governments enacting stringent anti gun laws. Now a Maryland appeals court has followed suit. A three judge panel ruled last Thursday that the Second Amendment does not interfere with a Maryland law that generally restricts state residents from carrying handguns. More...

11-05-2009, 09:44 AM	#2
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 6,917	Judge Albert Matricciani wrote this as part of his decision: Even if the Second Amendment did apply, it would not invalidate the statute at issue here. CL Sec. 4-203 provides that a person may not "wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person" or "in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the state." One may presume this is because Maryland takes a dim view of handgun ownership and goes out of its way to make it difficult to own one legally. However, I do have to ask what part of the concept that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land Judge Matricciani does not understand; and that not comprehending this, what is he doing working as a lawyer, never mind sitting as a judge? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Even if one accepts the premise that the prefatory clause concerning a well-regulated militia is the operative part of the Second Amendment (which is absurd on the face of it, both grammatically and legally), the Maryland state law that says you can't carry or transport a handgun outside your own home is plainly in violation of the declarative clause of the Second Amendment. The thing that gets me is that while state governments and state courts generally have no problem with the concept of incorporation as expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment with the other nine rights clearly established as being rights of the individual under the Bill of Rights, they want to exclude the Second Amendment as somehow applying only to the body politic and not individuals. The Constitution is not a Mongolian barbecue restaurant where you choose what you want the cook to prepare, selecting only foods you like to be part of your dinner. If the concept of incorporation per the Fourteenth Amendment is valid - and I have yet to see a serious argument that it is not - then the entire Bill of Rights is part of the laws of all 50 states, whether the state constitution says so or not. This is the principle the McDonald vs Chicago case is seeking to establish, not just that the Second Amendment alone applies to all 50 states, including their counties and municipalities. When - be optimistic! - that case is decided our way, the states to which we apply epithets like the "Peoples Democratic Republics" are going to have to reexamine the laws on firearms ownership. The smart ones (if any legislatures to which that epithet applies can be said to be smart) will simply adopt programs that require background checks and passing safety tests and written examinations before issuing pistol permits. The stubborn ones like Massachusetts and Maryland will look to find ways to continue their legal oppression, which in turn will provoke more legal challenges.