Maryland residents do not have to provide a “good and substantial reason” to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state’s requirements for getting a permit.
U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland’s objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting to own a gun.
“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.”
This has been a long time coming. Maryland needs a serious overhaul to its gun laws in general, but this is a good start. Can you imagine if, when you tried to exercise your 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc etc, the government stepped in and asked you why you felt that you needed to exercise that right before “allowing” you to do so? Oh, you want to say something? Well, what makes you feel you need to say that? Oh, you want to believe that? Well what makes you think you need to believe that? And then after the questioning of you exercising your Constitutional Rights they denied those rights to the vast majority of the people? There would be a shit storm of Biblical proportions. But, for the longest time, everybody just sat back and took it in Maryland because if you fight for your 1st Amendment rights, you’re a patriot; if you fight for your 2nd Amendment rights you’re a deranged gunman or, according to Secretary Holder’s definitions, a possible terrorist.
The gunophobes in Maryland will just have to suck it up and take it because the law is meant to protect law abiding gun owners, not turn them into illegal gun owners simply by definition of a repressive and unconstitutional statute. Good job, Judge Legg. It’s nice to know that some people still read and comprehend the Constitution.
This is going to shock some of you, but I don’t just read the news that fits my outlook on life. I don’t just read the right sided view or the left sided view: I read several different sources. AS a result of this, I read this VERY interesting and, quite frankly, disturbing article at Salon:
This local ABC report out of southwest Missouri suggests a law enforcement response to the mass shooting in Arizona that has, until now, been conducted behind the scenes:
CHRISTIAN COUNTY, Mo. — A local blogger who was critical of Rep. Billy Long during last year’s congressional campaign has been interviewed by the FBI about his encounters with the congressman.
Clay Bowler, who lives in Christian County, says he was shocked to find an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at his doorstep. Accompanying the agent was Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott.
The agent asked Bowler if he was a threat to Long, a notion Bowler finds laughable.
Long, an auctioneer and former talk radio host, is a freshman member of the new Congress. The blog in question, Long is Wrong, is now behind a password wall. Though Long is a Republican, the blog apparently attacked him from the right. While Bowler apparently “confronted” Long at some campaign events, there’s no suggestion in the ABC article that he ever threatened the candidate.
The local sheriff casts some light on what may be going on here:
Arnott confirmed to KSPR News that Bowler isn’t the only local person who’s been scrutinized in the wake oflast weekend’s shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) during a meet-and-greet with constituents in Tucson, Ariz.
Arnott said U.S. Capitol police canvassed members of Congress to come up with a list of people across the country who might be considered potential threats to members of Congress.
Asked if there is some new initiative in place, a spokesperson at the FBI’s national office in Washington told me: ”We wouldn’t comment on anything like that.”
Asked if the sheriff’s comments were accurate, a spokesperson for the Capitol Police said: ”We don’t discuss anything that has to do with security of members of Congress. I’m not sure why anyone is talking about that.”
Clearly, if a threat is made against a member of Congress, the authorities are obliged to follow up. But if the line separating sustained political criticism from threats has not been crossed, willy-nilly visits by the FBI could have a real chilling effect on the democratic process.
The New York Times recently reported that “studies of assaults on public figures have found that attackers have almost never telegraphed their intentions to their targets or to the authorities ahead of time.”
Yeah, that is SO no bueno that that I cannot even begin to describe it. If the guy did make real, viable threats then okay, check him out. But from what I can see the evidence is more pointing toward a new politician trying to quell dissent using police muscle and that’s not cool. We not only have a right, but a responsibility to question the policies and practices of our elected officials if we feel that those policies and practices are counter to the best interests of the constituency or the country as a whole. Should we be making threats or plans for physical violence when we don’t like our elected officials? No. Although the Founding Fathers certainly kept that in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights, I am pretty sure they didn’t want that to be option number 1 when a check mark in a ballot booth will do quite nicely. By the same token, do the police have a right to come and question you? Sure they can. And you can and should lawyer up every time because what you say can and WILL be used against you.
Don’t believe me? Well, let a defense attorney and a cop educate you….
I can tell you right now, you will get NO benefit from talking to the police. Get a lawyer and the police can talk to him/her. If they don’t have warrant, they don’t have a right to search your domicile. The old argument that “if you don’t have anything to hide, you shouldn’t mind us searching your stuff” is no argument at all. You need only demand your 4th Amendment Rights be respected and upheld.
Demand your 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment Rights. Lawyering up doesn’t make you a criminal anymore than demanding your 2nd Amendment Rights makes you a murderer. I respect the police and I believe that they usually have people’s best interests at heart but they have a job to do and they get rated on how well they do their job by how many cases they close.
Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing. Seriously. This may be the most important thing you see today. Check it out…
Check out the blurb at around 5:10… that’s right, they’re taking money from UNICEF (you know, the UN Children’s Fund) and funneling it into anti-gun campaigns… they’re doing the same thing with Oxfam. Fighting hunger one gun seizure at a time… and your tax dollars are paying for it. Oh, and Amnesty International? Yeah, them too.
5:38 – “The US Citizens do not have a blanket right, to, to ,to use these weapons as they feel fit.” Henry Smith, Amnesty International
The stuttering fool has spoken… and he’ll speak for you if you let it happen.
The cop there was out of line. Would he have asked for a driver’s license if it was just a big burly guy in a karate uniform? Nope. He was just making stuff up and trying to intimidate the guy with the camera in the hopes that he was weak and ignorant. He wasn’t. Good for him. I may not support someone’s point of view but when the police start stepping on one person’s rights then it opens the door for them to do it to anyone.
And now for some good old fashioned rape prevention…
Unless she also had a cop in the closet, I think her use of her handgun is the only thing that saved her. Good for her.
Guns at protests. Okay, I think it’s time that this subject was broached here on The Sniper. I’m kind of tossed on this issue and before anyone jumps down my throat for either being a) a stark raving mad gun nut or, b) a Big Brother-esque gun grabbing government stooge, hear me out.
In America we have the right to bear arms and, depending on the state, the right to open carry, concealed carry, or both. Now, I know a lot of people would say that based on those rights it is every person’s right to carry regardless of where they are in public which, according to the letter of the law, is true in most cases. That being said, it might not be a very good idea to carry them at protests where the President is nearby. If the intent is to show the Chief Executive that we the People have a right to bear arms, well, I think the Constitution covers that pretty well despite the groaning and gnashing of teeth to the contrary from the far and not so far left. So that point is made moot by redundancy. If the reason is that the guy just always carries (which some people do), I have less of a problem with it. This is more than likely not the case for the guys toting rifles as most people don’t carry a 5.56mm air cooled, magazine fed, semi automatic rifle around with them on a daily basis. This latter group is demonstrative of those that wish to intimidate or even possibly bring harm to others.
This isn’t a very good idea.
I know that some people would make the argument that guns should never be present at a protest, especially when the President is near, and there are some people that would counter that guns already are present… they’re just in the hands of the police and Secret Service… and those people would be right. The police do carry guns at protests. The Secret Service does carry guns at protests… and sniper rifles, grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, Stinger AA missiles, etc. There is, however, one glaring difference between the police/Secret Service and the guy toting the AR-15 in a crowded protest : the police and Secret Service would be there no matter who the President was, what political party he is in, or whether he was a liberal, conservative, or moderate. The guy in the crowd would not. Oh, and there is one other glaring difference: the guy with the gun in the crowd can be absolutely certain that there is a set of crosshairs on his head or chest at any given moment at that protest… the cops and Secret Service guys can never be certain.
I support the right to bear arms. I support the right to free speech. I think that they both support each other and help defend each other. I don’t think, however, that the two are always compatible in certain situations. I myself would go to a protest. I would (and fairly often do) go shooting and even carry on occasion, but I wouldn’t mix the two for myriad reasons with the foremost being this: I don’t want to be a Secret Service sniper’s hiccup away from having a .308 round in my chest. If you want to bring your firearm to a protest and there are no laws against it I suppose that’s your right… I’ll get my point across with a pithy sign.
Doris Gatchell’s daughter, Eileen Newman, said Monday that family members had since nicknamed their mother “Annie Oakley.”
Suspect Dean T. Moore, who was arrested shortly after the Friday, June 12, incident, made his first appearance Monday in Washington County Superior Court. He faces up to 30 years in jail and fines of up to $50,000 on each of the two most serious charges of burglary with a firearm and robbery. He also has been charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, theft and criminal restraint. On Monday night, Moore remained in Washington County Jail unable to come up with the $15,000 bail set after his arrest.
So what have we learned from today’s lesson, class?
1. Grandma not only can handle a gun, but will handle it. 2. The average citizen does have need of a personal firearm. 3. The average citizen should have the right to carry concealed. 4. No, the cops aren’t always going to be there. 5. No, you can’t “always call the cops”. 6. Yes, home defense is a very valid reason for owning a gun. 7. No, gun laws don’t work. 8. Criminals will always get their hands on a gun if they want one. 9. Apparently criminals aren’t afraid of gun laws. 10. Criminals should be afraid of granny. 11. Don’t eff with granny.
Um, just why the hell does a foreign power need to know if I have a gun or not? And since when should my failure to register my gun result in jail time when my failure to register my car results only in a fine?
Actually I don’t know if they do or not… but considering that none of these guys is armed as they try to take control of an Iranian police station, I’m guessing they don’t have any bang-bang to back them up.