A federal judge in Maryland has again barred the state from enforcing a law that requires handgun owners to show “good or substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.”
The ruling brought praise from Del. Mike Smigiel, R-Cecil, a strong proponent of Second Amendment gun rights.
“The citizens of Maryland have finally been granted freedom from the unconstitutional burden of needing to prove they have a “good and substantial cause” to carry a firearm when exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Smigiel in a statement released yesterday. “The [judge] issued an order releasing the stay of his finding…that Maryland’s “good and substantial cause” standard is an unconstitutional burden placed on Maryland citizens.”
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg lifted a stay he granted the Maryland Attorney General in March — meant to delay enforcement of the ruling until a challenge had been heard in 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The handgun law was declared unconstitutional by the US District Court in Maryland in 2010 after Baltimore County resident Raymond Woollard was denied a concealed handgun permit for protection from his violent son-in-law in 2009. Woollard had previously been granted a permit in 2003, and again in 2006 when Woollard’s son-in-law was released from prison.
But the Maryland State Police denied renewal of his permit in 2009 because Woollard could not document threats from his son-in-law with police reports or court records. He appealed the decision to the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board and was denied again.
Woollard “had not submitted any documentation to verify threats occurring beyond his residence, where he can already legally carry a handgun,” the Review Board concluded when they denied his appeal for a permit.
The board’s decision was successfully challenged by Woollard with the help of a $10,000 check from Second Amendment Foundation of Bellevue, WA.
“The Court finds that Maryland’s requirement of a “good and substantial reason” for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State’s interest in public safety and crime prevention,” Legg wrote in his March ruling. “The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. “
“I have argued for the last ten years in the State Legislature that this burden is arbitrarily and capriciously applied by the Maryland State Police because by their own admission, they have no definition of what is a “good and substantial cause,”” Smigiel wrote.
Smigiel is certain liberal lawmakers will put “legislative hurdles in the way of persons trying to exercise the Constitutional rights just recognized by the court.”
He said Senator Brian Frosh, chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, and now candidate for Maryland Attorney General, will “try to put up near impossible, or very burdensome, training requirements for anyone wishing to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm,” Smigiel wrote. “The liberals will attempt to put as many restrictions on the locations one can carry a firearm as possible.”
Smigiel reflected on the recent mass killings in an Aurora, Colorado movie theatre where guns were prohibited, even for licensed permit holders. He implied that further gun restrictions in Maryland would make citizens defenseless prey against the “wolfs of the world.”
“Maryland legislators should understand the consequences of prohibiting firearms being carried by law abiding, well trained, citizens in public areas [that] will be a lure to the wolfs of this world,” Smigiel written statement said. “The horrible human tragedy that happened in Aurora was the act of an evil or deranged person [and] that has more to say about our failure to address mental health issues than it has to say about the Second Amendment.”
Del. Jay Jacobs, R-Kent, joined Smigiel in applauding the court’s ruling and said Maryland’s gun laws were too restrictive.
“You should not have to prove you’re in danger to exercise your constitutional rights under the Second Amendment,” Jacobs said.
The Maryland State Police said they would continue to apply the standard of “good and substantial reason” to the review of handgun carry permit applications until Aug. 7, when the stay is legally lifted, said MSP Communications Officer Greg Shipley. He said the state would then abide by the court’s recent ruling.
It is more than likely that Attorney General Doug Gansler will seek a stay from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until they have ruled on the lower court’s decision.
Of the 5,200 handgun applications reviewed last year, less than 200 were denied under the “good and substantial cause” rule.
UPDATED: Frosh responded late Wednesday to the issue of training requirements and said proper training was a matter of public safety and the safety of the permit holder.
“People who carry concealed weapons in public must have proper training,” Frosh said in email. “The last thing anyone wants is for someone carrying a handgun to be disarmed or shot by an assailant. We need to ensure that proper training is a requirement for concealed carry.”
Jeff St John says
So roughly 96% of the people who applied were able to get the permit… that doesn’t seem terribly onerous or restrictive. Though Mr. Smigiel may not worry about my safety, here’s to hoping that there wasn’t a legitimate good reason that those 3.8% of people got denied and will now be walking around with a gun.
Karl Chue says
Only 5200 people applied representing less than 0.09% of the population of Maryland. In every other state that does not have a discriminatory concealed firearms permit system, the percentage is closer to 1%, meaning that roughly 50,000 Marylanders have not been able to exercise this fundamental right. Many people in Maryland do not even bother to apply unless they are politically connected to the Democrats in power, carry large sums of cash or are a “professional” like a physician or attorney who allegedly are at greater risk than every one else – nurses and paralegals for example, don’t qualify. The “good and substantial” clause requires that you have police documented recent threats in order to receive a permit. If someone threatens you and there is no police record, you will be denied a permit in Maryland. People don’t apply here because being arbitrarily denied means forever having to write that you have been denied a gun permit before on the Federal forms for ATF when you purchase a firearm. The “good and substantial” reason is basically a way to arbitrarily discriminate without being overt. The mentality of the “leaders” of the state is clear when you see “Not Disapproved” on your background check to purchase a regulated firearm in Maryland – why doesn’t it say “Approved” like a sane person might use? Because they don’t want to ever admit that they gave the okay to you to own or carry a firearm. We’ve tried extreme gun control and it fails under every category, so why not try restoring rights for a change? As Judge Legg put it, there is not a single shred of scientific evidence that lawful firearms ownership has any affect on crime rates, so why not err on the side of freedom instead of restriction? Sadly, the majority of legislators here have the same mentality as Mayor Bloomberg, who is surrounded by heavily armed bodyguards all of the time.
John Belt says
I would love to get a conceal carry permit, I have even looked into doing so but I have never had a “good and substantial reason” other than a desire to defend myself. Self defense is not a suitable reason to own or carry a handgun in Maryland. After all, we have the police to deal with that kind of thing. When seconds count, the Maryland Police are only minutes away!
joe diamond says
IF makes all this possible!
To complete the question, “…what is your ‘good and substantial reason’… for needing to carry a concealed weapon?”… the applicant must use the word IF.
I own a business and carry cash at night. . .IF I am robbed I need to protect myself (and the cash)!
I live in a neighborhood where “those people” hang out. IF they come in my window some night I need to have something to shoot them with.
So these folks get the guns to use IF they are correct…ever.
Somehow “. . IF my car gets hit by passing trucks one more time I want to be able to blow them away. . .” ……fails.
The point is you cannot predict when you are going to NEED a gun. I just know that eventually someone is going to point out that within the audience in that Colorado movie theatre there were many firearms trained individuals. Any one of them could have shot the attacker IF they had a weapon.
But the numbers still say you are safer in a combat zone living with the expectation of being shot by an armed enemy than wandering some streets of some American cities at some times of day. Also, the best intentions with good and substantial reasons for having a handgun around do not protect. Rather, theyendanger family members, neighbors and friends who have good and substantial reasons for making noises late at night.
It turns out that armed citizens is are not safe from themselves.
Gotta go…………cleaning my shotgun…………..might need it…………….there was a noise on the roof last night…………blasted it, whatever it was………..neighbor having a loud party…………might get attacked…………never know with those damn hippies…………. time for door and window inspection…….ya never know…….got a good and substantial reason for a small pistol………can’t hide the long barrel while driving…………I get cut off in traffic too damn many times….
Gotta go!
Joe
John Belt says
Joe, if you don’t want to own a gun, don’t. No one wants to force you to do anything you prefer not doing. How is it okay for you to deny me a Constitutional right?