SAF files amicus brief in lawsuit over Maryland carry licensing requirements

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9507
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

SAF files amicus brief in lawsuit over Maryland carry licensing requirements

#1 Post by DispositionMatrix » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:01 pm

Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan.
http://www.davekopel.com/Briefs/Marylan ... -brief.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has adopted a Two-Part Test for Second Amendment
challenges. In Part One, the Court determines whether the law burdens the
Founding-Era scope of the right to keep and bear arms. In Part Two, the Court applies
the appropriate level of heightened scrutiny, where the Government bears the burden
of proving the constitutionality of the law.

Maryland’s training requirement burdens the Founding-Era scope of the right. No
colonial or Founding-Era law ever required training to possess a firearm. Indeed,
many laws required firearm ownership without requiring training. Some laws
required persons expressly exempted from training to own firearms.
The objective of reducing firearms accidents has been accomplished with great
success over the past four decades—without Maryland’s burdensome training
requirement. Maryland’s training requirement fails intermediate scrutiny because
Maryland has failed to prove that the reduction would be achieved less effectively
absent its new regulation.

Maryland’s long and expensive licensing process burdens the Founding-Era scope
of the right. No person with full civil rights was required to obtain a government
license to possess a firearm in the colonial or founding periods. Nor is such a licensing
system a “presumptively lawful” longstanding regulation. In the first decades of the
twentieth century, a few states imposed some form of licensing laws, but some of
those were quickly repealed, and others were much less burdensome than Maryland’s
current process.
SAF, CCRKBA JOIN IN AMICUS BRIEF CHALLENGING MARYLAND GUN LAW
“We’ve joined in this brief because Maryland’s licensing process is expensive and lengthy, and a right delayed is a right denied,” said SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “No citizen should have to jump through so many hoops simply to have a gun in their own home. There were no such requirements or regulations in Maryland at the time the Constitution was ratified, and the current regulatory scheme seems more intended to discourage responsible firearms ownership than guarantee that gun owners safely handle their firearms.

“The training requirement in Maryland imposes a burden on a citizen’s ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights,” he continued. “But evidently in Maryland, as in some other states, the government has arbitrarily decided to treat the Second Amendment right as a regulated privilege, and that simply cannot be allowed to stand.”
Baltimore Sun Editorial:maintain state carry restrictions...

equin
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:27 pm
Contact:

Re: SAF files amicus brief in lawsuit over Maryland carry licensing requirements

#2 Post by equin » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:28 pm

Interesting. I'm in Texas, so this doesn't affect me, but I'm always interested in other state's firearm's laws. I couldn't open the PDF link, and I'm wondering what kind of training requirements MD is imposing? Also wondering how MD's requirements don't violate at least the spirit of the holding in Heller. I'm guessing since MD is in the same circuit court of appeals that upheld its assault weapons ban, it feels confident the 4th circuit will also uphold this law with its more restrictive interpretation of Heller.

User avatar
DavidMS
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:22 pm
Location: Virgina
Contact:

Re: SAF files amicus brief in lawsuit over Maryland carry licensing requirements

#3 Post by DavidMS » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:53 pm

I just moved across the river to Virginia. Given my experiences in Maryland, this case, unfortunately, will be a real uphill climb.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9778
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: SAF files amicus brief in lawsuit over Maryland carry licensing requirements

#4 Post by highdesert » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:09 am

Unless otherwise exempt, as of October 1, 2013, a Maryland resident must possess a valid Handgun Qualification License before he/she may purchase, rent, or receive a handgun. Details on exemptions may be found below. You do not need a Handgun Qualification License to own a gun you already have. The Handgun Qualification License is only needed for purchasing, transferring, or renting a regulated firearm after October 1, 2013.
Looks like the training requirement is 4 hours for the Handgun Qualification License. There is a charge of $50. plus the cost for fingerprinting. That's a lot just to purchase a firearm.https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/ ... cense.aspx
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

equin
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:27 pm
Contact:

Re: SAF files amicus brief in lawsuit over Maryland carry licensing requirements

#5 Post by equin » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:22 am

Looks like there's also a $20 renewal fee. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the case, but being that Maryland falls under the 4th Circuit, I agree with DavidMS that it's probably an uphill battle for 2A proponents.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests