by Sam Rolley
A Federal judge ruled that residents of the State needn’t provide a “good and substantial reason” in order to legally obtain a handgun permit, because the 2nd Amendment is substantial enough.
The case began when Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002, but could not renew it in 2009 because he could not show officials he had been subject to “threats occurring beyond his residence.” After repealing and being rejected by the review board, which found he hadn’t demonstrated a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution, Woollard filed suit in 2010.
In his ruling on the case, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg said that placing the burden of providing a reason why they need a gun on gun owners was unConstitutional.
The judge said in his opinion:
The case began when Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002, but could not renew it in 2009 because he could not show officials he had been subject to “threats occurring beyond his residence.” After repealing and being rejected by the review board, which found he hadn’t demonstrated a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution, Woollard filed suit in 2010.
In his ruling on the case, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg said that placing the burden of providing a reason why they need a gun on gun owners was unConstitutional.
The judge said in his opinion:
A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered reasonably adapted to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland‘s goal of minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly.
No comments:
Post a Comment