• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Federal court rules that 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=395

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal court ruling in Maryland, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond the home and that citizens may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” for obtaining a concealed carry permit, is a huge victory, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.


Ruling in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan – a case brought by SAF in July 2010 on behalf of Maryland resident Raymond Woollard, who was denied his carry permit renewal – the U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled that “The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.”


U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg noted, “In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”


“This is a monumentally important decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one’s doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be. Once again, SAF’s attorney in this case, Alan Gura, has won an important legal victory. He was the attorney who argued the landmark Heller case, and he represented SAF in our Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago.


“Equally important in Judge Legg’s ruling,” he added, “is that concealed carry statutes that are so discretionary in nature as to be arbitrary do not pass constitutional muster.”


“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Judge Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”


“Judge Legg’s ruling takes a substantial step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights, and provides gun owners with another significant victory,” Gottlieb concluded. “SAF will continue winning back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

The 2008 Heller v. DC decision only ruled on the 2nd Amendment inside the home so this is the natural extension of that case.

Hopefully this will lead to nationwide "shall issue" concealed carry permits. A good day for freedom :thumbsup:
 
The Second Amendment Foundation simply rocks. Make sure to donate. All the big rulings have been lead by them and Gura. He's been laying the foundation to knock down most of the unconstitutional gun laws, this is another stone in the foundation.

http://www.saf.org/
 
The Second Amendment Foundation simply rocks. Make sure to donate. All the big rulings have been lead by them and Gura. He's been laying the foundation to knock down most of the unconstitutional gun laws, this is another stone in the foundation.

http://www.saf.org/

Someone needs to DDoS attack those guys.


Please do not post to condone or encourage activities which are unlawful, AnandTech Forum Guidelines:
Do not use our Forums to post any material, or links to any material, which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law
Administrator Idontcare
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:thumbsdown:

the-right-to-bear-arms-raar-photo1.jpg
 
:thumbsdown:

Our founding fathers fought a war so we could enjoy certain rights. Gun ownership is one of those rights.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Judge Legg wrote.

I see anti-gun laws going the same way Jim Crow laws went.

A person does not have to justify why they need to vote, they do not have to justify why they want to go to church, nor should we have to justify why we need to own a firearm.
 
I could see this being overturned in the supreme court. They could rule that the 2nd amendment does not apply to Concealed Carry becuase that goes beyond the 2nd Amendment.
 
I just dont understand the apprehension of firearm some people have. If I want to I can kill someone just as easy with a sharpened pencil.
 
I could see this being overturned in the supreme court. They could rule that the 2nd amendment does not apply to Concealed Carry becuase that goes beyond the 2nd Amendment.

As long as none of the five justices that gave us the Heller ruling retire/die by the time a case like this makes it to the Supreme Court I don't see that happening.
 
Concealed Carry has nothing to do with gun ownership.

Why should gun ownership be held to a different standard then other rights?

Could you imagine the outcry if people were only allowed to take their bible from home directly to church? If the person decided to go to a grocery store and left their bible in the car, they could be arrested.

What about watching the news? People should be restricted from watching to news to only inside their home. If they left a newspaper in plain view in the car, they would be arrested.

What about posting a comment on a political news site? Should people be limited to posting on political blogs from their home?
 
Back
Top