Maryland handgun licensing lacks historical roots, gun group tells 4th Circuit

Rockrivr1

NES Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
20,782
Likes
20,782
Location
South Central Mass
Feedback: 66 / 0 / 0
This ruling could potential put a halt on Oregon's similar law just passed.

Maryland’s licensing requirement for would-be handgun buyers infringes upon the constitutional right of people to keep arms for personal protection in their home and has no historical roots from either 18th- or 19th-century America, gun rights advocates told a federal appeals court Wednesday.

Maryland Shall Issue made its argument as the 4th Circuit considers whether the state’s handgun qualification license, or HQL, comports with the Second Amendment and its most recent interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June, the high court ruled 6-3 that gun restrictions are valid only if in keeping with the constitutional text, history and tradition of state firearm regulations when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 or when the 14th Amendment extended the right to keep and bear arms to the states in 1868.

MD handgun licensing lacks historical roots, gun group tells 4th Circuit
 
I'm in MD now. Even with a concealed carry permit, the separate HQL is needed to buy a gun. And they enforce a minimum 7 day waiting period.
The carry permit system is equally arduous and costly. For a married couple it costs over $1000 for the initial permit. Permits and training must be renewed every 2 years.
That whole system needs to be taken down by the courts too. Of course, those charging $375 and more for training oppose the elimination of training mandates.
 
I still don't understand how being legally permitted to RKBA in one state doesn't qualify you to RKBA in another when this is a federal issue. MA, for example, does not permit non-residents to possess a firearm without a non-res permit. MD looks to be similar. Seems like the concept of a federally protected right would mandate reciprocity once you are legally permitted to RKBA in your state (for sake of argument, I am assuming that SCOTUS permits a state to have a narrowly tailored licensing regime).
 
I still don't understand how being legally permitted to RKBA in one state doesn't qualify you to RKBA in another when this is a federal issue. MA, for example, does not permit non-residents to possess a firearm without a non-res permit. MD looks to be similar. Seems like the concept of a federally protected right would mandate reciprocity once you are legally permitted to RKBA in your state (for sake of argument, I am assuming that SCOTUS permits a state to have a narrowly tailored licensing regime).
That's for sure on the path the courts are taking. It'll come up as a 14th A. question, a FF&C question or a Privileges and Immunities Clause (aka Comity clause) question. I'm hoping the 3rd of those since that would probably be a case about a state offering a license to carry for its own residents without offering any reasonable non-res option (looking at you, NYS). It's been awhile since the Court wagged that at a state for something as serious.
 
Back
Top Bottom