Judge admits the obvious
Mar 5th, 2012 by Ken Hagler

Maryland Handgun Permit Restrictions Found Unconstitutional by Federal Judge.

details from the Associated Press

Maryland’s requirement that residents show a “good and
substantial reason” to get a handgun permit is unconstitutional,
according to a federal judge’s opinion filed Monday.

States can channel the way their residents exercise their Second
Amendment right to bear arms, but because Maryland’s goal was to
minimize the number of firearms carried outside homes by limiting
the privilege to those who could demonstrate “good reason,” it had
turned into a rationing system, infringing upon residents’ rights,
U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote.

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

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after
fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002, but was
denied a renewal in 2009 because he could not show he had been
subject to “threats occurring beyond his residence.”
Woollard appealed, but was rejected by the review board, which
found he hadn’t demonstrated a “good and substantial reason” to
carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution. The suit filed in 2010
claimed that Maryland didn’t have a reason to deny the renewal and
wrongly put the burden on Woollard to show why he still needed to
carry a gun.

The Second Amendment Foundation
sponsored the suit, and Woollard’s lawyer was Second Amendment
vindicator Alan Gura, who also won the
suits at the Supreme Court that established our right to own
commonly used weapons for self-defense in the home, against both
federal and state encroachment. By moving the Second Amendment
argument here beyond the home, this case promises to help expand
Second Amendment rights even beyond the Heller and
McDonald standard.

My July 2009
interview with Gura
. My 2008 book on the Heller case,

Gun Control on Trial

UPDATE: Thanks commenter Chris Brennan:

The full decision

[Hit and Run]

It will be interesting to see where this goes (if anywhere) as California has roughly the same law. In practice, “good and substantial reason” is a euphemism for “rich and/or powerful.” For example, some years ago I was told that I could get a concealed weapon permit in Orange County for a $15,000 bribe “campaign contribution”–certainly not a sum that an ordinary person stuck living in a high-crime neighborhood could readily afford. Ironically, that price was too low, and that sheriff was ejected from office for it.

The good news for us peasants is that the government seems to have finally caught on that they really don’t need to worry about an armed citizenry demonstrating the purpose of the Second Amendment, for the reason I quoted a few years ago, but it is a good way to lose the next election. While elections are meaningless in terms of their impact on the government, they do matter to the individual politician who losses his place on the gravy train.

Quote of the Day
Apr 26th, 2011 by Ken Hagler

The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90 MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20, outlaw any vehicle that has a round hood ornament or that can carry more than 10 gallons of fuel, require sensitivity training and mandatory annual testing for all licensed drivers, require all vehicle purchases to be documented at a dealership (with a 10-day waiting period), and specify the locks on the garage where the vehicles are stored (with their wheels removed and stored in a locked container on the other side of the home). Meanwhile the most dangerous intersections are changed from stoplights to yield signs, and residential and school zone regulations are tightened with ‘no-stop’ rules so strict that even police cannot stop to set up a speed trap, thus giving the speeders free reign in the very areas they are likely to do the most damage.

Tony B.

Good response to Socialists
Oct 2nd, 2010 by Ken Hagler

Addition to the “20 Questions” Response…. S, a regular reader and commenter here, had some comments to add to last week’s “20 Questions” post, but for some reason his comments kept getting knocked off the blog. I still don’t know what that was about, but when he sent the comment to me via other means I found it much worth saying. So here it is.

The answer to all twenty questions is the same:

You and I are different. I will not use violence to achieve my personal goals. I make my way in the world using peaceful, voluntary, mutually beneficial trade. I use violence only when necessary to defend my life and property from violence initiated by others. Even then, my response will be appropriate to the threat and circumstances.

You and your ilk use violence to get what you want. Whether it is market outcomes that displease you or tools you fear and loathe violence is your first and only tool. It’s quite pathetic really, how limited your imaginations have become. You can’t even imagine solutions to most problems that don’t involve violence. I typically have to choose from a myriad of options when negotiating a solution to a problem that troubles me; all you can ever do is demand new laws.

You’re also a coward, and unwilling to do the dirty work required by your reliance on violence. So you rely on others to pass “laws,” hire men armed with the very same guns that so terrify you, give them costumes and costume jewelry, steal the money to pay for these parasites from their victims, and then set them upon me.

There’s your answer. There is no frontier here, only a bleeding edge. Because you will try to have me killed if you can’t make me agree with you, while I will go my peaceful way and do my best to ignore and shun you. I have trades to make and a life to live. There’s really no point to further discussion with you, since the outcome has already been decided. By you.

Couldn’t say it as well myself. In fact, I didn’t. [The Ultimate Answer to Kings]

This was written in response to a gun control advocate, but it applies just as well to any other sort of Socialist (including the ones who run the Republican Party).

Quote of the Day
May 6th, 2009 by Ken Hagler

…Guns will never be confiscated in the US: when martial law is declared, the gun owners will be given badges and arm-bands and sent out on patrol. As long as the President at the time is a right-winger and white, the gun nuts won’t put up a fuss.

Unknown Liberal

Know Thine Enemy
Feb 8th, 2009 by Ken Hagler

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate. The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty. [Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]

Gun control doesn’t always matter
Dec 1st, 2008 by Ken Hagler

Guns and Mumbai.

India’s government not only failed to protect its citizens from terrorism, it wouldn’t allow them to protect themselves. Check out this paragraph from the Wall Street Journal:

At about 9:45 p.m., two gunmen, slender and in their mid-20s, ran up the circular driveway at the entrance to the Trident. They shot the security guard and two bellhops. The hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi.

On the other hand, at least some Indian officials are taking responsibility for their failure, which is more than we can say about anyone in the U.S. government after September 11.

[The Agitator]

I’ve seen this sort of claim a number of places, but I disagree, because this isn’t a case of an individual going postal in a shopping mall or a school. In those parts of the US where ordinary people can legally carry handguns, the percentage who do so is very low–so low that there would be at best one or two people with a pistol around if something like this happened here. Real life isn’t like Die Hard–one guy with a pistol going up against a trained infantry squad is just going to die without accomplishing anything.

For the people on the spot to stop a terrorist attack like this, it’s also necessary for the culture to be such that all or nearly all of the people are armed at all times. That’s not the case in the US, and I know of no reason to think it’s the case in India either. In fact, the only incident I know of in my lifetime where an armed citizenry repelled heavily armed terrorists was in Somalia, when the city of Mogadishu drove off a terrorist attack by the Evil Empire. It was a costly victory, though–thousands of Somalis died fighting about a company of Imperial Stormtroopers.

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa
© Ken Hagler. All rights reserved.