21 State Attorneys General Ask SCOTUS To Strike Down MD Concealed Carry Law

[SFC13557]

"

"A coalition of 21 state attorneys general is asking the Supreme Court to strike down a Maryland law that denies concealed carry permits unless applicants can convince local officials they have a “good and substantial reason” to be granted one by local authorities.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, and the other state officials filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court Dec. 18 in a case cited as Malpasso v. Pallozzi. Morrisey and the others want to expand the scope of protection afforded to gun-ownership rights after the high court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2010), that the right to possess a firearm is an individual right, and in McDonald v. Chicago (2012), that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” applies to the states.
Apart from West Virginia, the other states that participated in the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah.
The question former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a veteran of Second Amendment battles, put before the court in the petition for certiorari filed Sept. 26, is, “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self defense in any manner.”

21 State Attorneys General Ask SCOTUS To Strike Down MD Concealed Carry Law

At issue is a clause in state law that requires a reason why someone should be granted a permit. There's no way that doesn't get overturned.

bearingarms.com

 

[beaker]

Well, that is like asking why someone needs to speak freely and critically of the government before giving them a permit to their First Amendment rights.

 

[BUMPA01603]

You can't always get what you want......

 

[rivet_42]

Aren't there a few towns and cities in MA that ask you to "justify" your "need" for an unrestricted LTC, based on things like carrying cash or valuables for work, documented history of threats against you, working armed security, or similar "prove to us that you're special" criteria?

 

[allen-1]

Apart from West Virginia, the other states that participated in the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah.

Gee - I don't see Massachusetts, Connecticut or New York in that list; <Shocked face>.

 

[Lokdog]

I know Rhode Island is the same way. The AG permit is MAY issue making the applicant the presenter of facts and if the AG feels like it then you get it. The town/city permit is SHALL issue making the town/city the finder of facts but with both permits you have to provide good reason as to why. A bunch of BS

 

[Dennis in MA]

Aren't there a few towns and cities in MA that ask you to "justify" your "need" for an unrestricted LTC, based on things like carrying cash or valuables for work, documented history of threats against you, working armed security, or similar "prove to us that you're special" criteria?

At least 98 of them.

Regardless of what your PRESENT chief is like, there is a risk that a FUTURE chief will be anti-gun. Forcing a SHALL-ISSUE rule nation-wide would be awful nice. At the very least, it's a good start.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

SCOTUS will dodge it. They don't have the balls to make it right.

 

[Waher]

The DoJ Civil Rights Division should be prosecuting the May Issue states for violating the Constitution.

I'd also like a pony.

 

[Edek Kasica]

At least 98 of them.

Regardless of what your PRESENT chief is like, there is a risk that a FUTURE chief will be anti-gun. Forcing a SHALL-ISSUE rule nation-wide would be awful nice. At the very least, it's a good start.

Shall issue has worked in CT for as long as I cared.

 

[RKG]

I know Rhode Island is the same way. The AG permit is MAY issue making the applicant the presenter of facts and if the AG feels like it then you get it. The town/city permit is SHALL issue making the town/city the finder of facts but with both permits you have to provide good reason as to why. A bunch of BS

Distinguish between "reason" and "need." The RI Supreme Court has held that "need" is a requirement of the AG permit, but not of the Town "as of right" permit. And, yes, I should give citations, but I'm not where I keep those materials.

 

[WanMan99]

Apart from West Virginia, the other states that participated in the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah.

Gee - I don't see Massachusetts, Connecticut or New York in that list; <Shocked face>.

Looks like I have a list of possible states to move to when it becomes utterly unlivable in Mass.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Distinguish between "reason" and "need." The RI Supreme Court has held that "need" is a requirement of the AG permit, but not of the Town "as of right" permit. And, yes, I should give citations, but I'm not where I keep those materials.

thats f***ed up. none should need a reason !

 

[JayMcB]

The reason is, ' I have a right to, and I want to '

 

[Wrench75]

The reason is, ' I have a right to, and I want to '

That is the only thing I have ever put on the application at FRPD. On the nitial application and 2 renewals my response to the "reason" question was, "I have a constitutional right to own and bear arms and I wish to exercise that right." I have never had any restrictions.

 

[weekendracer]

Sad commentary that it's only 21 states.

Almost all of those states are turning purple faster than I care to think about it.