UPDATED (4:16 p.m.)—A U.S. District Court judge has lifted a stay on a federal court ruling that declared Maryland's permitting process to wear and carry a gun unconstitutional.
The order, issued by Judge Benson Everett Legg, lifts a stay sought by the state as it appeals the decision made last year.
Legg's ruling, which goes into effect in 14 days, lifts the stay sought by the state after a federal court ruled that the law requiring those seeking a permit to carry a gun must have "a good or substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."
David Paulson, a spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, said the ruling "is still being reviewed and the state is considering its options."
Opponents called the called the state's permit requirement arbitrary and capricious.
Del. Michael Smigiel, a Cecil County Republican, praised the ruling.
"The state will now have to start following the Constitution," Smigiel said, adding that he believes the timing of the ruling in the wake of the shootings in Aurora, CO will cause some public discussion.
"I expect to see that some people, based on what happened in Aurora, will argue that this is not a good idea," Smigiel said. "Those individuals do not have a full understanding of the facts of what happened in Aurora."
Smigiel said he expects Gansler will appeal Legg's decision to the United States Supreme Court. The delegate said he believes the court will not take up the issue before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the appeal on the lower court ruling.
The state will likely have to file a motion to for a new stay with the Fourth Circuit Court before going to the Supreme Court. Because Legg's order becomes effective in two weeks, that motion would likely be filed before the state police would have to begin considering applications without the a good or substantial reason" requirement.
The suit was filed in July 2010 after Robert Woollard was denied a permit to carry a gun. The federal court ultimately ruled the "good and substantial reason" requirement was unconstitutional and the Maryland State Police were ordered to process Woollard's application without applying that standard.
Stay with Patch for updates on this story.
I think that you might view yourself as divine at times..
Too complicated to be good for anyone....Natural law is fair, without corruption and permanent to each individual that recognizes it....instinctive if you will..
First, Lanza was not the legal owner of the guns her used. Secondly, Hasan was a terrorist, not even in the same category. Now, even withstanding these issues, your pointing out 6 people that legally owned guns used in crime. The vast majority (80% or more) of gun crimes involve guns that are not legally obtained. Now, how many of the people you listed were mentally ill or using pharmaceutical drugs? James Eagan Holmes - was a psychiatric patient, Deails of ay drugs not yet available. Jared Lee Loughner - Suspended from college, would not be allowed back without a mental health review. Seung-Hui Cho - documented mental illness. Reports of pharmaceutical usage. Wade Michael Page - ok, one out of six is just a hateful violent man. So to recap. 1 terrorist 1 stole his guns from his mother (and has mental health issues and may have been medicated.) 3 had mental health issues and may have been on medication
On the one hand, people think that teens will ignore their natural urges is "properly educated" On the other, people think that if we restrict the legal purchase of guns, criminals will not be able to get guns.
I said that gun contol and absence education are equally as effective. Perhaps you can explain why Chicago, DC, and NYC have some of the worst gun crime, even though they have some of the most strict gun control. I await your illuminating response.
Hasan was motivated by his radical beliefs. The Sikh temple shooter was a bigot.The rest of them all had mental problems. Mental problems and guns don't mix. I'm all for keeping guns away from crazy people. I'm all for requiring background checkes including at gun shows. Banning guns (or types of guns) because of crazy people, not so much.
What a joke.
Now go get that sand out of yourself.
But, I didn't bring it up. No sir, not me.
The dots were connected and those who connected them were disciplined. Priceless!
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home. Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support. The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures. The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate. In opposing the measure, Obama lined up well to the left of the mainstream, as the Illinois Senate included 32 Democrats to 26 Republicans but approved the bill by an overwhelming margin and subsequently overrode a veto by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Obama did not participate in the veto override, which occurred in November 2004, likely after Obama had resigned his state Senate seat in order to prepare for his new role in the U.S. Senate."
Now I know why he doesn't show where his crap comes from.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/obama-opposed-gun-ban-exception-defend-home/
You seem to answer every question but the one I asked. So I will ask again, If gun control works, why do DC, NYC, and Chicago have high crime rates.
That was proven in Bloomberg's lawsuit against the Virginia gun store owners. A lot of the guns used in crimes in NYC were traced to several shops in VA. The criminals admitted going there to purchase firearms. Bloomberg sent some of his agents down there and they were able to do the same thing.
You are intentionally distorting the facts. All guns stores MUST run mandatory background checks. What Bloomberg filed suit over is the gun show loophole which I support closing 100%. None of you can explain the complete and utter failure of in control in Dc, NYC, and Chicago. I find that very illuminating.
To use Buck's terms, I accept your surrender on the topic. You cannot explain the complete failure of gun control, so you resort to inflammatory personal attacks. You sicken me, and i don't understand why the patch editors allow your abusive posts. Grow up.
Do you have a reading comprehension issue?
Violent crime as a whole has trended downward across the country. There was not a more significant drop in places with strict gun control. To connect the dots for you, what that means is that the effect of gun control on the crime rate was statistically insignificant. So in other words, strict gun control did not have an effect on violent crime. In laymans terms, it failed.