• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wollard v. Sheridan in Maryland

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
“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.”

If that isnt the best damn quote i've ever heard then I dont know what is.
 

ed2276

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
366
Location
Las Vegas,NV
“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.”

If that isnt the best damn quote i've ever heard then I dont know what is.

One might follow up the judge's well-reasoned finding with the question, "If carrying a concealed firearm is a right then why should any citizen who is lawfully exercising that right need the government's permission or have to pay a fee to the government to do so?"
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
One might follow up the judge's well-reasoned finding with the question, "If carrying a concealed firearm is a right then why should any citizen who is lawfully exercising that right need the government's permission or have to pay a fee to the government to do so?"
The court has recognized the governments right to tax rights. California is a right-to-fish state, but the courts have upheld the states right to visit fishing licenses upon citizens. In their final decision, the court likened the license fee to a tax
 

DoomGoober

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
63
For anyone who hasn't read the opinion, Judge Legg first establishes that 2nd Amendment cases should be decided using intermediate scrutiny (that the state must have an important interest and that the policy be written in such a way that is substantially related to that interest.) Legg establishes that the state has an important interest in protecting public safety, but finds that Maryland's law isn't substantially related to that interest. He compares the permitting process to randomly handing out a permit to every tenth applicant, which obviously doesn't advance the state's interest in keeping guns out of the hands of bad people.

Of course, this has no direct bearing on CA as findings from different districts don't affect us. This ruling will only help us IF a contradictory ruling is made in our district, in which case the Supreme Court will be obliged to step in and resolve the contradiction.

Anyone have a good CA lawsuit that can survive to the Ninth Circuit? =)
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
The court has recognized the governments right to tax rights. California is a right-to-fish state, but the courts have upheld the states right to visit fishing licenses upon citizens. In their final decision, the court likened the license fee to a tax

when and what case was used to overturn Murdock v. commonwealth of pennsylvania?

"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control and suppress its enjoyment.... A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution....
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
 
Top