The Court’s conclusion here appears to ignore a lot of places in Heller where the right to carry outside the home is taken as a given:
We shall hold that Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, without a permit and outside of one’s home, is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. We also shall hold that, because Williams failed to apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, he lacks standing to challenge Section 5-301 et seq. of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code (2003),4 as well as COMAR 29.03.02.04.5 As a result, Williams’s conviction will stand.
It’s outside the scope because the right is only at force in the home, per the Supreme Court rulings. This supposedly a constitutional right that has no force outside the home. The standing issue might make sense, since he never applied for a permit. We all know that’s a fruitless endeavor in Maryland, since they routinely deny permit applications for nearly anyone who applies, but I think they might have a point that because he never was denied a permit, he can’t challenge the law this way. In other words, he would have been better off applying, then suing over the denial, than just breaking the law anyway.
It seems clear, however, that Maryland Courts are joining the other anti-gun state courts who continue to pretend the right to bear arms is meaningless, and without substantive effect, except for places where the Supreme Court has made it abundantly crystal clear. In fact, they even go so far as to say, “If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly,” as if the Supreme Court didn’t mention in multiple places carry outside the home in Heller.
There was at least one opinion that concurred in upholding the conviction, but added:
While I agree with the majority that the Petitioner’s conviction should be affirmed, I would not hold that the Petitioner’s conduct is “outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.†I would affirm on the ground that, although the Second Amendment is applicable to an “on the street†possession of a handgun, that Amendment is satisfied by a statute that places reasonable restrictions on the constitutional right to bear arms.
A reasonable restriction such as you need a permit that no one can really get. Slightly different way to fry the same fish, but probably on more sound footing than the main opinion. It may be reasonable to require a license, and perhaps Maryland is wronging their citizens by their subjective non-issuance policy, but the proper way to challenge it is the way SAF is approaching the problem. This case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but for various reasons I don’t think it’s the ideal case to take forward, and suspect the Court would deny cert. I would not like to head back to the Supreme Court with a poorly thought out criminal case.
