“At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.” – US District Court ruling in Woolard v. Sheridan
Separated at birth: Alan Gottlieb and Mr. Spacely.
It took me a moment to recognize the reference…. Spacely’s Sprockets… LOL. My first thought was George Costanza.
Now who’s going to challenge the “reasonable person” statute that varies by town in Massachusetts?
I suspect that there will be a fair amount of chatter going on in a few of the political/administrative circles here in MA as a result of this case. Woolard is by no means a game changer here. It is, however, a very nice additional step in the right direction. It has also already given our side a few truly wonderful quotes to use in the future.
This case will provide more food for thought to the MA legislature, the Governor, the AG, Mayor Menino, Commissioner Davis and a host of other officials. Every further turn of the screw that we can make will bring us closer to our full measure of this one aspect of our civil rights.
Here in MA, Hightower is making its way up the courts. Others, here and elsewhere, are in the pipeline. The battlespace has changed dramatically and now it is ours to lose.
Tiocfaidh ár lá!!
Menino and his smarmy ilk are above the law.
I always get a large charge from carry in Boston when I visit there. Knowing that the people who actually live there are denied the same right simply makes my day.
Sure, rub it in; pour salt in our wounds while you’re at it. I still luv ya though ;>)
“At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.”
last line ftw
My thoughts too.
Better. Text swapped.
Not a particularly good year for the gun grabbers. This one isn’t some far away land like Texas, it’ right next door in MD.
Next up should be the ridiculous restrictions on transporting guns in MD along with the spent casing database that is useless.
yep, got to put the guns in the truck and ammo in the back seat, totally stupid, among other things.
The big questions will still be how many of the ridiculous “factors” that they MSP looks at before issuing will be removed, and how hard will they fight this ruling. Post Heller DC did not much more than pay lip service to the ruling and made end runs around it. That fight, from a 2008 ruling, is still very much going on.
Undoing the amount of preposterous gun laws that MD has will be a long fight.
I am very happy that like me, Gottleib sports bowties and glasses. I sense a new style moment . . . .
I feel the need for a celebratory cigar, even though I know it’s probably too soon.
It’s never too soon or too late for a cigar, or a cocktail, or a cocktail and a cigar.
Well…it is a start.
I’ve been watching the comments section in the article in the Washington Post. There is some of the usual “blood in the streets” and “gun nuts” stuff but otherwise lots of good, positive comments. I think this is where some battles for the fence-sitters can be won. The antis rant, scream, and insult, while we respond with facts and reason. It’s particularly gratifying when it occurs on a lefty site like the WaPo, behind enemy lines so to speak.
I noticed in the SAF press release that Gottleib lied about the decision saying that it was a victory for concealed carry. Here is what the judge actually said about concealed carry in the decision: “Nor does the Court speculate as to whether a law that required a “good and substantial reason” only of law-abiding citizens who wish to carry a concealed handgun would be constitutional.”
Maryland just became a shall-issue state for Open Carry. LMAO
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org