4th Circuit Appellate Court Decision on Maryland requirement for handgun purchase closes the deal

[Worriedman]

The Supreme Court in Bruen has laid out rules for deciding the 2nd Amendment rights of the People.  Text, then history!

 

If non-violent felon citizens seek to purchase and bear arms (defined in Heller as “Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or amour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 618 (2008), the 2nd Amendment ensures that right under its ”unqualified command”.  Rifles and shotguns with legal length barrels are protected by that command.

 

All power being inherent in the People, General Assemblies do not have the lawful ability to deny a constitutional right, as certain policy choices have been taken off the table. “No longer should lower courts evaluating firearm restrictions “defer to the determinations of legislatures,” because while “that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable-and, elsewhere, appropriate-it is not the deference that the Constitution demands.” And while “end-justifies-the-means” rationalizations should generally be understood as antithetical to the rule of law, Bruen now leaves no doubt that such rationalizations have no place in our Second Amendment jurisprudence.” United States v. Harrison, No. CR-22-00328-PRW, 5-6 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2023)

From the recent case decided 11/21/2023 in the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, No. 21-2017; “And Plaintiffs here say that they seek to own firearms for “lawful purposes,” J.A. 22–24, a point that Maryland does not contest. Indeed, though the Amendment’s plain text “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 411 (2016) …There might well be a tradition of prohibiting dangerous people from owning firearms. But, under the Second Amendment, mechanism matters. And Maryland has not pointed to any historical laws that operated by preemptively depriving all citizens of firearms to keep them out of dangerous hands. Plaintiffs’ challenge thus must succeed, and the district court’s contrary decision must be REVERSED” MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INC., v. WES MOORE, in his capacity as Governor of Maryland; WOODROW W. JONES, III, Colonel. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2017 Doc: 58 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pgs. 8,9,20,21 of 41

 

Tennessee’s statute, TCA 39-17-1308 which makes it a crime for a non-violent felon citizen to bear a rifle or shotgun for lawful purposes outside of valid hunting or sport shooting is unconstitutional on its face.  Government is not responsible for providing safety or security to any individual, and, it should not be allowed to deny non-violent felon citizens to enjoy the ability to provide their own security and safety with the best tools available, especially when those rights are protected by the Constitution.

 

It was never a crime in Tennessee to carry a loaded long gun until 1989 when under a Democrat governor, a Democrat controlled House and Senate that constitutional right was stripped away by statute.  “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.  An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law.  The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)  The non-violent felon citizen of Tennessee is the intended beneficiary of the 2nd Amendment, and there is no historical tradition  of denying the lawful use of long guns.

[RED333]

So if I understand this, the law keeping us from carrying a loaded long gun is null and void? Or are we going to get the law changed?

[Worriedman]

The law is unconstitutional, I am working on it.  I have a number in the House appraised, need help in the Senate.

[Pain103]

On 11/22/2023 at 6:38 PM, RED333 said:

So if I understand this, the law keeping us from carrying a loaded long gun is null and void? Or are we going to get the law changed?

We are under the Sixth Circuit.