A federal court in Maryland has handed a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a challenge of the state law restricting carry in certain locations. The court declared three provisions in the statute to be unconstitutional. The case is known as Novotny v. Moore.
Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III for the District of Maryland, a Barack Obama appointee, issued the 13-page ruling and a separate order granting summary judgment enjoining the state from enforcing provisions in the law which restrict the carrying of firearms in: (1) locations selling alcohol for onsite-consumption, (2) private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and (3) within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.
“We are pleased that the court found Maryland’s draconian ‘anti-carry’ rule to be unconstitutional,” says SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Such a provision flies in the face of this nation’s history and tradition. Of course, we will examine the court’s opinion and weigh our options for appeal to continue to challenge other provisions we believe are unconstitutional.”
SAF is joined by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla. The case was consolidated with a similar case known as Kipke v. Moore.
“We’re delighted by the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is just one more step in SAF’s ongoing effort to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”
A victory for the Good Guys.
Well another step in that direction, it will matter when it takes effect vs when the state appeals to the circuit level to see if anyone notices before the next round (much like what we are going through).
Joe and Kamala say this is so very wrong. It’s alright to carry a gun around, in some circumstances, but you should never have a gun in a place where you might actually need it. Or worse, use it! Keep your guns at home, so they won’t impulsively jump out of your holster, and start massacreing innocent criminals!
Ok hiding the spam posts seems to work, cool.
So now it’s perfectly OK for some drunken fool to carry FIREARMS and then to enter MY property with them against my specific wishes and yo carry them whilst DRUNK in a Public Demonstration? Only in America
Still pretending to be relevant? Don’t you have riots to ignore after some rapefugee stabbed a bunch of kids. Oh and be sure to keep your kitchen knives without tips there slave.
With all that out of the way welcome back Jerry guessing it took a while to get back to baseline with the meds.
Great Briton where the subjects are subjected to the possibility of being sliced and diced daily.
Welcome Welcome but be sure to bring a set or 2 of full body armor.
Oh! Mr Hall, public drunkenness is still against the law and all one need do is call the police(via 911) and wait for them to arrive and arrest the drunk.
Does that sound familiar. The left advises people to call the police if an armed bad guys makes an appearance, and then wait on the police to arrive.
Two(2) wait periods and believe it or not one(1) is far better than the other even if the drunk is armed.
An armed drunk is just that an armed drunk, whereas an armed bad guy is looking to do harm.
Surely Albert you can see(C) the difference in the possible outcomes of the two(2) examples above.
Or perhaps you are just another Brit with no Grit.
No one is saying any such thing Albert. Stop making stuff up to troll with.
You assume too much. So in retort, I’d like to say, ” I would definately would be conceal carrying on your property without you even knowing it, in case my life is threatened by the folks who would tresspass your property to rape or kill you because your unarmed and rely on the GOVT to protect you. Also, You ” assume” that everyone who owns and carries a sidearm would be drinking at all or drunk, shows me, there may be a need for intervention based on your possible addiction to coolaid beverages served hot from M S N B see, Finally, ” YES”, Its probably none of your business if Im armed or not, this has already been decided by the constitution, not open to debate except as the constitution provides. Your faith in GOVT efficiency is astounding. I can hear it now, ” Hello! 911? Yes… Ummm.. Theres one of those crazyyyy gun owners!!! Hes drunk and scaring people with his gun that I assume they have…. Please…. come save meeeee…… Billyeeee Nooooo!!!!! HaHa…. So funny….. We need to take the warning labels off stuff……. Merica!
sir albert of nuttingham…Outside of democrat ran cities try waving a firearm around while drunk and you’ll wake up in a drunk tank needing a bail bondsman…with your love for Gun Control you and the third reich have something very rotten in common.
Sorry, this is not a win. It is a net loss any way you look at it. There are still a multitude of places those with permits cannot carry that they could before the law was enacted. Further, the state will now appeal the decision to the 4th circuit and request a stay. In all likelihood, the stay will be granted as the 4th leans pretty far left.
If any part of a gun control law is allowed to remain, it is another chip at individual freedom and encourages the gun grabbers to try for more.
“There are still a multitude of places those with permits cannot carry that they could before the law was enacted.”
All a circuit court decision amounts to is a ticket to ride the twilight train into the appeals process.
These days, even SC decisions amount to little.
I am a member of a small range in West Virginia. One day the owner told me a story about a relative of his and a WV State Forester who was required to carry on the job. For a while he was responsible for two properties with the only route between them being through Maryland. You would think that there would be some cooperative accommodation between states to allow this guy to drive through Maryland armed, particularly in a state car, in the case of an emergency, but, no the state police stop him every time to make sure his sidearm is locked up in one box and his ammunition in another. The gun and ammo in question are WV State property BTW and Maryland would confiscate them!