ALBANY, NY (08/07/2012)(readMedia)–– The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association joins with other State Rifle Associations and local gun groups in filing an Amicus Curiae urging affirmance by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals of the decision rendered by U.S. District Judge Benson Legg in the case of Woollard v Sheridan which found Maryland's discretionary handgun licensing system to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Similar to New York's own Sullivan Law, Maryland's system allows licensing agents to arbitrarily deny a license to carry concealed handguns for personal protection to citizens who cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of officials a "good and substantial reason" exists for such a license to be issued.

There is no legitimate reason for a specifically enumerated civil right to be denied based upon the whims of politicians or bureaucrats. All laws pertaining to the 2nd Amendment must be subject to the same standard of strict scrutiny as the 1st Amendment.

Arguments in the case are tentatively set for October 23-26, 2012.

A copy of the brief is available on the NYSRPA website at:

http://www.nysrpa.org/files/woollard_v_gallagher-amicus.pdf

4th Circuit Court.

NY is in the 2nd Circuit so a decision would not directly affect the Sullivan Law.

Yes, but that isn't up to us.



No, because Sullivan would not simply disappear because a MD law is ruled unconstitutional.

I don't recall if there was a ruling in the 2nd district that would be in conflict with a ruling in the 4th bumping it to the Supreme Court. However, after hearing Antonin Scalia's recent comments, I would not be to sure that the Sullivan Law could be overturned. There seems to be a growing voice that "reasonable" restrictions are okay (contrary to "shall not be infringed") and "reasonable" seems to be an ever expanding definition. Seems like Chuck Schumer cannot find enough things to regulate with laser pointers being his latest target. Ban, ban, ban. That is all they seem to know these days.

On the bright side, people who are opposed to just about any particular right can use opposition to the Second Amendment as a guide post to infringing on the First, Fourth an Fifth amendments. If one can require licensing, registration, tests, background checks and references for the Second Amendment, I do not see why a license cannot be required to practice a religion, borrow a library book or write blogs. Eventually, I could see such restrictions termed "reasonable" as long as they do not outright prohibit exercise of any of those rights.