A civil rights victory
<p>Today we scored what may be the most important civil-rights victory since the Heller ruling in 2008. Woollard v. Sheridan was found for the plaintiffs, and<br />
Maryland&#8217;s law requiring concealed-carry applicants to show &#8220;good and substantial reason&#8221; for their permit applications has been found unconstitutional.</p>
<p><span id="more-4174"></span> </p>
<p>Consitutional carry &#8211; no permit at all required, as in Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, and Arizona &#8211; would of course be better.  But the remarkable thing about this decision is the judge&#8217;s language in striking down the Maryland restrictions.</p>
<p>Key sentences: &#8220;The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home&#8221; and &#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>The standard the judge is setting up for the constitutionality of firearms laws comes very near the &#8220;strict scrutiny&#8221; standard associated with First Amendment law.  While the judge did not use the phrase &#8220;strict scrutiny&#8221;, he cited among reasons to strike down the law that it is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to the state&#8217;s public safety interests &#8211; a classic strict-scrutiny argument.</p>
<p>The decision will be appealed to the Fourth Circuit appellate court, which has only a mixed record on Second-Amendment issues. But the plain and powerful language of the judge&#8217;s opinion will be difficult to overturn without outright ignoring the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in D.C. vs. Heller, setting the appellate court up for reversal.</p>
<p>This is a major victory for civil rights, argued by the same Alan Gura who won the D.C. vs. Heller case.  With eleven mores states considering constitutional carry and a national right-to-carry reciprocity bill live in Congress, the legal climate around firearms rights is steadily improving.</p>
