A victory for the Second Amendment:
Maryland residents do not have to provide a “good and substantial reason” to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state’s requirements for getting a permit.
U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland’s objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting to own a gun.
“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
This judge has it exactly right. You don’t need to give a “good and substantial” reason for exercising your First Amendment right to free speech (though the Obama Administration is trying hard to make you give a good reason for exercising your freedom of religion), so why should you have to give one for exercising your Second Amendment rights?
It’s not mentioned in the article linked above, but I’d be somewhat surprised if the anti-freedom forces didn’t try appealing this ruling.