Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

A Federal Judge Gets It Right

March 14, 2012 by  

Do you want to know where your State stands regarding gun control? The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has established a scorecard.

Of course, 2nd Amendment supporters and The Brady Campaign differ on what makes a good score. Brady is looking for a high score. For 2nd Amendment supporters, the lower the score the better. The goal is to make your State a red State on The Brady Campaign’s map.

There was a good ruling in Maryland last week as a Federal judge struck down a State requirement that individuals prove they have a “good and substantial reason” for seeking a handgun carry permit. Judge Benson Everett Legg ruled: “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.”

It’s refreshing to see common sense exercised, for a change.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “A Federal Judge Gets It Right”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Vicki

    The Judge in the story writes

    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.”

    Being “permitted” to exercise a right is to make the right a privilege. The other way to comprehend the Judges comment is to say that the citizen does NOT have to ask permission nor to obtain a permit to exercise a right.

    How do YOU want YOUR rights handled? Do you really want to have to get a permission slip to exercise your right to state your opinion as we do here every day? If the government can demand that you get a permit for one right what really is there to stop government from demanding that you get a permit for any other right you might think you have?

    • PCW

      Vicki is absolutely right! Any state that requires a permit to own or carry a gun is in violation of the constitution. The right to own and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Any additional permission beyond the constitutional right constitutes an infringement and is therefore illegal and not allowed by the Second Ammendment!!

      • Mark

        Good Judge, We could All use more like Him, but now I fear Hes placed His head on a “chopping Block,” because He backs the U.S. Constitution & Our 2nd. Amendment Rights. Yes, WE DO have the RIGHT to Carry Firearms & to Protect Our Familys & Our Rights!.

        Supporting the U.S. Constitution is NOT what the Liberal Commies want. Perhaps They will see this Judge as a Threat & label Him a “Terrorist.”

        I say, May God Bless this Judge & all others who support Our Rights!. Lets ALL remember that this IS the best Country in the World & We will NOT give up Our Rights,Period.

        Thanks again Judge!

      • ChristyK

        Wyoming just passed a constitutional carry bill that went into effect last July.

      • DaveH

        Contact your Congressmen to make sure the right bill gets passed (if any):
        http://gunowners.org/al031312.htm

  • Del Wolfe

    It’s about time at least one of them got it right ! However the problem of our government still exists and above all most of the cops in ths country will not follow the judge. Especially the cops here in Las Vegas Nevada. The police here have a VERY HIGH KILL AVERAGE !
    Even the DOJ is currently investigation them I don’t expect much of a change..

  • Dave

    This is the exact response to the idea “if you have nothing to hide; you shouldn’t care!”

    • ChuckL

      Dave, you will have to explain exactly what you mean. As posted your comment is completely without reference to anything.

  • http://comcast Lee Bird -Veteran USMC

    YOU ARE TELLING ME I NEED A SCORE CARD FOR THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND PROTECT MYSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is your score card for Obama and Holder standing at the border responsible for guns sold to drug dealers that already have taken lives. The Supreme Court states that I may defend myself with equal force !!!!!!!!!!!! You will never hear opinion on gun control by anyone running for election because they know this is a right taken very seriously by the American people. NRA membership has increased vastly especially with woman, Gun sales and ammo have tripled which indicates more and more people are very concerned about their right TO BEAR ARMS.

  • Richard

    Obtaining a “permit” to do anything personal (buy, own, carry a firearm; add a room to your home; drive your own car) is government control. As “federal” law, by default of the cities, counties, and states (who, when they defer to federal laws become “de facto” agents for the federal government) colors everything (and controls by controlling the money: whoa, big surprise there!), we, the People, have lost any semblance of “local” control. It has been CEDED to the federal government (totally unconstitutionally, I add), who by this unwarranted default-granting of power, now rules as any centrally planned authoritarian government does. Recent examples? “Union” of Soviet Socialist Republics (yeah, right!). We have become the Union of Soviet-style (or NAZI-style) States. Sieg Heil! to the President, who rules like a dictator, because…WE LET HIM (WHOEVER HE IS, no matter the party).

  • PCW

    There are those who claim the words of the Second Ammendment allow the STATES to regulate firearms, However, show me one other case where the Constitution specifies a roght “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, where the States then have leighway to place infringements. The state laws limiting personal firearms are all unconstitutional, but the people allow them to stand because of fear and, yes, cowardess.

    • Jeff

      How, then, do you explain the first clause of the amendment? Remember, this is long before the 14th amendment. At the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, the States had all the power. The Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government. Only with the 14th amendment and the Mapp decision did rights like the 1st amendment apply to the states as well. I think it’s clear the 2nd amendment specifically grants states the right to regulate firearms. Since the amendment specifically leaves regulation with the states, Mapp can’t really apply to make the amendment enforceable against the states.
      By the way, the word is “cowardice.”

      • CZ52

        ” Only with the 14th amendment and the Mapp decision did rights like the 1st amendment apply to the states as well.”

        Jeff, if the 14th is what made the 1st amedment apply to the states it also makes the 2nd apply to the states and takes away any rights of regulation they have. You cannot have it both ways. The 14th either makes all of the bill of rights apply to the states as well as the feds or it has absolutely no effect on the rest of the constitution. I say again you cannot have it both ways.

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:

        How, then, do you explain the first clause of the amendment?

        explain what? The first clause is a justification. It is NOT a limit.
        http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

        • Jeff

          Vicki:

          Why does the 1st amendment have no such clause? It could also have been justified: A well-regulated Church or newspaper guild being necessary . . . .
          That may be a silly analogy, but no other amendment needs to be so justified. I don’t think the well-regulated militia language necessarily means that guns can only be used for a militia, but it is a justification for the States to regulate firearms as they see fit. If the “right” to bear arms were meant to be a personal right, the first clause would be entirely unnecessary.

      • vicki

        Jeff says:

        Why does the 1st amendment have no such clause? It could also have been justified:

        The link I provided you discusses that very thing. Try reading the article. It is long but explicitly covers your question.

        A well-regulated Church or newspaper guild being necessary . . . .
        That may be a silly analogy, but no other amendment needs to be so justified.

        Let us consider this:
        http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

        I don’t think the well-regulated militia language necessarily means that guns can only be used for a militia, but it is a justification for the States to regulate firearms as they see fit. If the “right” to bear arms were meant to be a personal right, the first clause would be entirely unnecessary.

        It is entirely unnecessary but not unusual. Read the articles in the links above.

      • anonymous

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        due to punctuation,it is a dual statement

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

        and

        being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        • David in MA

          FINALLY! Someone who has noticed the punctuation!!!
          Punctuation which clearify’s the meaning of the message!
          To bad the learned people in Congress and the Courts
          cannot understand, PUNCTUATION!!!

    • http://personalliberty.com jb

      Why in the world do people feel the need to correct others? Is it to try to make yourself feel better than them? Everyone understood what was meant. All you need to do is get your point across. Doing what you did makes you look bad.

      • David in MA

        Shareing begats information
        which begats understanding
        which keeps people like you
        from being punched in the nose!

  • David in MA

    Is the Judges use of the word “permitted” being mis-understood?
    I understand the use of the word to mean a citizen can just do it due to the Constitutions @nd Amendment allowing it, not by anyone’s permission thru a “permit” or someone’s “permission”.

    • Vicki

      That is the key to my original comment. Is the judge saying that you should be able to get a “permit” without having to show cause or is the judge saying that you should not even have to have a “permit”?

      In the context of the Judges ruling it would appear to be the former. As in making the permit process “shall issue”. That still means that you have to get a permit (in violation of the clear reading of the Constitution) but that you don’t have to justify to the government why you want the “permit”

      Since such a permit is a defacto registration of the gun owner it provides a very nice list for the government to use when it is time to round up all the gun owners and/or their guns.

  • dan

    the judge may have made a Freudian slip with permit…but it is not misunderstood.
    Freeman have rights….slaves seek permission.

  • Joe

    America,when are you going to wake up to the facts,that ,this govt.this administration is own its way to owning you and I.Anything the govt .does,or puts in place is not for our benifit.It is constructed for the benifit of the govt.
    History has shown us and the world ,what happens when govt.owns,runs,controls every aspect of peoples lives.
    This younger generation is totally ignorant as to what has happened to others that govts. were rulers.Sadly,most of them do not care.

  • raw

    I must be living in Bizarro world because I see it just the opposite – California got a high mark & Florida got a low one!?!?! It’s almost impossible to own a gun of any kind in CA, nobody will sell to you when they find out you live there. To their credit FL has that ‘Stand-Your-Ground’ law where, if you have the right to be in a place & someone’s harassing you, you can shoot them! California doesn’t have that! & in New Jersey, yeah, you can get a gun, but you can’t use it – If someone’s breaking in your home you’re supposed to slip out the back! & in Hawaii, if you’re being raped you’re supposed to call the police & wait for them to show up! Getting a gun & then not being penalized for using it are 2 very different things.

    • BH

      Yes, you got it backwards. The Brady folks give high scores to those states with the most restrictive gun laws; the lowest to those with the least restrictive. So as a conservative, just invert the scale created by the liberals.

  • Carolyn Cummings

    They’ll get mine when they pry it from my clod dead hand. PERIOD !

    • Vicki

      Be gracious about it dear. Give them the ammo first. :)

  • Buck

    It is all irrelevant . This administration has pretty much eliminated the United States constitution from any degree of authority , except of course when they can make it appear to support their crimes . George W. Bush set us up for a dictator with the passing of the patriot act to ” protect ” us . Just as soon as the demonrats saw the hole in our rights provided by said patriot act and other unconstitutional legislation after 9 / 11 they , with the aid of the treasoness press , slipped in their dictator . As our founders stated , once lost , liberty will not be regained without bloodshed , and as the American majority are now cowards , we can expect No bloodshed so as Franklin said , ” may your chains rest lightly on your shoulders ” .

    • Vicki

      Buck writes

      George W. Bush set us up for a dictator with the passing of the patriot act to ” protect ” us .

      As much fun as it might be to bash Bush I would like to mention that CONGRESS voted the bills.

      Just as soon as the demonrats saw the hole in our rights provided by said patriot act and other unconstitutional legislation after 9 / 11 they , with the aid of the treasoness press , slipped in their dictator .

      Saw? Not exactly. They created the holes.

      “Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. “I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing.”
      http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/25/1783040-in-1995-joe-biden-basically-wrote-the-patriot-act

  • MontieR

    Sadly this judge will probably not see another term. The liberals will if necessary manufacture something to get a different judge installed to further ruin the judiciary
    of that state.

  • 2WarAbnVet

    Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    Why else do you suppose government so desperately wants to destroy that right?

  • http://personalliberty.com Sheldon

    Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development.(Wikipedia)

    I heard that our rights are already given to us as members of the United States of America by our Constitution. Only way that our government will really tick us off when they admittedly tell us not just imply that they are doing away with the constitution. Currently Mr Obama by his obama care and other things he does that he is implying that he is abolishing the US Constitution. I do not think he will admit he is abolishing the US Constitution. He does not have the balls to tell the truth.

    • Jeff

      A lot of fancy words but what is the right? The 2nd amendment, if it confers a personal right to a firearm (which I do not think it does – it leaves their regulation to the states), in no way limits that right. Therefore, no limit could withstand Constitutional scrutiny. No laws preventing felons from having guns, crazy people, etc. Also, no laws against individuals having machine guns, military weapons, rockets, or atomic weapons. I’m sure the NRA agrees with this. If you treat everything you see as “infringing” what you see as a right as the camel’s nose under the tent, you end up with idiotic results.
      Saying Obama is disregarding the Constitution because his view of interstate commerce differs from yours is the kind of nonsense that has this country paralyzed.

      • s c

        J, maybe you’re not a utopian, but you are definitely a fence-sitter. READ Article 4, Section 4 of the CONSTITUTION. READ it, understand it, and tell us HOW it a “prez” can get a free pass via a so-called ‘position’ when the CONSTITUTION clearly states that every state has a constitutional right to defend itself when Uncle Scam REFUSES to protect states. Do you really think having OPEN BORDERS is a “right” that a “prez” can exercise when it’s CONVENIENT?
        Are you living in the past? Did you get exposed to ANY history when you picked up some sort of an education?
        Please get off the fence, and step up the 21st century.
        Ignorance is no excuse, and protecting an incompetent, arrogant, potentially paranoid, constitution-violating “prez” is NO excuse. WTF?
        My next question would challenge your position if you say corporations are “BAD,” but you couldn’t care less about the Fed [THE worst of all corporations on America].

        • Jeff

          Are you talking to ME? Your rant goes into every issue except what my post was about. You will never be happy with any president on immigration until machine guns are posted on the border. It happens Obama has sent back more illegal aliens than has anyone. But, it’s obvious that we invited these people here to work, whether the invitation was literal or sub rosa. The issue cannot be dealt with by bumper sticker. That’s worked out really well in Alabama. If something as obvious as the Dream Act can’t get passed because of attitudes like yours, then we’re really in trouble.

      • Thor

        Jeff, even if you had trouble understanding the written language—which I don’t think you do—perhaps you can understand a simple dialectic declension. Neither the Constitution nor the 2nd Amendment ‘confer’ anything: they merely acknowledge rights that already exist and their purpose is to limit the authority of government to ‘affect’ and ‘effect’ the inalienable rights that are inseparable from the person. I don’t (nor do you) need another person or a written document to tell me I have a natural and inalienable right to protect myself; and I certainly do not need bean counters and physicists and politicians to tell me the most efficient and effective way to accomplish that protection. So, here’s the common sense paradigm you seem to ignore: there is truth to the statement that “God made men but Sam Colt made them equal” and it is not heady uneducated aphorizing to say so! Pick any other means of protection you want—the slingshot, baseball bat, spear, broad sword, fists and feet, any other weapon you care to mention—one and all they require the kind of training and skill that separate the skilled from the unskilled in a manifold hierarchy of caste. It freed us from the feudal states and is perhaps the only means affordable to the common man–one and only one means unites all in equal skill—a firearm. And any impediment to acquisition and the bearing there of is in fact an ‘infringement’. Every utterance of government to that purpose throughout the history of firearms limiting statutory has been to protect itself from law abiding citizens; and it will only end when those citizens put a final stop to it.

        What’s more, for the first 158 years of US history there were no restrictions placed on gun ownership whatsoever; and every law passed since that time has been part and parcel to the utter futility of attempting to protect government. One need only look at the long history of five-year coups in South America, Rwanda, Darfur, etcetera, etcetera, to know that every where firearms have been outlawed in the general population, governments have become so oppressive the people were forced to arm themselves and overthrow them. Laws that infringe on rights have never stopped insurrection and revolution and they never will. The only thing we have proved here in the last century is that by trying to prevent revolution we simply cause it to occur. The next twenty years in this ‘free’ country ought to prove quite interesting to ‘living Constitution’ revisionists like you.

      • CZ52

        “The 2nd amendment, if it confers a personal right to a firearm (which I do not think it does …”

        The Supreme Court has said you are WRONG. The SC ruled the 2nd amendment applies to the individual right to own a firearm in Heller.

        Even if you apply it to the states it still gives the individual the right to own firearms because the militia spoken of in the 2nd is all citizens over 18 (I think) years of age. Since the militia is expected to furnish their own arms (that is what well regulated refers to) they must own those firearms.

    • Vicki

      Sheldon writes

      I heard that our rights are already given to us as members of the United States of America by our Constitution.

      You may have heard in error. Our rights were given to us by our Creator. The Constitution is simply a contract between We The People and an organization (government) to which we have delegated a VERY LIMITED set of powers to enable that organization to protect our Creator given rights.

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

      See Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. Further study to be found in the federalist papers.

    • Buck O’Fama

      bho did, however, during his days as a community organiser, publicly state that he has little regard for the Constitution and that he thinks we need to get rid of it . . .

  • Wolfman
  • FWO21

    Having to have a permit to carry a gun on your person is all about money; that is what everything is about. They can also keep track better of who has what, or at least that is what they think. You can sell or trade a gun and you don’t register somewhere that you don’t own it anymore. Anyway IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY.

  • dano

    Permits are Contracts, read the fine print. You agree to follow all future statutes per order of the state per penalty of law, usually 3-5 years jail. Drivers lic, marriage, real estate closing, banking, etc, Ever wonder why tax is voluntary? W2 is Going 2 War tax Bond,,,, W4 is tax 4 going to war…. Don,t sign contracts unless you read every word, and tell them to change everything you don,t like. Dems and Gop says you can bare arms anytime you want, wear tank tops?? hahahahaha unless you ask permission with a permit/

  • Paris

    Jeff, I listened to your video today on this website had to write a comment. This post is not about gun control. I’m a republican woman that never voted for anything other than a conservative ticket…however, I am very concerned about the contraceptive issue that is currently being discussed. I am not a freeloader, nor am I a slut or a prostitute and I could care less about Rush. He has nothing to do with my healthcare or my life. I was prescribed birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. So why shouldn’t my insurance cover that medication. Am I freeloading if my child’s Amoxicillin or my Levothyroxine is covered by insurance? What is the big deal here? I am also Catholic and don’t see bands of Catholic women screaming about their religious freedoms being infringed upon. In fact I only see men talking about this and it worries me. I am very seriously considering not voting at all in the upcoming IL primary because of this issue.

    • anonymous

      if your birth control is for a medical reason, it will be covered by your insurance already.
      this new introduction is to provide birth control and abortions for women that want an active sex life but want to force taxpayers to pay for it.

    • anonymous

      my mistake: instead of ‘taxpayers’ it should be ‘other people’

  • FWO21

    Paris, if you don’t vote, that will be one more vote for the democrats. I thought the same way, but changed my mind. Women had to fight for the right to vote so I would take advantage of it, if I was you. Since I’m not you, I am going to.

  • David C. Harwood

    We really need someone in the Oval Office who understands and respects the Constitution. Allow me to nominate Judge BENSON EVERETT LEGG for PRESIDENT !!!

    The phrase “the right of the People” is used four times in the Bill of Rights. Though it may not be perfectly clear in Article II, the context of the other three uses makes it obvious that this phrase refers to an individual right – NOT a right reserved to the States. It would not be reasonable, for example, to suggest that the States have the right to peaceably assemble.

    In a land where the government is truly “of the People, by the People and for the People”, the government may be understood to be “the collective voice of the People” – our means of accomplishing things that could not be done individually. A few examples would be the construction of an interstate highway system, response to natural disasters and repelling invasion by foreign powers.

    Article II recognizes the right of “the People” to keep and bear arms – without exception. However, a society that is not completely naive must recognize that there are individuals to whom, for the common good, this right can not belong. There are three generally recognized exceptions: children, persons adjudicated as mentally incompetent, and persons convicted of violent behavior. The role of State government with respect to Article II is to facilitate the exercise of “the right to keep and bear” in an unrestrictive manor, while at the same time enforcing the above cited exceptions. Photo ID may suffice to prove that one is of majority age, but it would not be reasonable to expect the owner of a local gun shop to individually verify a potential customer’s mental condition or previous unlawful activity. The rationale for a gun permit is that one should demonstrate ONCE that one is not precluded from keeping and bearing arms. A state-issued permit, numbered and instantly verifiable for accuracy and currency, allows uninfringed exercise of Article II rights by qualified individuals while protecting society from those who don’t enjoy that right. What is necessary for universal access under Article II is that all 50 States MUST 1) pass SHALL ISSUE legislation (permit MUST be issued expediently to any applicant not barred by age, mental incapacity or previous violent behavior) and 2) agree to recognize such permits issued by other states.

  • http://betterhomesandgardensfurniture.co.uk/blog/?category_name=bathroom-taps-sets This Site

    I usually do not create a bunch of responses, but after browsing a few of the remarks on A Federal Judge Gets It Right : Personal Liberty Alerts.
    I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s allright. Could it be simply me or does it seem like some of the remarks look like they are written by brain dead people? :-P And, if you are posting on additional places, I’d like to keep
    up with anything fresh you have to post. Would you list of all of your shared pages like your
    linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

    • Jeff

      You’re in the right place if you’re looking for the brain dead. Also, the bigots, paranoid conspiracy nuts, gun nuts, all-around tools of the Koch Brothers, and wannabe Ayn Rands.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.