FPC Urges Supreme Court to Restore the Human Right to Carry Arms in Public

Injunction Sought in Federal Lawsuit Over Riverside, California Sheriff Stan Sniff’s “Discriminatory and Unconstitutional” Handgun License Policies
FPC Urges Supreme Court to Restore the Human Right to Carry Arms in Public Throughout the U.S.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -(Ammoland.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an important United States Supreme Court brief in the case of Malpasso v. Pallozzi, asking the Court to hear a challenge to Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement for a firearm carry permit. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org.

“As the brief explains, we believe this case is worthy of the Supreme Court’s review for several reasons,” said FPC Director of Research and brief author, Joseph Greenlee. “By now, nearly every federal circuit court has addressed the right to bear arms in public. The courts have taken a variety of different approaches and have reached an even greater variety of outcomes. The result has been a different right from state to state, with the right essentially banned in many—leaving millions of Americans unable to exercise a fundamental right. Several courts have gone so far as to expressly request additional guidance from the Supreme Court in their opinions, and we hope that the Court will take this opportunity to provide that guidance.”

FPC was joined by amici organizations Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)(4) grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to advance individual liberty, restore freedom, and defend the People’s rights—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Background

  • Maryland forbids anyone from carrying a firearm in public without a permit.
  • Maryland issues permits only to applicants who can demonstrate a “good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.”
  • A desire to exercise the constitutionally protected right of self-defense is not a “good and substantial reason” according to Maryland. Rather, something like “apprehended danger’ is required.
  • Receiving a vague threat or living in a high-crime area is insufficient to establish “apprehended danger.” Even a clear and credible threat is not necessarily sufficient. Before issuing a permit, the government first considers how likely it is that the threat will be carried out, whether carrying a handgun is a necessary response, and if some other approach to protection is more appropriate.
  • The United States Supreme Court has strongly indicated that the right to bear arms for self-defense extends beyond the home. Some federal circuit courts have expressly held that it does. And no federal circuit court has held to the contrary. But several circuit courts have upheld good-reason standards that limit the exercise of the right to applicants who can provide a unique and government-approved reason to bear arms—like Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement. By requiring a unique reason, these good-reason standards necessarily forbid ordinary law-abiding Americans from carrying a gun.
  • FPC filed this brief to encourage the Court to establish consistency throughout the nation—so fundamental rights are not changing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—and even more importantly, so that every law-abiding person can freely exercise the natural right to bear arms.

About FPCFirearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)(4) grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the People’s rights—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the People’s rights and promote individual liberty through research, education, and legal action programs.

21
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
8 Comment threads
13 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
CaptainKeroseneWild BillArizona DonStWaynejack mac Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Arizona Don
Member
Arizona Don

No permit is needed here in Arizona and there is a story behind why we have constitutional carry here and all the good it has done.

Will
Member
Will

@AZ Don,Arizona has kept the #1 spot for being the most gun friendly state in the country for a reason. AZ is the blueprint for how the entire country should be. The major concern I have for Arizona and my home state of Texas is people fleeing from Kalifornia. They can still continue to vote regardless of where they are.

Arizona Don
Member
Arizona Don

It is becoming obvious the anti-gun presidential candidates (which is all of them at this point) are determined to pass more gun restrictive laws into effect should they attain a position of power in the upcoming (November 2020) election. In essence and quite obviously they desire to confiscate all guns. Some even admit to confiscation. That must never be allowed to happen in America. It is also a foregone conclusion the guns must be taken from the hands of the American citizens for these so called democrats to impose the promised fundamental transformation which we now can see is into… Read more »

StWayne
Member
StWayne

It’s a fact that, during WWII, the Japanese drew up plans to invade America, but then abandoned them when it realized that this country simply had too many armed citizens for their plans to succeed. So in 1945 they instead launched 9,000 fire bomb balloons, called Fu-Go’s, that drifted in from the Pacific Northwest and into Oregon, that only managed to kill a church Pastor’s wife who was a Sunday School Teacher, and five kids along for an outing. That’s when they stumbled onto something they couldn’t possibly comprehend. The minute they touched it, it went off. No other deaths… Read more »

CaptainKerosene
Member
CaptainKerosene

The Rocky Mountains and 8,000 miles of ocean made an invasion very difficult. A lack of fuel made it unlikely. It may be true that there were plans for an invasion of the west coast lower 48 states. The invasion of a the Lower 48 States did not happen because the Japanese did not have an island base 20 miles from the west coast. The invasion of Alaska was a diversion because of the attack of Midway and other Pacific islands/nations. Maybe there would be a resistance of citizens militias as well as the Army and Marines, But winter in… Read more »

StWayne
Member
StWayne

Show me an ignorant population, and I will show the chains that bind them.

Bill
Member
Bill

Show me a non-ignorant population that doesn’t foolishly give up its rights because some petty politician is able to convince it of what a good idea that is, and I’ll hope to move to where they are! America had it all, but we don’t hear that phrase, “It’s a free country,” much, anymore. Wake up, America, and save yourself before it is too late!

Ed
Member
Ed

State carry laws are a Civil Rights Violations. The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. The right to KEEP and BEAR arms, possess and carry, is covered in the 2nd Amendment. Based on the 10th Amendment the right to Keep and bear Arms is not a states issue.

Stuck in Commie Ct
Member
Stuck in Commie Ct

With all these unconstitutional laws in every state making it impossible to live by the rules of our constitution, fearing prosecution, makes it pretty clear all citizens of the United States live in a police state already.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Stuck, They can not be laws if they are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional Acts of the Legislature or unconstitutional Acts of Congress.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Non compliance with unconstitutional laws is not violating; it is defying. All unconstitutional acts should be defied. Our public servants we allow to be armed, but no more armed than we the people who they are suppose to serve. We need to remind those paid to serve that we the people are the boss.

Charles Nichols
Member

These are the same folks who argued in their Richards v. Prieto lawsuit along with the #NRA’s Peruta v. San Diego lawsuit that Justice Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller that states can ban #OpenCarry in favor of concealed carry. Justice Scalia said that concealed carry is not a right. – https://youtu.be/hmrfyYBdA-E

Which makes them either immoral liars or mentally defective fools. Either way, they should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm and neither should anyone who thinks the same way.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

TRUE! 1. NO Right may be required to purchase a permit, license or pay a tax to utilize. 2. Democrats for over 75 years have been staffing the courts with anti-America activists. Late at night, democrats will pass blocks of ‘judges’ (20 or 30 ‘judges’) with out peer review. 3. Americans are wholly ignorant of the Constitution. 4. Americans believe government is their master. IT IS NOT! 5. The Second Amendment is the ONLY enumerated Right with the COMMAND ..”shall not be infringed.” That is NOT ambiguous. 6. “infringed” has not changed its meaning for over 500 years. 7. Governments… Read more »

Crotalus Maxximus
Member

Yes it does. Article 1 SECTION 8 line 17 in my pocket version of the Constitution. To raise Army and Naval forces I would assume that means Guns.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@CM, Army and Navy, yes, and maybe other forces that grow out of the Army and Navy. How about BATFE, HUD, and FEMA personnel?

Arizona Don
Member
Arizona Don

Many of the agencies now under federal control are not in the constitution and therefore according to the tenth amendment either an amendment to the constitution or organized and run by the states is necessary to be legal. However, no one challenges them and therefore nothing is ever done to make them legal. Without a challenge the Supreme Court cannot make a decision on legality. For that reason according to the constitution they could now be declared unconstitutional and therefore illegal!

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@AD, You get a gold star for the day.

Rec
Member
Rec

Crotalus, what does that have to do with the original question? an army and the militia are exclusive entities.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

See how the simple-minded reflexively support the government, their master.
NO WHERE is the government, that means ALL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, allowed to own firearms by the Constitution.
In the Constitution, “raising an army” would be the armed People at large.
The “navy” would be a MILITARY adjunct, NOT the FBI, BATF, or any other FAKE “law enforcement” agency that had NO authority outside the ten square miles of Washington, D.C.
Kneel and worship your master, the government.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Same judges who will seek and joyfully sign red flag warrants. Criminal courts are not a justices system, but are a system to subjugate citizens to the sub-citizen prohibited class. Citizens are being denied the right to arms one by one in mass at an accelerating rate. The judicial branch is no longer an equal part of our government. Instead it is an extension institute of the evermore oppressive government.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” —Thomas Jefferson, excerpted from letter to Peter Carr, 1785. Carrying your firearms was a natural Right until the anti-America activist democrats decided to push for a communist United States. Back in the… Read more »