Two 2nd Amendment cases provide right-to-carry victories in Maryland and Colorado

In Woollard v. Sheridan, a Maryland judge ruled the plaintiff did not have to prove “good and substantial reason” to carry. In Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled Colorado’s 2003 Concealed Carry Act entirely preempts the University of Colorado’s power to prohibit licensed carry.

So yesterday, we had two right-to-carry victories – although small ones – in Maryland and Colorado. David Kopel at Volokh Conspiracy writes…

Today, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Allison Eid, affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CCA entirely preempts the University of Colorado’s power to prohibit licensed carry. The Court rejected CU’s theory that because the University is created by the State Constitution, the Concealed Carry Act could only apply to the University if the statute expressly mentioned CU.

Because the case could be fully decided on statutory grounds, the Court declined to address constitutional issues involving the right of self-defense (Colo. Const., art. II, sect. 3) and the right to arms (art. II, sect. 13).

But over in Maryland, Woollard v. Sheridan, being argued by Alan Gura, flat out said self-defense is not limited to within the home.

In today’s decision on the merits, the “good and substantial reason” requirement was ruled to violate the Second Amendment. The court held that the Second Amendment right is not limited to self-defense in the home. It also includes the militia and hunting. None of the Second Amendment rights can logically be confined solely to the home: “In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”

Amen. Wollard is the case that may end up heading to the US Supreme Court.

The case is headed to the Fourth Circuit, which has a mixed record on Second Amendment issues. From there, Woollard could be the case in which the Supreme Court chooses to tell recalcitrant lower federal courts that Heller and McDonald really do mean what they say: that the Second Amendment includes the right to carry, albeit not in “sensitive places,” and the government may, if it wishes, require that carry be open rather than concealed.

6 replies
  1. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    Hurray for common sense !!
    Protecting your self is like free speech:? A right that can be exercized responsibly?anywhere in the U.S.A..??
    Even “Sensitive places”.

  2. dennis
    dennis says:

    Thank all of you who own guns. I do not own one. However I would feel much safer when all you who carry are around if something happens where you can prevent a tragedy or protect yourself as well as me.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      An added bonus is that in a right to carry state, you get the benefit of the doubt: you are as likely to be carrying as the next guy, and as such, make a criminal think twice, as opposed to being guaranteed to be disarmed, as you are in places with no carrying rights.

  3. JBS
    JBS says:

    Thank God for two more victories concerning right to carry. We are winning the battles against the anti-gun forces. I just hope that we don’t lose the war.
    Here in Connecticut: I just saw a State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers (interesting that it does NOT say “concealed” on it) whose issue number was over 1 million. In a state that is heavily Democrat and whose population is just over 3 million, I think that is quite good. (Not all million Permits are active.)
    I know a lot of people who carry on a regular basis and you would never know it. I must say that I meet the nicest people at the range.
    I wonder if the NRA was involved in either of these two cases?

Comments are closed.