The Washington Post weighs in on a current controversy, fitting for my 16 week 2301s since they've been reading through the Bill of Rights and how the court tends to reinterpret it from time to time - occasionally finding rights beyond those explicitly listed. 8 week 2301 students will be hitting this subject soon enough.
Last week, a federal judge in Maryland concluded that it does and in the process struck down a Maryland licensing provision for carrying concealed weapons in public.
. . . Judge Legg agreed, building on the 2008 Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The court emphasized the saliency of the right especially in the home and especially for self-defense. Judge Legg concluded that the Constitution and the high court’s holding must also be read to protect an individual’s right to carry weapons outside the home. Maryland’s “good and substantial” requirement impermissibly infringed on that right, he said.
The paper editorializes that the decision ought to be reviewed by the federal courts, and there's little doubt that they will. This is worthy of discussion. Does the state's interest in preserving public peace (as it sees fit) trump individual rights?
- An editorial from the Daily Caller.
