Maryland’s Second Amendment Battle

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Let me be clear.  I am not a proponent of and I think it’s heinous that the State of Maryland would ban or try to interfere with its citizens protecting themselves outside of their homes by carrying their weapons with them.  Here in Louisiana, your automobile is an extension of your home.  If you want to bring your weapon with you and you’re carrying it in your car, you’re basically carrying it in what amounts to an extension of your home.  That’s not what happened in Maryland.  Check out today’s audio and transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  There was an attempt by the legislature of the State of Maryland to make it illegal to leave your home with your weapon.  I believe this was a bill, and I’m not sure the precise details of it.  I do know it was passed.  I do know that it was appealed to a state court.  The state said: No, you can’t do that; the Second Amendment says you can’t do that.  Actually, that’s not what the Second Amendment says.  See my Project ’76 features “Militias Are Good And They Are Good For You, Parts I and II” for a complete and total explanation of the origin of the Second Amendment, from the source documents.  You won’t find this anywhere else.

Let me be clear.  I am not a proponent of and I think it’s heinous that the State of Maryland would ban or try to interfere with its citizens protecting themselves outside of their homes by carrying their weapons with them.  Here in Louisiana, your automobile is an extension of your home.  If you want to bring your weapon with you and you’re carrying it in your car, you’re basically carrying it in what amounts to an extension of your home.  That’s not what happened in Maryland.  The state legislature apparently passes this ban and it goes to a state court.  The state says you can’t do that and they strike the law down.

Then it goes to a federal appeals court.  The federal appeals court — which by the way, this case is convoluted, ought to have no say-so in the matter whatsoever.  It is a state law.  It is not in violation of Amendment Two because only the Congress can be in violation of Amendment Two.  Again, see “Militias Are Good And They Are Good For You” and our dozens upon dozens of discussions of what is known today as the Incorporation Doctrine.  The federal appeals court then says: Wait a minute, we need to hear this case, so they do.

[reading]

Gun owners in Maryland suffered a setback at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel decreed that the state can forbid residents to carry guns outside their homes.

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, again, I am not a proponent of this.  I think whoever’s brainchild this is, that brain-dead individual ought to be unelected, impeached.  I suspect this has Martin O’Malley’s fingerprints on it.  In other words, part of the legislative process in republican forms of government is to have the ability to elect different leaders of your political entities so that you can undo the damage done by the previous occupants.  Let me just be crystal clear.  I think the law is heinous.  I think it’s antithetical to liberty.  I think it infringes upon the natural rights and certainly the natural rights inherent in your civil liberties to defend yourself, especially in certain places in Baltimore that AG has told me I don’t ever want to be on those streets.  I hope they’re well marked if I ever go there again.  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — I haven’t read the opinion, the case is Woollard v. Gallagher — has actually got this correct.

[reading]

A three-judge panel decreed that the state can forbid residents to carry guns outside their homes. The case, Woollard v. Gallagher, had challenged a state law requiring residents to cite “a good and substantial reason” to obtain a concealed-carry permit. In practice, only professional security guards, judges and prosecutors can be exempt from the law’s prohibition. A lower court had found the law to be an infringement of the Second Amendment.  The issue is likely headed to the Supreme Court …

[end reading]

Mike:  I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen.  If the court is going to use its McDonald case as precedent, meaning the Heller and McDonald cases, the latest cases that have incorporated the Second Amendment and have taken the regulation out of the State of Maryland and turned it over to Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, then the court has to honor its own stare decisis.  If they’re going to be consistent, they have to tell Maryland: No, dude, you can’t do that.

Think of the converse of that.  Any state that tries to say: I think we ought to have a must-carry policy — you people that are opposed to the factual definition of the Incorporation Doctrine and the factual and real-world application of the first ten amendments of the Constitution and what they were written to do, those of you that refuse to accept the founders’ point of view and instead insist that you want the feds to handle this and this is a universal right from the ice world of Hoth and back, you also then preclude that if the federal legislature doesn’t say that your state can pass a law saying you must carry or that your city can pass a law saying you must carry, then the same court that can inviolate Maryland’s statute can then inviolate Georgia’s saying you have to carry.  You’re turning the power over to the central monster.  It’s not a smart thing to do.  It’s not a [r]epublican thing to do.  It’s not a constitutional thing to do.  It’s certainly not keeping with the vision and plan of the founders and the founding generation.

End Mike Church Show Transcript