On Christmas Eve 2002, in Baltimore County, Maryland, Kris Lee Abbott broke into the home of his father-in-law, Raymond Woollard. Abbott, high on drugs, was looking for the keys to his wife’s car so he could drive to Baltimore to buy more drugs.
Woollard tried to keep him at bay with a shotgun, but Abbott wrested it away from him. Woollard’s son restored order by pointing a second gun at Abbot. The Woollards called the police, but it took them two-and-one-half hours to get there.
After the fracas, Woollard applied for, and received, a permit to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. The permit was renewed in 2006, but denied in 2009 by the State of Maryland, which determined Woollard had not demonstrated “a good and substantial reason” to carry a gun.
Woollard sued, and now U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg has ruled in his favor, striking down a portion of Maryland’s gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the country. You can read the ruling here.
The issue of the broad meaning of the Second Amendment has largely been settled by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010). Individuals do have the right to possess and carry weapons, albeit with certain limitations.
The issue raised in the Woollard case was whether Maryland was too broad in its attempt to curtail the number of individuals who own and carry guns.
Judge Legg acknowledged in his opinion that government has a compelling interest in public safety and crime prevention, and those interests can, in certain circumstances, “outweigh an individual’s liberty interest.”
However, empowering the state to determine a “good and substantial reason” for an otherwise law abiding citizen to carry a gun infringes on the individual’s Second Amendment rights, even if the proliferation of guns carries some risk.
“States have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself,” the judge wrote.
In other words, a citizen does not have to give a “good and substantial reason” for exercising an enumerated right.
Even with the decision, Maryland still has plenty of gun laws on the books. According to the Washington Post, “an applicant must undergo a criminal background check and provide employment verification and medical and psychiatric history.” Additionally, Maryland considers a gun permit applicant’s “propensity for violence and instability.”
These criteria appear to fall under the state’s compelling interest to ensure public safety, and do not conflict with the Second Amendment. But, as Judge Legg rightly determined, the state crossed the line when it made a value judgment that Mr. Woollard didn’t really have a good reason to carry a gun.