Let Freedom Ring Out...One Round At A Time

by Delegate Michael A. McDermott
There are always challenges living in a free society. Perhaps the first is ensuring that freedom continues to prosper corporately, and the second is to ensure that one’s personal freedom is not ravaged by those who may seek to do harm.

Our wise founders took care of both in declaring our freedom and then establishing our collective Constitution to protect the essence of that liberty. Like many liberal states in the Union, Maryland has long rejected the rights of individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm through the use of a firearm concealed on their person. Denying them this liberty became the subject of a lawsuit known as the “Woollard Case”.

In recent days, the Hon. Judge Benson Legg of the Federal Court of Appeals has issued his awaited order in the case declaring that Maryland’s “good and substantial cause” standard represents an unconstitutional burden for Marylanders.

The court has clearly stated that our people do not need a “good and substantial” reason to exercise their God given (and Constitutionally recognized) right to protect themselves and their loved ones with a firearm at all times. The burden does not rest on the individual to prove they have a need, and this ruling will require the Maryland State Police to come up with new standards when it comes to the issuance of Carry Permits.

This is not the end of the fight, but it represents a true milestone in the battle to have Maryland join the majority of states which do not stand unnecessarily in the way of their citizens right to wear and carry firearms. Kudos to those who have fought the good fight. Particular praise should be ascribed to Delegate Michael Smeigel (R-Cecil) who has been rock steady in raising the questions in the House Judiciary Committee in recent years. His work has not gone unnoticed and has truly defined the position of the Maryland State Police when it comes to the issuance of Handgun Carry Permits on the record.

States that have trusted their citizens with the right to carry firearms have benefitted from lower murder rates and fewer violent crimes. States that have stood in the way of their people continue to struggle.

The bottom line in Maryland is this: If you want to protect a piece of gold on your way to the bank, the state will allow you, as a merchant, to have a permit to carry a firearm while making the deposit. If you want to transport diamonds from one place to another, the state will allow you to protect your property with a concealed firearm. Yet, up until this decision, the same state police will not allow you to conceal a firearm to protect your family when you take a trip to the mall.

There is something terribly skewed when we place greater value on jewelry and money than we do on those we love. Is there any question of “greater value” in these cases? While carrying a firearm may not be the choice of everyone, it should be recognized as a precious right of a free people. It should not be up for debate.

A government “of the people” should not fear those same people and their right of self protection. When government steps in to differentiate between certain rights over others, the red flags should go up in the hearts of all who love freedom.

I encourage all who desire one to file the required paperwork for a Wear and Carry Permit with the Maryland State Police. Clearly, the burden for a citizen to prove a need has been lifted. The burden now rests with the state to find a legitimate reason to deny the right.