On November 21, 2023, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found the State of Maryland had violated the Constitution with their recent handgun purchase law. The law requires considerable delay and process before a person can legally purchase a handgun. The opinion specifically states the recent add-on law enacted in 2016 infringes on the Second Amendment by hindering the right to acquire a handgun. From the opinion:
But—for handguns specifically—before you do any of that, there is an additional, preliminary step: You must also obtain a “handgun qualification license.” See § 5-117.1. Getting that license requires, among other things, submitting fingerprints to undergo a background “investigation” and taking a four-hour-long “firearms safety training course” in which you must fire at least one live round. Then, after submitting your application for this extra license, you must wait up to thirty days for approval before you can start the rest of the process.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the state from enforcing only this additional, preliminary handgun-licensure requirement. And Plaintiffs’ challenge must succeed. The challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one. Under the Supreme Court’s new burden-shifting test for these claims, Maryland’s law thus fails, and we must enjoin its enforcement. So we reverse the district court’s contrary decision.
The three-judge panel was split. Two judges voted for the majority opinion. One judge wrote a dissent against it.
The dissenting judge, Barbara Milano Keenan, is a senior judge, which means she is a semi-retired judge who helps out. She was born in Austria but schooled in the United States. Keenan was appointed by former President Barack Obama. One of the arguments put forward by Judge Keenan in the dissent is to claim “infringe” means to destroy totally. It is an exceedingly weak argument. Judge Richardson, in the opinion, comments on the argument in footnote 8, on page 11. Richardson stressed the dictionary meaning from the contemporary Samuel Johnson Dictionary. From footnote 8, page 11, commenting on the dissent.
Compare Samuel Johnson, 1 Dictionary of the English Language 1101 (4th ed. 1773) (“Johnson”) (defining “infringe” as “[t]o destroy; to hinder” (emphasis added)), and Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (“Webster”) (defining “infringe” as “[t]o destroy or hinder” (emphasis added)), with Johnson at 1007 (defining “to hinder” as “to cause impediment”), and Webster(defining “hinder” as “to obstruct for a time” and “[t]o interpose obstacles or impediments”). So too do other sources that the Supreme Court has used to interpret the right. See1 St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 143 n.40 (1803) (“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . . and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree. . . .” (emphasis added)); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846) (“The right of the whole people . . . to keep and bear arms. . . shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.” (third emphasis added));
You can see Judge Keenan uses the same definition from the Johnson dictionary but puts forward exactly the opposite meaning. Hinder is far from destroyed, yet Judge Keenan would have us believe they are the same thing. From the dissent by Judge Barbara Milano Keenan in footnote 9, page 36:
9 Notably, some definitions from the Founding era of the term “infringe” support the construction that the Supreme Court appeared to endorse in its discussion of shall-issue regimes, namely, that a particular provision will “infringe” an individual’s rights under the plain text of the Second Amendment only if the statutory condition is so burdensome that it ultimately prevents law-abiding, responsible individuals from possessing or bearing a handgun. Samuel Johnson, 1 Dictionary of the English Language 1101 (4th ed. 1773) (hereinafter Johnson) (defining “infringe” as “[t]o violate; to break laws or contracts” or “[t]o destroy; to hinder”);
Judge Keenan would have us believe the word “infringed” in the Second Amendment is a synonym for “destroyed.” This is a word game Progressives love to play. Change the clear meaning of words to achieve political objectives.
The next step in the Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore case will be up to the State of Maryland. They, as defendants, could ask for the case to be considered by the Fourth Circuit en banc (by the whole Court). Such a request may or may not be granted. This case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case is uncertain.
Many Second Amendment supporters focus on the phrase “shall not be infringed.” Judge Barbara Milano Keenan argues the phrase means “shall not be destroyed.” When you change the meaning of words to win an argument, you are not arguing in good faith. Progressives have never argued in good faith about the Constitution and the rule of law. They believe both are impediments to unfettered power wielded by the government. As such, gun control is in the DNA of the Progressive movement.
Progressive judges work exactly the opposite of what the founders believed the role of the Judiciary should be. Instead of a check on governmental power, Progressive judges work to increase governmental power.
Court Strikes Down Maryland’s Infringement of Second Amendment Rights by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Infringing is infringing no matter how many increments you break it into and start banning those increments. To all Communist Maryland lawmakers who passed this unconstitutional law – you should be removed from office, fined and jailed, if not worse, for being domestic enemies of the US Constitution. Your tyranny is only surpassed by your arrogance. We the People are sick of both.
If you truly are sick of all this crap and nonsense, then read my posting above and spread it around to as many people as you can! Make copies of my paper called The UNIVERSAL Get Out Of Jail For Free Card!, and hand them out to people who are going into the local courthouse parking lot! Hand them out to people who are going to a flea market or just on a street corner! Join me in my fight for your Rights!!
I don’t think they would understand it. We need to put it in terms that they understand.
HLB
That would be virtually impossible as you would run the risk of doing something immoral and illegal against minor children or animals in order to convey your point to them.
How about making a comment that makes at least a little bit of sense?
Did you read it? It’s in VERY simple terms that anyone with an IQ of 100 could grasp!
deport them to canada, they can join the rest of the royalists
Does any sane adult in the 21st century expect any government to obey laws that it disagrees with?
EXACTLY my point!! And the only way to get rid of that phenomena, is to dismantle the fake power and authority of the bogus legal system that breaks as many, if not more laws than it enforces! The entire legal system is based upon crimes of some kind, and I can prove it all day long, but who really wants to hear that? Too many people don’t like having their own little cart filled with rotten apples over turned, so they balk and bray at the truth!
The authors of the Constitution and it’s amendments lived in a time wherein the English language was taught with emphasis on proper usage and understanding. They knew how the lack of clear understanding leads to ambiguity or intentional corruption of the message.
Those who would interpret the Constitution, as judges do, need first be scholars of the English language. Basing decisions on the language, as it was taught in the founders time, while ignoring bastardized modern English.
The Bruen decision’s historical test should also apply to using proper English to interpret Constitutional law.
But more importantly than even that, is the asking of the question of where is our written guarantee that we will be treated fairly in the legal system, especially when it can easily be shown that it is completely biased and UNFAIR against us?? The legal system is a BUSINESS which is set up to rip us off! WHERE is our lawful obligation to be harmed by the legal system!!
We should not be harmed by the legal system. That system has an obligation to follow the constitution and such. Failure to do so is subject to action by the people (our “written” guarantee). The legal system is not self-correcting, because, by its nature, explicit in its wrongful actions, it projects its intentions and inability to do so.
HLB
There is no guarantee of fairness in a system that has unlimited access to taxpayer (your) money to prosecute you while defense attorneys charge huge sums you cannot afford without help.
Additionally, the latest left wing craze is using the process of the courts to punish a defendant who will probably beat the charges, eventually, but only after accumulating massive battle scars.
Which is the reason why you cut the legs of the legal system off at the HIPS, not the knees, and you do it with a damn chainsaw!! THAT is what I am all about in writing my various papers that expose the criminality of the legal system! Why deal with it at all? Just demand that no one in the legal system commits any kind or amount of crime against you! What is anybody there going to say to that? That they have some kind of a right to commit a crime against you? WHERE is THAT written down??
democrats are like cockroaches..
just when you think you have your dirty little infestation under control…
another batch of them pops up.
Police in this blue state will continue enforcing ‘draconian’ handgun law ruled unconstitutional by court
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/police-blue-state-continue-enforcing-draconian-handgun-law-ruled-unconstitutional-court
And THIS looks like a perfect place to hand out copies of my papers about the corruption of the legal system, of which Maryland’s State Police are a part of!! They KNOW that they are acting unlawfully, but continue to do it anyway because they think that they can get away with it forever! But when we dismantle their criminal enterprise, what are they going to do then? Are they going to hold their breath until they turn blue in the face?
a group that should be disbanded and the leaders hung for treason
Each and every person whose fingerprints touch the willful creation and activity of an unconstitutional law should be made to reimburse the taxpayers for every single dime as well as face criminal prosecution for willful neglect of statutory duty. There is absolutely no way in hell that these people can be in public service and not know that their agendas are unconstitutional. If they are that stupid there is no way they belong in public service under any circumstances.
they belong at the end of a short rope
It may have been ruled unconstitutional by a court but the Delaware state police have issued a statement saying they will continue with the current policies until a court mandates them to stop.
Once the citizens start filing and pursuing civils cases against each and every individual law enforcement officer as well as the jurisdiction that violates the Constitution their duty and their oath they will pretty much decide to follow the Court’s orders.
The Maryland legislature will just write another obtuse law to circumvent this decision. (don’t they always?).
Some FREE Hickory Shampoos need to be distributed to infringers.
hickory riding posts ah la Vlad would be better
Readem and weap Oregoneistan leftists/ Tina KoteX. This is the future of your Measure 114 that requires a license to purchase a gun. FBI, your move changing from not doing background checks to doing them for 3 months so the unconstitutional argument of the new law would be void will go the way of the Dodo bird.
In the words of Randy Travis, it’s just a matter of time.
FFBI, FJB, FATF, FDOJ FNWO
Kotex and Brown can eat a bag of dicks..
oh wait… they don’t like those things.
I have to update you. KoteX only eats at the Y. Brown not only eats at the Y but loves hot dogs too! Gross.
naw, she just married a hotdog to further her Y career.
But the bottom line in all of this legalese and hoopla and “interpretations” of what means what by whom and where and when, we get to this point here, which is that the men and women who are Actors, Officers, Agents and Operators of the legal system, CANNOT be trusted to get ANYTHING right! When even the USSC/SCOTUS, which is alleged to be composed of some of the best legal minds in the country is unable to come to a correct decision, as was exemplified in the original decision if Roe v. Wade in 1973, then just how can we… Read more »
An online study of the word infringe yields some understanding. This includes the ‘Dictionary of the English Language” by Samuel Johnson (1755), ChatGPT, and others: because It stems from Latin “fimbria,” which referred to a border or fringe, and “in” refers to the penetration or breaking of that border, Judge Keenan saying that to “infringe” means to destroy totally, really only means that the fringe was penetrated or destroyed, not the whole thing destroyed. ChatGPT suggested an interesting possibility in that the concept of a broken “fringe”, or Latin “fimbria,” which evolved from the Latin verb “frangere,” which means “to… Read more »