Today I attended the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals proceedings on the legality of Maryland's "May-Issue" CHP law.
Bottom line: I'm damned glad I don't have to put up with Maryland's Mickey-Mouse anti-liberty government.
Attorney Alan Gura presented his argument to a three-judge panel that the Maryland CHP law violates the 2nd Amendment because there is no way for a citizen to legally carry a handgun for self-defense outside a home or business without having to prove some kind of need (good and sufficient reason).
The Maryland lawyer spouted all the old, worn out gun-control mantras, as to why the state needs to tightly control carry of evil handguns. He said that "public safety" was more important than any individual right conferred by the Second Amendment. I flashed back to the 1980s as he was speaking.
Maryland claimed that D.C. v Heller said that the Second Amendment only applies to a person having a gun in their RESIDENCE, thus their CHP law was legal since it only controlled carry OUTSIDE the home. That, of course, was pure baloney. The Heller and McDonald rulings never said that the Second Amendment does not apply outside a residence. The Supreme Court wasn't asked to answer the question about outside the home carry and, therefore, didn't.
Judge Davis brought up an idea: what if open carry was allowed without a permit? (In Maryland you can't open or conceal carry a handgun without a permit.) Basically, this would be closer to Virginia, but with a "may-issue" concealed carry permit.
The Maryland lawyer then brought up that shotguns and rifles could be carried outside the home, just not handguns. (I suggest that Maryland Shall Issue might want to have a "shotgun picnic," where the attendees all have shotguns slung on their backs. They should invite the press and say, "This is silly, but based on Maryland law this is the only legal option for regular citizens to carry a gun for self-defense. Carrying a handgun discreetly is what we want to be able to do, just like other gun owners do in the rest of the country. Maryland makes that either impossible or impractical, ignoring the Second Amendment.")
One judge asked about only allowing revolvers to be carried and not semi-automatic pistols, since semi-automatic handguns didn't exist when the Second Amendment was written. Since the judge wasn't writing with a quill pen and didn't come to work on a horse, he's obviously a hypocrite.
Another judge tried to imply that the Court didn't have authority over this case, but I think Alan quashed that idea. We'll see.
How will the panel vote? No way of knowing. We should have some kind of opinion in a few months.