Can you imagine a state requiring a “good and substantial reason” to get an abortion?
Can you imagine a Republican candidate for president getting away with suggesting it?
Yet, until Monday, the state of Maryland required residents to show a “good and substantial reason” why they needed to own a handgun.
Consider, further, that the right to an abortion was drafted in 1973 by a court – and the right to keep and bear arms was written into our Constitution in 1791.
With no other constitutional right is any American expected to produce a “good and substantial reason” to exercise that right. You simply have that right. A right is a right – not something to be determined by the government on a case-by-case basis.
It’s amazing that it took until now for the Maryland law to be struck down by a federal district judge.
And the story of how it was successfully challenged in court is, by itself, amazing. And frightening.
Raymond Woollard had been denied a renewal of his handgun permit in 2009 – despite the fact that, in 2002, he had actually tussled with an intruder in his home.
Think about that: This man had actual experience with a home invader, and yet some bureaucrat made the preposterous and presumptuous decision that he didn’t need a gun for protection.
Besides the fact that it was an outrageous decision to deny this man a gun, do you really want the government to have that kind of arbitrary power over your ability to defend yourself?
And, oh by the way, what logical sense does it make to disarm a law-abiding resident when the criminals, by definition, don’t abide by the laws? Haven’t you merely disarmed the good guys and given the bad guys an unwarranted advantage?
More importantly, by giving the government the power to decide when its residents would have rights under the Constitution, didn’t the state of Maryland reduce the Constitution to little more than a guideline?
It means a little more than that today, thank goodness.