This doesn't seem like good news for those of us in Hawaii. Without knowing more details, perhaps there are some specific legally salient aspects that differentiate the Maryland law from Hawaii's, this law sounds rather similar to Hawaii's "may issue" criteria. I hope I'm wrong and the Ninth Circuit rules for the Second Amendment in Baker v. Kealoha, and it is then upheld (not heard) by the Supreme Court.

Re this quote: "...did not provide documents to “verify a threat beyond his residence,” ". So I guess you need to get enough prior notification from a criminal who intends to assault or rob or burglarize or car jack or home invade or rape or murder you, so you can get to the police station and file the paperwork in order to have a better chance to defend yourself (i.e. have a firearm available outside your home). I'm sure most criminals will be willing to follow that law, right? I wonder how the criminals will be penalized for not providing sufficient notice? No doubt a stern talking to. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/15/supreme-court-declines-hear-case-marylands-good-an/#ixzz2hpv10t7s

A couple of slightly more detailed news stories:

www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-gun-case-denied-20131015,0,6979042.story

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-15/gun-carrying-limits-survive-as-u-dot-s-dot-high-court-rejects-appeal

Here is brief coverage of the Court decision with comments from lead attorney Alan Gura:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/15/miller-alan-gura-responds-supreme-court-not-taking/

A couple of Gura's comments:

“The Supreme Court needs to rule on the lower courts using rational basis review, which it clearly forbade in Heller” said Mr. Gura. The civil right lawyer is referring to Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion which said that a higher level of scrutiny must be applied when judging restrictions on constitutional rights, especially fundamental ones.

“If the Court doesn’t address the issue, then the Second Amendment is largely a dead letter — it would become mostly unenforceable because there is no such thing as a gun law for which the legislature or police can’t offer a hypothetical justification.”

* * * * * * *

I think we've all seen quite a few "hypothetical justifications" to deny us the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They are endless and have no data to support them. They are, indeed, hypothetical.

There is another case (Drake) and then the 3 9th circuit cases will be up next.

There is another case (Drake) and then the 3 9th circuit cases will be up next.

Also, don't forget the Brian Aitken case in New Jersey. That is a carry case in the purist sense and it would be the most vague case out there. SCOTUS could take it.

It only deals with transporting hollow point ammo; however, it's still a carry case as it deals with bearing arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken       


Cert was filed.