Gura's wording in the original complaint was quite interesting in that, "[t]he Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry functional handguns in non-sensitive public
places for purposes of self-defense." This complies with Scalia's dicta in the Heller decision, which did not rule out the idea of carrying arms, but advanced the idea that some restrictions would possibly be defensible.
A bit of background: Raymond Woollard's home was broken into on Christmas Eve, 2002. Woollard was beaten by the intruder, and it took police over two hours to respond to his wife's 911 call. His assailant was sentenced to probation at first, then imprisoned later after assaulting a police officer.
Upon the assailant's release only three years later, Mr. Woollard was issued a permit. In 2009, his renewal was denied by the defendants, who cited a lack of evidence to "support apprehended fear (i.e. - copies of police reports for assaults, threats, harassments, stalking).”
The man who assaulted Mr. Woollard in his home now lives three miles from him. If that doesn't qualify as "apprehended fear," I'm not sure what does.
The primary reason the review board chaired by the defendants refused Woollard's renewal was that he could not prove "threats occurring beyond his residence, where he can already legally carry a handgun.” Under this logic, the plaintiff would be defenseless should his assailant confront him while out picking up the morning paper.
I wonder how the state can justify someone having to prove prior victimhood in order to protect themselves.
I've no doubt the Maryland District Court will be hostile to this case, which will likely leave matters to the 4th Circuit. Does anyone know if we've got any guideposts towards predicting their views?
Also, here's a link [pdf]
to the actual Maryland license application. Their process is one of the hardest and most arbitrary in the country. I know this from experience.