That is we merely assume that the Heller right exists outside the home and that

That is we merely assume that the heller right exists

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 12 pages.

handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.” That is, we merely assume that the Heller right exists outside the home and that such right of Appellee Woollard has been infringed. We are free to make that assumption because the good-and-substantial-reason requirement passes constitutional muster under what we have deemed to be the applicable standard—intermediate scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny applies to laws that burden any right to keep and bear arms outside of the home. Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “good and substantial reason” for doing so. As we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense. Because our tradition so clearly indicates a substantial role for state regulation of the carrying of firearms in public, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate in this case. Maryland has a high crime rate, a lot of these crimes involve the use of handguns, this leads to more deaths due to criminals, current laws are not effective, and additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public. The State has clearly demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement advances the objectives of protecting public safety and preventing crime because it reduces the number of handguns carried in public. I. Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) II. Facts of the Case: In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody overnight, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace. The complaints described their crime as “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).” The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). It provides: “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another
Image of page 4
individual of the same sex.” The petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was in private and consensual. III. History: Defendants John Geddes Lawrence and Tyrone Garner were convicted in the County Criminal Court at Law No. 10, Harris County, Texas, of engaging in homosexual conduct. They appealed. On rehearing en banc, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed. Certiorari was granted.
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 12 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • JohnL.Sampson
  • Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes