October 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 33

carry a handgun by the Maryland
State Police " within 100 yards of a
" place of public assembly, " including
parks and recreational facilities.
To obtain a preliminary injunction,
Plaintiffs would have to establish a
likelihood of success at an upcoming
trial on their Second Amendment
claims. In addition, Plaintiffs were
required to establish legal standing
to assert their Second Amendment
claims in federal district court.
Montgomery County (the County)
had argued Plaintiffs lacked standing
because they had not shown a sufficiently
" credible threat of imminent
prosecution " under Section 57-1.1.
The federal district court, however,
noted the County " had declined to
commit to refraining from prosecuting
Plaintiffs or others for violations
of these restrictions. "
As described by the federal district
court, standing would require
Plaintiffs to demonstrate an " injury
in fact " ; i.e., " an invasion of a legally
protected interest " that is " concrete
and particularized " and " actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. "
In this particular instance,
Plaintiffs claimed a " concrete injury "
in " violation of their Second
Amendment right to carry a firearm
for self-defense " because " most of
the Individual Plaintiffs have Maryland
firearm permits and regularly
travel to, or come within 100 yards
of, one or more of the 'places of public
assembly.' " As a result, Plaintiffs
claimed they " face a risk of prosecution "
while carrying a firearm in a
park or recreational facility.
The federal district court agreed
that Plaintiffs sufficiently had alleged
" an actual and well-founded fear that
the law will be enforced against them
and thus an imminent, impending
injury based on a reasonable fear of
prosecution. " The court, therefore,
held
" Plaintiffs
have
established
standing to challenge the restrictions
on carrying firearms in public parks. "
Established Historical
Analogue
In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court
had acknowledged that present-day
firearm regulations were " unimaginable
at the founding, " given " unprecedented
societal concerns or
dramatic technological changes. "
That being said, Bruen still would
uphold present-day firearm regulations
if consistent with the historical
tradition of firearm regulation
based on " reasoning by analogy. "
In applying such " analogical
reasoning, " Bruen would uphold
a modern firearm regulation if
the government could " identify a
well-established and representative
historical analogue, " not necessarily
a " historical twin. " In determining
whether a modern firearm
regulation is " relevantly similar " to
an analogous historical regulation,
Bruen would have federal courts
consider " how and why the regulations
burden a law-abiding citizen's
right to armed self-defense " :
Central to this inquiry is whether
modern and historical regulations
impose a comparable burden on
the right of armed self-defense and
whether that burden is comparably
justified. Analogical reasoning under
the Second Amendment is neither
a regulatory straitjacket nor a
regulatory blank check.... So even
if a modern-day regulation is not a
dead ringer for historical precursors,
it still may be analogous enough to
pass constitutional muster.
Bringing Traffic Safety
to your Community
Trusted by more State Police
agencies than all other radar
brands combined.
PMG
StreetDynamics.com
1-800-782-5537
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | O CTOBER 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
33
http://www.StreetDynamics.com
October 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2023 - Parks & Recreation
