Maryland has long held claim to the notion that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, or the right to "keep and bear arms," did not apply to the states. In doing so, they have and continue to deny it's citizenry that right to be fully exercised. In 2010, however, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the certiorari opinion of the landmark case, McDonald vs. Chicago, clearly stated that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.
Subsequently, the Maryland Court of Appeals then handed down a decision in Williams vs. Maryland that stated, "If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly." In other words, the court recognized the Second Amendment, but not beyond the home. By making such a claim, the state automatically rendered the homeless defenseless, without protection of the Second Amendment.
It may sound a bit crazy, but even crazier is the state's claim. For instance, does one's right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom to peacefully assemble only apply inside the home? Of course not, and neither should anyone's right to defend oneself under the Second Amendment. In order for the state to not deny the homeless' right, they would have to allow them, and everyone, to carry a firearm in public. Where is the ACLU when you really need them?
Jerry R. Roope, Perryville