I recently posted on the case decided in Maryland overturning a law requiring citizens to show the police a "good and substantial" reason before they would be allowed a permit to carry a firearm.

Now, from the decision itself, comes this excellent language from the judge, stating in the clearest of ways why the law was unconstitutional.  You rarely see it put so well.

"A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial" reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights.

"The rights existence is all the reason he needs."

Clarity, it is a very good thing.