Petition for Concealed Carry for Veterans

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    Keystone70

    Keystone70

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 14, 2012
    748
    HoCo
    Patrick said:
    The Demanding Mommies and Bloomberg are targeting Maryland this year for a background check/registration and 7-day waiting period for all long guns, which pretty much means the hunting rifles and shotguns that some in the hunting community didn't think would be affected.

    In short, we know for sure that they want a 77-R type system for all long guns. Now that they banned the AR-15, they want the old "assault rifle" laws applied to the "traditional hunting rifles" that they said they'd never go after...

    Hunters supported us in SB281, but we could have had more. There are a lot of "I got mine" people out there who won't step up until they are in the crosshairs. I say, "welcome to the team", even if belatedly.
    Click to expand...

    Thanks for the clarification, Patrick. I did not intend to imply hunters were not with us; but, that MOM and company did try to not arouse them into our ranks. I also had an individual tell me he was okay with the magazine limit because, after all, you only need one bullet to protect yourself. He owned a 44mag Ruger. No; I am not implying revolver owners were not with us, either. What I and others are saying is that we need to all stand together as we are all citizens and the Constitution was meant for all.
     
    navycraig

    navycraig

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 3, 2009
    1,359
    St. Mary's
    How is this "class of people" any different from the other elite classes; Doctor, Attorneys, et al., who are able to use their status to obtain a permit?

    The argument, I suspect, will be something like...well, it's part of the law and these classes of people are at more risk than the rest of the general public. The most common statement (that I have heard) related to a physician being able to obtain a carry permit is that they can carry script pads and therefore are at a higher risk of some drug crazed junkie wanting to do them harm in order to gain access to said script pad.
    For attorneys it's because they often deal with less than upstanding citizens and can be at risk for having an angry client or someone that they have put away come after them. Yep, I'm sure there is some of that, but what about the attorney who is in the copyright / patent business? It's doubtful that they have any angry clients coming after them to settle a score yet as an attorney, they fall into that class of folks who get special consideration.

    I have no doubt that those two classes of people who get special consideration over others is not the result of anyone here, rather those exceptions were most likely put into place by by our law makers as consideration to the elite of the elite who have access to them (law makers) and carry sway over such things. If I'm not mistaken, many of our law makers are lawyers so it should be of no surprise that they make special consideration for themselves.

    So, to those who have a carry permit in MD, you fit into some category of special class of people. I doubt seriously that any of you are considering surrendering your permit.
     
    Gryphon

    Gryphon

    inveniam viam aut faciam
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 8, 2013
    6,993
    The problem as most should know is "Good & Substantial" as an unconstitutional infringement. Applied in an equally and uniform unconstitutional manner, G&S should deprive even retired LEO from a permit unless they can demonstrate specific threats, not just a general threat from having been a former police officer. Barney Fife wouldn't be able to establish G&S, but Frank Serpico would (of course the threat may be from within). Same would go for retired military.

    Does that mean I don't think retired LEO and retired military should be able to obtain permits? Of course not, but they shouldn't be an exception creating "special classes," just because they served the government in some capacity. In large part, the fundamental right was guaranteed to protect the population from a tyrannical government and implicitly its agents.

    Permits for all that have not otherwise forfeited their fundamental right. Splitting us up fractionalizes and dilutes our efforts. The retired LEO "special class" is already out of the bottle. I want retired military to be able to get a permit, it would be a great, but not this way.
     
    Last edited:
    W

    wjackcooper

    Active Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    Seems to me forcing the door open a few inches at a time might be a winning strategy. Equal treatment is an issue already being litigated in Kolbe. The greater the disparity in treatment the more persuasive the argument may become in a potential future case.

    At any rate, our adversaries could be compelled to play defense . . . an argument against veterans is not likely to be popular.

    Done.

    Regards
    Jack
     
    Bridge_FE

    Bridge_FE

    Member
    May 17, 2011
    7
    wjackcooper said:
    Seems to me forcing the door open a few inches at a time might be a winning strategy. Equal treatment is an issue already being litigated in Kolbe. The greater the disparity in treatment the more persuasive the argument may become in a potential future case.

    At any rate, our adversaries could be compelled to play defense . . . an argument against veterans is not likely to be popular.

    Done.

    Regards
    Jack
    Click to expand...


    I agree. This is a way to chip away at it. First is was business owners carrying cash, then retired LEOs, then Security guards, and now on to retired vets. Then we should follow up with honorable discharged vets, and move on to citizens in good standing and so on and so forth.

    Once enough victories are won the law will become mute.

    Keep on with the other actions and make this a pincer move.
     
    NormH3

    NormH3

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    May 31, 2011
    779
    Delaware
    Gryphon said:
    The problem as most should know is "Good & Substantial" as an unconstitutional infringement. Applied in an equally and uniform unconstitutional manner, G&S should deprive even retired LEO from a permit unless they can demonstrate specific threats, not just a general threat from having been a former police officer. Barney Fife wouldn't be able to establish G&S, but Frank Serpico would (of course the threat may be from within). Same would go for retired military.

    Does that mean I don't think retired LEO and retired military should be able to obtain permits? Of course not, but they shouldn't be an exception creating "special classes," just because they served the government in some capacity. In large part, the fundamental right was guaranteed to protect the population from a tyrannical government and implicitly its agents.

    Permits for all that have not otherwise forfeited their fundamental right. Splitting us up fractionalizes and dilutes our efforts. The retired LEO "special class" is already out of the bottle. I want retired military to be able to get a permit, it would be a great, but not this way.
    Click to expand...

    You have nailed it with this post.
     
    M

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,761
    Special Classes worry me, because once someone has something, they are less likely to fight for it.

    Now, this is not 100%. I believe there are many who would fight for others to have the same rights but there are also people who would say "I have what I want and that's all that matters."
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    The legislative body in the majority has no interest whatsoever in veterans but for occasional photo ops and sound bites. There is no "door to inch open."

    Go back and read my earlier post: the Dem majority literally voted in favor of imprisoning active-duty war-fighters deployed to Afghanistan because they owned an AR-15 and were deployed to fight a war during the 30-day window SB281 would have allowed them to register their guns. We put in a change via amendment and they overwhelmingly voted to jail the active-duty service members. Over. Whelming. Ly.

    Again: Maryland Dems voted to put active-duty war-fighters in prison for even owning a gun. Our fix wasn't one part of a big amendment - the amendment was literally doing nothing but keeping active-duty out of prison. We didn't try to milk the military angle - it was literally "keep the soldiers out of prison." They voted to jail them, anyway. It was no mistake. The rebuttal to the GOP "debate" on the amendment was from Frosh, "I oppose this, and so should you."

    That was it. Done. That was all it took. Party line. No debate. Over.

    Knowing this now, do you think Maryland Dems would give them carry permits today...because "veteran"?

    Really?
     
    rambling_one

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,755
    Bowie, MD
    gprimr1 said:
    Special Classes worry me, because once someone has something, they are less likely to fight for it.

    Now, this is not 100%. I believe there are many who would fight for others to have the same rights but there are also people who would say "I have what I want and that's all that matters."
    Click to expand...

    While I lean toward incrementalism as being a more realistic approach sans a national carry system or SCOTUS supporting in toto a fundamental right, an example that supports gprim1 is the person who has "fought" for a permit, and shuns joining our fight out of fear that it might be revoked out of spite. Sound far fetched? I know of a case or two.
     
    D

    Docster

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 19, 2010
    9,775
    PapiBarcelona said:
    Let's face it, Maryland legislator didn't give Armed Forces veteran their own special Good/substantial cause 2 years ago, and they probably wont think twice about an online petition on it.

    Sorry, reality.
    Click to expand...


    ^^THIS, and what Patrick said in post #11. Wanting to be a positive attitude Noob won't change Maryland political reality and won't change the worthlessness of online petitions. Why should I get some 'right' that most others can't have just because I'm a military veteran? That's how the anti's split up the forces of their opponents......
     
    H

    HauptsAriba

    Active Member
    Feb 16, 2014
    200
    Anne Arundel
    Patrick said:
    I am a veteran, and I want no "right" that my fellow citizens cannot also enjoy. So respectfully, I cannot support this proposal. I don't want to be an "only one" - the only ones permitted a right, based on attachment to government service.

    I am not questioning your motives or your desire to do the right thing. I think we all want to support veterans. But I didn't swear to uphold a Constitution just so some of its most fundamental rights would only apply to me, but not my neighbor.

    Thanks for hearing me out, and thanks for the thought.
    Click to expand...
    Thank you
     
    BeoBill

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,183
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    Patrick said:
    I am a veteran, and I want no "right" that my fellow citizens cannot also enjoy. So respectfully, I cannot support this proposal. I don't want to be an "only one" - the only ones permitted a right, based on attachment to government service.

    I am not questioning your motives or your desire to do the right thing. I think we all want to support veterans. But I didn't swear to uphold a Constitution just so some of its most fundamental rights would only apply to me, but not my neighbor.

    Thanks for hearing me out, and thanks for the thought.
    Click to expand...

    I'll bet you didn't vote either.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    DK Firearms banner ad

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,523
    Messages
    7,285,010
    Members
    33,473
    Latest member
    Sarca

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom