PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

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!
  • Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,360
    SoMD / West PA
    yellowsled said:
    Should we start harassing them at the 90 day mark?

    Not harassing, appealing to the permit review board ;)

    applicants who received the denial letters post stay needs to appeal in the next 10 days, IIRC.
     

    BUFF7MM

    ☠Buff➐㎣☠
    Mar 4, 2009
    13,576
    Garrett County
    Should we start harassing them at the 90 day mark?

    My 90 business days is around the 23rd of July, I'm hoping we have some sort of answer before then. I'm hoping to have at least had them call to just say hi by then.
    Short answer for me, on day 92, I will be making a phone call.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,360
    SoMD / West PA
    Buff7mm said:
    My 90 business days is around the 23rd of July, I'm hoping we have some sort of answer before then. I'm hoping to have at least had them call to just say hi by then.
    Short answer for me, on day 92, I will be making a phone call.

    Nowhere in the COMAR § 5-312 does it say "business days", it just states 90 days
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    Nowhere in the COMAR § 5-312 does it say "business days", it just states 90 days

    I am operating under the assumption that the MSP apply calendar days to any of our responsibilities and business days to their responsibilities...

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2
     

    petergriffin

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 9, 2012
    47
    That's why I like option #1: all DL's are permits by default. Only those who do not qualify get the special mark. That means that even the uber-liberal gun haters technically have a permit.

    It jives more with my view of the Constitutional Right: you don't need permission to exercise the right. You should not have to ask. The true exceptions are the rare among us who are not able to exercise the right. Those are the ones that need "the mark".

    The primary issue with this is the fingerprints. Most states still require them. But I think the "Compromise Constitutional Carry" proposal would be a background check without fingerprints (NICS, state/fbi can do this) via a driver's license. It's not what the Constitutional Carry people want in theory (no checks), but it does not require a separate permit and it is transparent to the end user. The DMV/MVA already does a background check today - I say we recycle it.

    This could work in states that are "almost" passing constitutional carry. The problem is the CC activists are pretty rabid about their viewpoints and become enraged when anyone suggests variations on their accepted dogma. They are their own worst enemies, sometimes. I think most of us agree with them in principle. The problems arise once you try to apply that principle to real life politics. Most of us see these things as a step-wise progress thing. Some of the CC activists are so - let's say, "principled" - that they won't take wins along the way. They want the entire war fought and won in a single skirmish.

    When I hear or think of constitutional carry I think of open carry. I feel that you have a 2A right to open carry, but the state ( any state ) can allow concealed carry with a permit. I feel that if you want to hide the fact that you're concealing a gun the state has the right to do a background check and set standards and restrictions. However, if you want to openly wear a holstered gun on your side the state doesn't have the right to background check you or set restrictions beyond government buildings, schools, or current prohibited places. I feel that open carry is a 2a constitutional right. The state already gets the chance to deny you the right and background check you when you purchase a gun. That's my take on this whole issue and it probably is in line with the majority.

    To sum it up, no background checks or permits required to open carry. Background checks and permits to conceal. Current restrictions for government buildings and schools for open and CCW, training required for CCW.
     

    Elliotte

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 11, 2011
    1,207
    Loudoun County VA
    That reminds me a a term we used in paramedic class, regularly irregular.

    So this would then be .....consistantly inconsistant.

    Or would it be inconsistantly consistant?
    I'd say it's the last one, inconsistently consistent. The few troopers that are getting apps and processing them have been consistent, but that consistency isn't being applied to all the apps. :D
     

    LCPIWB

    Needs an avatar
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 17, 2011
    2,001
    Underneath the blimp, Md.
    When I hear or think of constitutional carry I think of open carry. I feel that you have a 2A right to open carry, but the state ( any state ) can allow concealed carry with a permit. I feel that if you want to hide the fact that you're concealing a gun the state has the right to do a background check and set standards and restrictions. However, if you want to openly wear a holstered gun on your side the state doesn't have the right to background check you or set restrictions beyond government buildings, schools, or current prohibited places. I feel that open carry is a 2a constitutional right. The state already gets the chance to deny you the right and background check you when you purchase a gun. That's my take on this whole issue and it probably is in line with the majority.

    To sum it up, no background checks or permits required to open carry. Background checks and permits to conceal. Current restrictions for government buildings and schools for open and CCW, training required for CCW.

    I do not know if you are speaking for the majority or not. But you are not speaking for me.

    Nothing about "keep and bear arms" indicates where you are bearing them.
    It does not say "keep and bear arms, but only if someone can see the barrel and grip."

    When I hear "Constitutional Carry" I hear, I do not need to beg the government permission to exercise my 2A right, open or concealed. I also think that is a place I would like to move.
     

    Merlin

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 31, 2009
    3,953
    Carroll County, Maryland
    When I hear or think of constitutional carry I think of open carry. I feel that you have a 2A right to open carry, but the state ( any state ) can allow concealed carry with a permit. I feel that if you want to hide the fact that you're concealing a gun the state has the right to do a background check and set standards and restrictions. However, if you want to openly wear a holstered gun on your side the state doesn't have the right to background check you or set restrictions beyond government buildings, schools, or current prohibited places. I feel that open carry is a 2a constitutional right. The state already gets the chance to deny you the right and background check you when you purchase a gun. That's my take on this whole issue and it probably is in line with the majority.

    To sum it up, no background checks or permits required to open carry. Background checks and permits to conceal. Current restrictions for government buildings and schools for open and CCW, training required for CCW.

    But when you think of open carry, your doing the same thing as the anti's do when they also put meanings and words into the 2A that are not there to suit their needs.

    The 2A does say right to bear arms. The 2A does not say inside or outside. The 2A does not say open or concealed. And the 2A does not say how, when, or where.
     

    NateIU10

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 6, 2009
    4,587
    Southport, CT
    But when you think of open carry, your doing the same thing as the anti's do when they also put meanings and words into the 2A that are not there to suit their needs.

    The 2A does say right to bear arms. The 2A does not say inside or outside. The 2A does not say open or concealed. And the 2A does not say how, when, or where.

    But when the 14th Amendment was passed, it was generally accepted that states could regulate/ban concealed carry. That is not to say it was accepted that a state could ban all carrying of firearms, but it does show that the state can regulate/restrict the manner in which they are carried. The Constitution is interpreted beyond simple words.
     

    petergriffin

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 9, 2012
    47
    But when you think of open carry, your doing the same thing as the anti's do when they also put meanings and words into the 2A that are not there to suit their needs.

    The 2A does say right to bear arms. The 2A does not say inside or outside. The 2A does not say open or concealed. And the 2A does not say how, when, or where.

    Are you in favor of being able to carry any which way arms into a courtroom, school, airport, or other currently restricted places? Not trolling as I am a new guy, but I understand why there are sensitive areas that should be off limits as to allowing the carriage of arms. I feel that criminals like to conceal their guns. I want everyone to believe I am armed. Open carry just confirms that belief. In regards to restrictions on an unalienable right, the 1A right is restricted. Try yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Since 1A has been examined and tested in the SC, it's widely accepted there are limitations to free speech. Hence there will and can be restrictions to 2A and each and every unalienable right we have.
     

    vector03

    Frustrated Incorporated
    Jan 7, 2009
    2,519
    Columbia
    Are you in favor of being able to carry any which way arms into a courtroom, school, airport, or other currently restricted places? Not trolling as I am a new guy, but I understand why there are sensitive areas that should be off limits as to allowing the carriage of arms. I feel that criminals like to conceal their guns. I want everyone to believe I am armed. Open carry just confirms that belief. In regards to restrictions on an unalienable right, the 1A right is restricted. Try yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Since 1A has been examined and tested in the SC, it's widely accepted there are limitations to free speech. Hence there will and can be restrictions to 2A and each and every unalienable right we have.

    I wouldn't be in favor of the restriction. Will visiting these certain places suddenly make you a criminal? Will you wave your gun around threatening people simply because you entered an airport?
     

    Glaug-Eldare

    Senior Member
    BANNED!!!
    Jan 17, 2011
    1,837
    Are you in favor of being able to carry any which way arms into a courtroom, school, airport, or other currently restricted places? Not trolling as I am a new guy, but I understand why there are sensitive areas that should be off limits as to allowing the carriage of arms. I feel that criminals like to conceal their guns. I want everyone to believe I am armed. Open carry just confirms that belief. In regards to restrictions on an unalienable right, the 1A right is restricted. Try yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Since 1A has been examined and tested in the SC, it's widely accepted there are limitations to free speech. Hence there will and can be restrictions to 2A and each and every unalienable right we have.

    Welcome to MDS! :wave:

    Most of us are willing to admit that there are constitutional limits of gun rights, the same way there are constitutional limits on speech. There's a lot of room for disagreement on where those restrictions should be, though, and MDS members fill a pretty broad spectrum. Personally? I think the state should be solely responsible for the protection and defense of government buildings. I consider that reasonable because I consider the inside of government buildings an extraordinary case. Some of us feel that if there's any place in the world where gun rights should be sacrosanct, it's in government buildings. It's (generally) not a matter of whether or not "shall not be infringed" means legally brandishing a grenade launcher in the Pentagon while you're sheets to the wind so much as a matter of what restrictions are tailored narrowly enough in the state's interest, and which ones actually do serve our interest.
     

    petergriffin

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 9, 2012
    47
    :lol2:
    I wouldn't be in favor of the restriction. Will visiting these certain places suddenly make you a criminal? Will you wave your gun around threatening people simply because you entered an airport?[/

    I don't want to be sitting on a plane with someone who went through security, to a gate only to see his flight is delayed for two hours. He goes to the airport bar and drinks for an hour and a half. Comes back to the gate boards the plane with his luggage and gun and then freaks out at 37,000 feet and starts blazing on the plane.

    It only takes one bad apple!
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    :lol2:

    I don't want to be sitting on a plane with someone who went through security, to a gate only to see his flight is delayed for two hours. He goes to the airport bar and drinks for an hour and a half. Comes back to the gate boards the plane with his luggage and gun and then freaks out at 37,000 feet and starts blazing on the plane.

    It only takes one bad apple!

    Holy hyperbole....
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,789
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom