SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

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!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    AliasNeo07

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    6,547
    MD
    I wonder if going 88 in a 55 could have carried a sentence of more than a year in jail or could preclude me from this somehow.
     

    annihilation-time

    MOLON LABE
    Jun 14, 2010
    5,042
    Hazzard County!
    Maryland can outright ban concealed carry and still be constitutional. I wouldn't put it past them as they stall for creating legislation and a permit process for open carry. :)

    That's not true. The second amendment says, "........... shall not be infringed." Technically, they can't ban any type of carry, and call it constitutional.
     

    gsrcrxsi

    Active Member
    Jan 15, 2012
    176
    Baltimore, MD
    His reply:

    Dear Mr.

    In applying Maryland's handgun permit law,the Maryland State Police will continue to be guided by the courts' interpretation of the law. The Attorney General's Office is asking the trial judge for clarification of the judge's order and is asking the trial judge to keep the "good and substantial reason" requirement in place during the appeal process. The trial judge has not yet ruled on whether the "good and substantial reason" requirement will remain in effect. If you have any further questions concerning the handgun permit process,you should contact the Licensing Division of the Maryland State Police.

    Mark H. Bowen

    Assistant Attorney General

    Lololol. Copy & Paste. Did you reply back?
     

    OrangeSpear

    NRA Member
    Feb 4, 2010
    503
    Owings Mills
    I wouldn't look at applying for md ccw as a waste money. MSI and SAF can only do so much and they can't change that 90% approval rate that MD is claiming on CCW applications.

    If I loose my money, I look at it as a donation to the cause to change a percentage number that no origination can change. Only we the people can.

    I feel that if this is something that you want, then you should apply. The $$ amount is nothing compared to a new gun, value of your gun collection or even the value of ammo spent on a good range day.

    I would rather say I applied and was denied or I applied and was approved then to say that I just didn't want to waste my money. (assuming you could financially spare less than $200)

    Just my thoughts.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    That's not true. The second amendment says, "........... shall not be infringed." Technically, they can't ban any type of carry, and call it constitutional.

    Incorrect. Constitution says nothing about concealed or open carry. The 2A right is not endless -- it can be reasonably regulated, just like many other rights (can't shout FIRE in a theater, for example). The state can certainly ban convicted criminals from access to weapons, for example. The state courts have held that a state can ban concealed as long as it allows open carry. The position taken by the Woollard plaintiffs is that they can't ban or unduly burden both, as MD has. The reality is that the states don't like open carry because it scares people so they mandate concealed with permits and TPM restrictions. These are future cases. One step at a time.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Constitutionally it IS endless ... what other possible meaning can there be to "shall not be infringed"?

    Not going to debate semantics. The courts have held that reasonable regulations are constitutional. That's where the law sits. And the courts have the last word on what the Constitution means. That has been so since the beginning of the republic. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). If the People (as a collective body) don't like it, there are constitutional provisions for amending the Constitution. Checks and Balances. It has worked for more than 200 years.
     

    knownalien

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 3, 2010
    1,793
    Glen Burnie, MD.
    Not going to debate semantics. The courts have held that reasonable regulations are constitutional. That's where the law sits. And the courts have the last word on what the Constitution means. That has been so since the beginning of the republic. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). If the People (as a collective body) don't like it, there are constitutional provisions for amending the Constitution. Checks and Balances. It has worked for more than 200 years.

    well, yes and no. they are not infallible. If they ruled tomorrow that it was in the state's best interest to make little mexicans legal slaves, would that make it right? Infringing on a right is just as negligent. The court's oath is to protect and defend the Constitution . . . not the state. When the SCOTUS rules that the BOR's is effectively dead, does that make them the last word??? No is doesn't. Sadly, the Constitution lives in me as these rights are not given to me by the gov't. Your attitude is somewhat statist and that is dangerous.
     

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    well, yes and no. they are not infallible. If they ruled tomorrow that it was in the state's best interest to make little mexicans legal slaves, would that make it right? Infringing on a right is just as negligent. The court's oath is to protect and defend the Constitution . . . not the state. When the SCOTUS rules that the BOR's is effectively dead, does that make them the last word??? No is doesn't. Sadly, the Constitution lives in me as these rights are not given to me by the gov't. Your attitude is somewhat statist and that is dangerous.

    You're being disingenuous and not reading to the end. Article V is the tripwire.
     

    knownalien

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 3, 2010
    1,793
    Glen Burnie, MD.
    You're being disingenuous and not reading to the end. Article V is the tripwire.

    this same congress passed the NDAA that authorizes killing you and I un certain conditions. Spare me the article V. its a pretty bunch of words in a world of "ain't never gonna happen!"

    Remember, this is a nation of laws. . . . not the majority. So far, the gov't has been extremely derelict in its duties.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    well, yes and no. they are not infallible. If they ruled tomorrow that it was in the state's best interest to make little mexicans legal slaves, would that make it right? Infringing on a right is just as negligent. The court's oath is to protect and defend the Constitution . . . not the state. When the SCOTUS rules that the BOR's is effectively dead, does that make them the last word??? No is doesn't. Sadly, the Constitution lives in me as these rights are not given to me by the gov't. Your attitude is somewhat statist and that is dangerous.

    No, of course they are not infallible and the SCT's history is full of examples where the Court has reversed itself. That is historically the power of dissents. But somebody has to have the last word in a given case and that is the job of the courts. You certainly would not want the POTUS or the Legislature having the last word, would you? The rights are those of the People, collectively, but the rights are not so easily self-evident or self defining. Life is not so simple. The People can choose to create a new government too. There are ways to do that through elections or constitutional amendments and presidential appts to the SCT. Our history is rich with such changes. The consent of the governed is built into this law. In the meantime, it is not statist to say that there has to be a last word at some point in a given matter. The other choice is anarchy and good luck with your rights there.
     

    mrjam2jab

    Active Member
    Jul 23, 2010
    682
    Levittown, PA
    You would probably be denied based on your neighbors opinion. YOU choose the reference. If someone you consider close doesn't trust you, the MSP sure has hell won't.

    Of course, when MD really goes "Shall-Issue" this is going to have to go away. The MSP doesn't have the manpower to call 3 references and have a face to face interview with every applicant.


    PA is shall issue...and still asks for 2 references. Some sheriffs call them, most don't.
     

    knownalien

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 3, 2010
    1,793
    Glen Burnie, MD.
    No, of course they are not infallible and the SCT's history is full of examples where the Court has reversed itself. That is historically the power of dissents. But somebody has to have the last word in a given case and that is the job of the courts. You certainly would not want the POTUS or the Legislature having the last word, would you? The rights are those of the People, collectively, but the rights are not so easily self-evident or self defining. Life is not so simple. The People can choose to create a new government too. There are ways to do that through elections or constitutional amendments and presidential appts to the SCT. Our history is rich with such changes. The consent of the governed is built into this law. In the meantime, it is not statist to say that there has to be a last word at some point in a given matter. The other choice is anarchy and good luck with your rights there.

    point taken. Of the highlighted part, that is exactly what the NDAA does. And it is scary.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    point taken. Of the highlighted part, that is exactly what the NDAA does. And it is scary.

    And its provisions are subject to challenge in the courts of the United States. Even a foreign national can petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the civilian courts. An America citizen certainly can. And the constitutionality of the act itself may be challenged, as I am sure it will be. Checks and Balances.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,449
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom