Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014

Abulg1972 · Sep 12, 2014

fightinbluhen51 said:
I'm fully aware of the legal argument. Believe me. It is a head scratcher.

I wasn't suggesting you weren't aware of it - I was just expanding on the discussion. This unequal treatment just really pisses me off, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the General Assembly decided to include the exception. If the law was enacted to keep "dangerous weapons" off the streets and out of citizens' hands, and if former LEOs are just regular old citizens, then there is zero basis for the exception. I would understand if the law permitted a former LEO to receive a banned rifle that he/she acquired, or that was acquired for him/her, while he/she was employed as a LEO, but a general right to purchase whenever and wherever is just fundamentally unfair to you and me.

fightinbluhen51 · Sep 13, 2014

Abulg1972 said:
I wasn't suggesting you weren't aware of it - I was just expanding on the discussion. This unequal treatment just really pisses me off, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the General Assembly decided to include the exception. If the law was enacted to keep "dangerous weapons" off the streets and out of citizens' hands, and if former LEOs are just regular old citizens, then there is zero basis for the exception. I would understand if the law permitted a former LEO to receive a banned rifle that he/she acquired, or that was acquired for him/her, while he/she was employed as a LEO, but a general right to purchase whenever and wherever is just fundamentally unfair to you and me.

I was agreeing with you. It's absolutely 1) atrocious that the state legislature and the governor violate our rights, and 2) :bs:

the courts endorse it when this garbage exists.

BeoBill · Sep 13, 2014

Abulg1972 said:
I wasn't suggesting you weren't aware of it - I was just expanding on the discussion. This unequal treatment just really pisses me off, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the General Assembly decided to include the exception. If the law was enacted to keep "dangerous weapons" off the streets and out of citizens' hands, and if former LEOs are just regular old citizens, then there is zero basis for the exception. I would understand if the law permitted a former LEO to receive a banned rifle that he/she acquired, or that was acquired for him/her, while he/she was employed as a LEO, but a general right to purchase whenever and wherever is just fundamentally unfair to you and me.

Simple - the GA wants to be reelected and needs the police union vote. They care nothing for "citizens" except as walking piggy banks. :party29:

Next question?

dblas · Sep 15, 2014

BeoBill said:
Simple - the GA wants to be reelected and needs the police union vote. They care nothing for "citizens" except as walking piggy banks.

Next question?

And yet the GA voted twice to not approve an amendment to allow off duty LEOs to carry their weapons on school property. It wasn't until they got "permission" from the leadership, that they voted to approve the amendment.

No, they weren't pandering to the LEOs, at all they could care less.

MJD438 · Sep 15, 2014

dblas said:
And yet the GA voted twice to not approve an amendment to allow off duty LEOs to carry their weapons on school property. It wasn't until they got "permission" from the leadership, that they voted to approve the amendment.

No, they weren't pandering to the LEOs, at all they could care less.

Even then, they amended it in the most stupid way possible - off-duty LE can carry on school property, as long as the firearm is hidden, but credentials are visible...

RoadDawg · Sep 15, 2014

BeoBill said:
Simple - the GA wants to be reelected and needs the police union vote. They care nothing for "citizens" except as walking piggy banks.

Next question?

The law does not require more of the citizen just because he/she does not have a badge. :sad20:

The situation is actually the opposite. The Maryland LEO is not truly "exempt from the requirements of the law". In fact... The Maryland LEO has already far more than surpassed the qualifiers. Since that is the case, the LEO is simply recognized as already satisfying the qualification by virtue of complete background vetting and months/years of training.

Yes the law sucks. But the state is not treating the non-LEO any differently than the LEO in the HQL process. They simply recognize the process is already completed before the LEO is certified by the MPTC.

Now if we could just get them to realize that a person who is a LEO... or currently possesses a MD CCW... should not need to wait the seven days to pick up a newly purchased firearm... when THEY ARE ALREADY CARRYING ONE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE... it would be nice.

River Mud · Sep 15, 2014

RoadDawg said:
The law does not require more of the citizen just because he/she does not have a badge.

The situation is actually the opposite. The Maryland LEO is not truly "exempt from the requirements of the law". In fact... The Maryland LEO has already far more than surpassed the qualifiers. Since that is the case, the LEO is simply recognized as already satisfying the qualification by virtue of complete background vetting and months/years of training.

Yes the law sucks. But the state is not treating the non-LEO any differently than the LEO in the HQL process. They simply recognize the process is already completed before the LEO is certified by the MPTC.

Now if we could just get them to realize that a person who is a LEO... or currently possesses a MD CCW... should not need to wait the seven days to pick up a newly purchased firearm... when THEY ARE ALREADY CARRYING ONE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE... it would be nice.

Yes, that months and years of training. And after retirement, when the exemption from the AWB continues for retired officers, where are the timely proficiency exams and mental health / background checks? All of us are completely aware that the law was written to draw into limbo the officers' unions. Not to streamline the implementation of the law. Come on, now.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

50 shots, 9 spectators hit, bad guy gets away. Arguably the best funded and most well trained police officers in the world.

rem87062597 · Sep 15, 2014

River Mud said:
Yes, that months and years of training. And after retirement, when the exemption from the AWB continues for retired officers, where are the timely proficiency exams and mental health / background checks? All of us are completely aware that the law was written to draw into limbo the officers' unions. Not to streamline the implementation of the law. Come on, now.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

50 shots, 9 spectators hit, bad guy gets away. Arguably the best funded and most well trained police officers in the world.

To be fair, if I was an officer and my department mandated a 12 pound trigger pull on my Glock I'd probably hit a few bystanders too.

janklow · Sep 16, 2014

RoadDawg said:
Yes the law sucks. But the state is not treating the non-LEO any differently than the LEO in the HQL process.

is the LEO required to use an HQL to purchase a firearm?
how can a non-LEO attain the right to purchase now-banned firearms?

OrbitalEllipses · Sep 16, 2014

rem87062597 said:
To be fair, if I was an officer and my department mandated a 12 pound trigger pull on my Glock I'd probably hit a few bystanders too.

I had that same thought the other day. We're running around with sub 4lb SA triggers in our ARs and 1911s...can you imagine how much practice you'd need just to get consistent groups at the range with a 12lb DAO (ahem, safe action) trigger? Hell, my M&P sitting at 7lb caused me a ton of trouble.

River Mud · Sep 22, 2014

OrbitalEllipses said:
I had that same thought the other day. We're running around with sub 4lb SA triggers in our ARs and 1911s...can you imagine how much practice you'd need just to get consistent groups at the range with a 12lb DAO (ahem, safe action) trigger? Hell, my M&P sitting at 7lb caused me a ton of trouble.

A fair point, I hadn't really considered that.

Brooklyn · Sep 22, 2014

Wonder how they never managed with double action revolvers...

OrbitalEllipses · Sep 22, 2014

Brooklyn said:
Wonder how they never managed with double action revolvers...

If you can shoot a DA revolver well, you can shoot anything well.

Brooklyn · Sep 22, 2014

OrbitalEllipses said:
If you can shoot a DA revolver well, you can shoot anything well.

Best argument for getting one.. was on my list when fsa2013 hit and I had new priories...

I also like practicing with heavyer triggers... may need to get a reverse trigger job

Blacksmith101 · Sep 23, 2014

RoadDawg said:
In fact... The Maryland LEO has already far more than surpassed the qualifiers. Since that is the case, the LEO is simply recognized as already satisfying the qualification by virtue of complete background vetting and months/years of training.

Do they also supply a "Good and substantial reason" to carry even if it has been years since they had any contact with bad people?

Chowda69 · Sep 25, 2014

Blacksmith101 said:
Do they also supply a "Good and substantial reason" to carry even if it has been years since they had any contact with bad people?

Trooper told me during my permit interview that separation of service is taken into account. If you apply right after you retire / leave LE the first permit is a gimme, renewals are then scrutinized as a normal G and S. (aka , no renewal)

For me, too much time had passed from the time I left LE, to the time I applied. ( I was in friggin Afghanistan) THey also take into account how long you were a LEO, and where. (he hinted that they do not consider FPO's SPO"s as "real police officers " for some reason.

kharris · Sep 25, 2014

One can only hope!

hogrider · Nov 20, 2014

Patrick said:
Filed last night.

Enjoy.

http://www.mdshooters.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=113958&d=1395161049

Great read...Thx Patrick.

TopShelf · Dec 25, 2014

"...it is the natural result of two centuries having elapsed before the scope of the Second Amendment was made clear...." - translation: um, enough of the games. Want to clear things up, like maybe in this century...please

Pulling in Roe V Wade was well played

Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Crank in the Third Row

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Active Member

Annapolis, MD

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Grumpy Old Man

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

@TopShelfJS

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics