Is the HQL Constitutional?

govwontletmebuycoolguns · Dec 17, 2014

Theres plenty of common sense in the Constitution. Those that don't follow it are lacking.

RepublicanJD · Dec 17, 2014

MrNiceGuy said:
Fine, pay $200 to vote. Pay $200 avoid warrantless searches of your home and vehicle. Pay $200 to practice your religion.

When you have to pay money to do it, you aren't exercising a right; you're asking your government for permission and paying for the privilege. Either we all have a God-given right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves and our loved ones from harm or we have a privilege which our government has granted us and which can be revoked on a moment's notice. Pick one.

Code:

Well, everyone should have a gun, right?

RepublicanJD · Dec 17, 2014

Brooklyn said:
No. All this does is limit the scope of the decision. It is deliberately silent on the standard of review. Silence is silence.

It is an error to infer anything from silence..

That's not what he asked. He didn't ask about the standard of review. Heller definitely leaves open the door to restrictions on gun ownership.

Mr H · Dec 18, 2014

RepublicanJD said:
Well, everyone should have a gun, right?

Everyone who is not otherwise prohibited should have to option to decide for themselves whether to have and carry a gun.

Doctor_M · Dec 18, 2014

Mr H said:
Everyone who is not otherwise prohibited should have to option to decide for themselves whether to have and carry a gun.

Spot on! Perfectly said as usual Mr. H. :thumbsup:

alzoom85 · Dec 18, 2014

MrNiceGuy said:
Fine, pay $200 to vote. Pay $200 avoid warrantless searches of your home and vehicle. Pay $200 to practice your religion.

When you have to pay money to do it, you aren't exercising a right; you're asking your government for permission and paying for the privilege. Either we all have a God-given right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves and our loved ones from harm or we have a privilege which our government has granted us and which can be revoked on a moment's notice. Pick one.

Code:

Are you not forgetting that god does not exist and she does not give u ur rights but goverment does.

eruby · Dec 18, 2014

RepublicanJD said:
Well, everyone should have a gun, right?

Mr H said:
Everyone who is not otherwise prohibited should have to option to decide for themselves whether to have and carry a gun.

I'm going to take this another step and say no one, who is not in prison, a mental institution, etc, should be prohibited.

OrbitalEllipses · Dec 18, 2014

DC-W said:
Uh, yes you do
http://www.elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/index.html
(yes, I know enforcement isn't at all strict)

MrNiceGuy · Dec 18, 2014

Mr H said:
Everyone who is not otherwise prohibited should have to option to decide for themselves whether to have and carry a gun.

Only thing I would add is to say "not otherwise prohibited" for an extremely good reason. Things like "well he got in a bar fight in 1973 and since then we decided that that's now a violent crime and they're prohibited for life" are blatantly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. Rather, they're excuses used by people who don't think anyone who isn't working for the government should be allowed to touch a gun to ban as many other people as possible from touching guns.

Outside of a murder conviction, I don't think there's too much else that should warrant an individual losing a core right like that without some sort of regular, transparent review by an impartial group.

Code:

RepublicanJD · Dec 18, 2014

Doctor_M said:
Spot on! Perfectly said as usual Mr. H.

I completely agree. The issue becomes how you determine the "otherwise prohibited" category.

Mr H · Dec 18, 2014

RepublicanJD said:
I completely agree. The issue becomes how you determine the "otherwise prohibited" category.

Law. It's already in there.

Don't like the definitions around "Prohibited Person", then work to get them changed.

Mr H · Dec 18, 2014

MrNiceGuy said:
Only thing I would add is to say "not otherwise prohibited" for an extremely good reason. Things like "well he got in a bar fight in 1973 and since then we decided that that's now a violent crime and they're prohibited for life" are blatantly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. Rather, they're excuses used by people who don't think anyone who isn't working for the government should be allowed to touch a gun to ban as many other people as possible from touching guns.

Outside of a murder conviction, I don't think there's too much else that should warrant an individual losing a core right like that without some sort of regular, transparent review by an impartial group.

Code:

Then we need to work to change the law. Leaving these things for humans to decide case-by-case will not be pleasant, or equitable.

The way your post is worded, it reads like ADW, Armed Robbery, Att. Murder, Ag. Assault, DV, Ag. Battery, and others would all be OK. I hope that wasn't your intent.

Sportstud4891 · Dec 18, 2014

RepublicanJD said:
You don't need a permit to assemble? Register to vote? The HQL is a pain in the arse but I don't see the unconstitutional argument going anywhere and I don't see those lawsuits going anywhere. Fingerprinting is the only part of it that is really strange and easily argued to be for public safety. (Not saying I agree, just saying it's a solid argument that they are likely to win.)

Better arguments are for shall issue vs. may issue and the right to self defense inside and outside of the home.

TheGunnyRet said:
What's the Big Deal about Finger Printing, had to have it done when I joined the Corps and to get my clearances, oh and "what" I served 22 years to protect and uphold the constitution...The HQL is thwarting effort, Hell, CA has a "Bullet Button", NY has a funky buttstock, MA God Knows??? I would be more worried about not being able to buy a Big Gulp than paying 200 buck to have a Pistol....

Am I missing something? You guys are arguing that you're ok with the HQL?!? No wonder MD eats shit all the time when it comes to gun laws.

The purpose of the HQL, as told to us agreeable masses by the politicians, is to eliminate straw purchases. A list of the issues with this statement

- We already had to show a Maryland issued identification card

- There is no proof that straw purchasing is an issue in MD

- Majority of firearms used in crimes are stolen

- Straw purchasing, no matter the requirements to purchase, is a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute

How do I know these things? Because I, along with many other freedom loving Marylanders, took multiple days off work sometimes staying on location up to 16 hours with no food to fight this ******** (were you there?). It's disgusting that you think it's not a big deal. It is ABSOLUTELY an infringement on a constitutional RIGHT, everyone, even the politicians know this. The question at hand is whether it can be allowed in the interest of public safety.

Permitting a right to assemble is allowed because it can be proven that the permit is in the best interest of public safety. However I do not need a permit to stand by myself with a sign. Nor do I need a permit to walk down the street and tell people what I think of our government.

How does an HQL benefit public safety? If the benefit to the public cannot be PROVEN (which I believe it cannot), then the requirement for an HQL is unconstitutional.

RepublicanJD · Dec 18, 2014

Sportstud4891 said:
Am I missing something? You guys are arguing that you're ok with the HQL?!? No wonder MD eats shit all the time when it comes to gun laws.

Yes, you're missing something. (For me anyway)

fabsroman · Dec 18, 2014

RepublicanJD said:
You don't need a permit to assemble? Register to vote? The HQL is a pain in the arse but I don't see the unconstitutional argument going anywhere and I don't see those lawsuits going anywhere. Fingerprinting is the only part of it that is really strange and easily argued to be for public safety. (Not saying I agree, just saying it's a solid argument that they are likely to win.)

Better arguments are for shall issue vs. may issue and the right to self defense inside and outside of the home.

Good. I think people should have to pay around $400 to vote. Should solve a lot of the problems in the Nation when those on welfare can no longer vote.

Notice that what Mr. H said is that the HQL is in essence a poll tax. There is a fee related to the HQL. Last I checked, there is no fee related to registering to vote. Is there a fee for a permit to assemble?

DaemonAssassin · Dec 18, 2014

A 14'er getting smacked down by a 13'er? I love it!!! Chadwin's Law and DAL are fighting for supremacy!

DaemonAssassin · Dec 18, 2014

fabsroman said:
Good. I think people should have to pay around $400 to vote. Should solve a lot of the problems in the Nation when those on welfare can no longer vote.

Notice that what Mr. H said is that the HQL is in essence a poll tax. There is a fee related to the HQL. Last I checked, there is no fee related to registering to vote. Is there a fee for a permit to assemble?

It depends on the jurisdiction and how many people are going to be there.

Mike · Dec 18, 2014

navycraig said:
What is your objective measure of prohibitively expensive and on what do you base that? For me a $200.00 hit in the wallet to get my HQL may not be a big deal, but to someone else (single mother of 3 trying to support her family) it very well could be the deal breaker.

How'd you get by at $200? We paid $60 for finger prints, $50 for MSP application, and I think the class was $135. And make that times 2 when we add in the wife too. We did not have this garbage when we moved here 20 years ago... So we are looking to move West... just like Larry Hogan's TV ads said about people wanting to leave Maryland.

alzoom85 · Dec 18, 2014

So the next time I am at the local gun shop can I ask the officer walking around to file a police report for civil right violations?

DC-W · Dec 18, 2014

Mike said:
How'd you get by at $200? We paid $60 for finger prints, $50 for MSP application, and I think the class was $135. And make that times 2 when we add in the wife too. We did not have this garbage when we moved here 20 years ago... So we are looking to move West... just like Larry Hogan's TV ads said about people wanting to leave Maryland.

The class isn't necessary if you meet one of the state's exemptions, like being LEO or Mil, or already owning a regulated firearm.

Even then, my new Glock essentially cost $125 more than it needed to between the state fee and fingerprints, not to mention the wait to get the card plus the wait for background check to come back.

Ridiculous, inefficient, expensive, burdensome, and obstructionary is all the HQL is.

Is the HQL Constitutional?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Active Member

Active Member

Banana'd

Certified Mad Scientist

Member

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Banana'd

Banana'd

Resident SMIB

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Why should we Free BSD?

Why should we Free BSD?

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics