Im a little lost here.
Are people arguning on strategy when their imput wont even effect the case, and are people actauul ANGRY because SAF isnt discussing the strategy?
no, and not at all
Im a little lost here.
Are people arguning on strategy when their imput wont even effect the case, and are people actauul ANGRY because SAF isnt discussing the strategy?
SAF also sued MD on Due Process grounds. They did not specifically call out "the politically connected", but Due Process is Due Process. I guess they could eventually make an issue of it.
Debate over. Everyone wins.
This is what I've been saying all along. If a Baltimore City Council member can get a permit because they felt threatened by drug dealers then the rest of us should too.
If they are going to deny people they better find another reason to do it.
I also think the due process point is going to be important. The CCW process needs to be the same for all, not different for each of us. The individual restrictions placed on the permits should be done away with and make all permits the same.
This is an exciting time, should be interesting.
TD
Sound like I should join the SAF. Still I see them losing and nothing changing.
This is what I've been saying all along. If a Baltimore City Council member can get a permit because they felt threatened by drug dealers then the rest of us should too.
If they are going to deny people they better find another reason to do it.
Im not being negative ,just realistic.I do hope I eat my words and MD becomes shall issue,but lets be real here. I just stated my opinion that I dont see it happening.
I think there is a good chance to have a judge define/clarify an administrative rule by the MSP. Which will force the MSP to allow self defense as valid. Note, no laws are going to be changed in this suit.
The wild card will be when the legislature reconvenes in January.
We are dealing with folks who are hostile to the very idea of gun ownership. They will fight hammer and sickle to stop the citizens from exercising their rights.
Actually, not really. Court could mandate that the State call a special session to deal with such a Constitutional Issue if a 2A favorable ruling is made.The realistic expectation here is the plaintiff is able to prevail and the state simply stops issuing permits until the legislature and courts figure out the new rules. That could take a long time.
That may be a bit deflating, but it is the process. We are not dealing with a political class in this state that is simply searching for a reasonable way to regulate carry permits. We are dealing with folks who are hostile to the very idea of gun ownership. They will fight hammer and sickle to stop the citizens from exercising their rights.
The enthusiasm we see on this thread will have to last through the long fight ahead.
Actually, not really. Court could mandate that the State call a special session to deal with such a Constitutional Issue if a 2A favorable ruling is made.