Is the HQL Constitutional?

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!
  • Cold Steel

    Active Member
    Sep 26, 2006
    804
    Bethesda, MD
    It's not that Maryland's liberal representatives are ignorant that what they're doing is unconstitutional. It's that they, like the current administration, simply don't wish to obey the law. In some cases, they know perfectly well that their political antics only delay the inevitable; but they're going to make it as difficult, costly and time consuming as they possibly can to stave the constitutionalists off and, if they can get courts to uphold even part of their unconstitutional laws and policies, it will be victories that those of like mind in other states can build on.

    The two most dreaded words, always used together, that should strike terror into the heart of any patriot, are "common sense." It's the liberal catch phrase that has been used repeatedly to dismantle many of our constitutional rights. It's remarkably ironic, however, that the term is a quality that's completely (not almost, but completely lacking) in their twisted ideology. It's even more dreaded than the meaningless "let's be clear," "to be clear" or "transparency" that they use. These are but catch phrases, highly esoteric in nature, that convey one thing, but which universally, to the wise, mean just the opposite.

    How can the term "common sense" be applied to the state's Handgun Qualification License (HQL)? A man who has twenty handguns and eight rifles or shotguns now has to take an expensive, time consuming qualification course? Voting is now esteemed a "right" to all citizens, even though the Constitution doesn't say it, but many of the same supporters of HQL argue vociferously that even making them show a picture I.D. is an infringement (somehow) of their constitutional rights. Meanwhile, strict licensing and waiting periods, a "common sense" requirement of gun ownership, which clearly is a constitutional right, is okay. After all, they say, if a person owns a handgun, they ought to know how to use it, right? Oh, and don't even think about opening a range in Montgomery County, or using a police range. You'll be regulated, taxed and otherwise punished until you forget about the former. And don't bother calling the police to use their range!

    These idiots wouldn't know common sense if it fell on top of them. Some voters may feel "intimidated" by having to provide a photo I.D. But what about gun owners who feel intimidated by expensive gun registration and unreasonable licensing requirements? :mad54:

    Is this HQL requirement being challenged by anyone, in or out of state? Can't any emergency injunctions be filed? People who have guns and have taught uncredited gun safety and handling now find themselves having to take accredited courses they could otherwise teach!

    Comments??
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    Nope, not constitutional. "Common sense" is just their current buzzword. They use it like Dorthy tapped her shoes together and repeated "There's no place like home." over and over. Unfortunately, soft skulls fall for this marketing trick. Same reason why a company buys expensive air time to run commercials at tight intervals or sometimes back to back.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    Join us!

    https://marylandshallissue.com/

    There is a case against the HQL, but the case against the banned items is taking precedent at the moment.

    I was a HQL holdout until I got my Utah CHP.
    Keep and bear are equal things. Yes, I'd argue carry permits are unconstitutional too.
     

    willyb

    Active Member
    Sep 15, 2009
    285
    glen burnie, md
    Very simply... Hell No.

    We have contended all along that it is equivalent to a Poll Tax.

    In fact, we have a pending lawsuit in that regard.

    this. applying these regulations to any of the other constitutionally protected rights would not fly, so why is it ok to apply it to the 2A?
     

    RepublicanJD

    Active Member
    Jul 16, 2014
    249
    AA County
    this. applying these regulations to any of the other constitutionally protected rights would not fly, so why is it ok to apply it to the 2A?

    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.
     

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    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.

    I would be better with the HQL if it was purely based on backgound information and reputability. The problem comes with not only the unnecessary costs, but the invasiveness (fingerprints) and cumbersome nature (logistics, training class) of the rules.

    All things considered, though, IMO it's sorely Unconstitutional.

    Assembly, Speech, Voting... None require classes, exorbitant costs, or encumbering hoops through which people must jump.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    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.

    Registering to vote doesn't cost anything, nor do you have to take a class to do so. Permit to assemble may cost something, but you don't need fingerprinting and training to get them.
     

    willyb

    Active Member
    Sep 15, 2009
    285
    glen burnie, md
    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.

    apparently, no one told most of the ferguson protesters they need permits as most of those protests were held without permits.
     

    RepublicanJD

    Active Member
    Jul 16, 2014
    249
    AA County
    Registering to vote doesn't cost anything, nor do you have to take a class to do so. Permit to assemble may cost something, but you don't need fingerprinting and training to get them.

    I'm fully aware of the differences factually. Legally, they're not that different. Guns cost money. Should everyone get a free gun because it's in the constitution? My point is that you have to draw a line somewhere. The class is absolutely constitutional and is not prohibitively expensive. There isn't a good argument against that. Fingerprinting is the best argument but still shaky legally speaking. The government is allowed create regulations if they have reasons to do so. Public safety is easy here as they can prove that fingerprints help to identify criminals at crime scenes. They do not have the scientific data to show that concealed carry is a threat to public safety. Much stronger argument for us.
     

    vector03

    Frustrated Incorporated
    Jan 7, 2009
    2,519
    Columbia
    I'm fully aware of the differences factually. Legally, they're not that different. Guns cost money. Should everyone get a free gun because it's in the constitution?
    I wasn't aware I was supposed to get a Constitutionally guaranteed free gun...need to contact someone about that.

    My point is that you have to draw a line somewhere. The class is absolutely constitutional and is not prohibitively expensive. There isn't a good argument against that. Fingerprinting is the best argument but still shaky legally speaking. The government is allowed create regulations if they have reasons to do so.
    These sound to be more likely your opinion than any kind of law. Yeah, they can create regulations (laws), and we can challenge them as Unconstitutional.

    Public safety is easy here as they can prove that fingerprints help to identify criminals at crime scenes. They do not have the scientific data to show that concealed carry is a threat to public safety. Much stronger argument for us.
    You mean like all of the shell casings that help solve crimes?
     

    Boom Boom

    Hold my beer. Watch this.
    Jul 16, 2010
    16,834
    Carroll
    With Hogan inbound, probably the best compromise to hope for in MD is combining HQL with shall-issue CCW. With that one change, complaints would quickly fade. To keep on topic, I'm ignoring other nonsense like 7-day wait, ban list, and handgun roster.
     

    RepublicanJD

    Active Member
    Jul 16, 2014
    249
    AA County
    You mean like all of the shell casings that help solve crimes?


    I love this one, too. I'm sure there has never been a criminal case solved this way. I'm sure that you have access to all of the data showing that a case has never been solved in this fashion as well. No one can even argue about this, but it's far more likely they've solved some cases this way than that they have solved 0 this way.
     

    Publius

    Active Member
    Mar 18, 2013
    491
    Ellicott City
    What kills me is that no national news organization or newspaper has asked Eric Holder why he hasn't filed a lawsuit against Maryland's HQL, like he does against voter ID laws. The Maryland HQL can take weeks to obtain and all its expenses can total north of $200. I mean, it's just utterly ridiculous for the exercise of a right explicitly protected in the constitution.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    Some form of special approved ID to purchase firearms has existed in many states for many years.

    So I doubt that it hasn't been challenged as high as they could get it.
     

    MrNiceGuy

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2013
    270
    Guns cost money. Should everyone get a free gun because it's in the constitution?

    Now there's an interesting idea. However, I much prefer to use Obamacare as precedent to force everyone to have a gun or pay a penalty (tax) with subsidies built in for those who cannot afford to buy one. My guess is the writers of that law never anticipated that outcome.

    My point is that you have to draw a line somewhere.

    Sure, let's draw the line at nukes and other WMDs. Maybe we can talk about whether a tank or a B-2 bomber is a bit too far, but I do think that line is well clear of your run of the mill NFA/GCA type stuff.

    The class is absolutely constitutional and is not prohibitively expensive. There isn't a good argument against that.

    Really? Fine, if you want to vote, you have to pay for a class and pass a test. If you want to practice your religion, you have to pay for a government-approved class and pass a government-approved test. If you want to express your political opinions, you have to do those things as well. After all, the classes and tests won't be prohibitively expensive, and there isn't a good argument against them because.

    Fingerprinting is the best argument but still shaky legally speaking. The government is allowed create regulations if they have reasons to do so. Public safety is easy here as they can prove that fingerprints help to identify criminals at crime scenes.

    Fine, force everyone to pay money out of pocket to be fingerprinted in order to vote, practice religion, or publish a newspaper, news letter, or blog. Same logic applies: it'll help identify criminals, which is good for public safety. See? The government is allowed to create regulations if they have reasons to do so. They have a reason; that guy saying mean things about the people currently in power might just happen to be a criminal.

    Code:
     

    MrNiceGuy

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2013
    270
    Well, my opinion is based on having read hundreds of cases written by the SCOTUS. What is yours based on?

    Having read the United State Constitution, which is pretty plain in its language.

    I love this one, too. I'm sure there has never been a criminal case solved this way. I'm sure that you have access to all of the data showing that a case has never been solved in this fashion as well. No one can even argue about this, but it's far more likely they've solved some cases this way than that they have solved 0 this way.

    Not one state in the entire country still bothers to try doing this anymore (actually doing the matching). Maryland's machine broke years ago and was sold for scrap because MSP didn't want to bother paying to repair it. Why? It was worthless. They stated as much when they asked for their budget from that office to be freed for other purposes. Now all the collected shell casings go in large barrels and sit in a warehouse.

    Several states tried it and all of them abandoned it. That really ought to tell you something.

    On a side note, it seems as though you've never met an anti-gun law you didn't like. You sure you're on the right site? You seem to be quite happy that people have to pay out of pocket to attend a government-approved class and pass a government-approved test, then pay to get themselves fingerprinted like some kind of criminal, then pay for the police to dig into their personal lives, all so they can exercise a right so critical to the core of this country's values that it's spelled out by name in the US Constitution.

    What other restrictions do you like? Gun bans? Knife bans? Ammo bans? Standard capacity mag bans? Full cavity searches before you can place your hands on a firearm?

    Code:
     

    vector03

    Frustrated Incorporated
    Jan 7, 2009
    2,519
    Columbia
    Well, my opinion is based on having read hundreds of cases written by the SCOTUS. What is yours based on?

    It's widely accepted that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It's also widely accepted that any law that violates the Constitution is null and void.

    IMO, these laws violate my Constitutional rights...I hope we get to see if a handful of people in black robes agree.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,806
    Messages
    7,296,440
    Members
    33,524
    Latest member
    Jtlambo

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom