Nice goin guys, keep up the great work!!
A non restricted MD Permit would give you the state of Michigan added to reciprocity if you already have a FL and UT permit.
With a MD, UT, and FL permit you could carry in the following (34 States):
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
To maximize Permits then you would need to get these permits as well (4 States):
Nevada
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Maine
You could still NOT carry in the following States/Districts/Territories:
California, Colorado , Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, District of Columbia, Illinois, Wisconsin, American Samoa, N. Mariana Islands
I'm working on getting Colorado moved into Class number 2 at the moment, and I working to try to get Oregon and California on the same boat after my Colorado case is completed. The US pacific territories are going to need some work, and some inside help since I don't live anywhere near there.
Just curious, why O'Malley isn't named? Isn't he in charge of the MSP both on and off paper?
SAF will be getting another check from me today!
I'm working on getting Colorado moved into Class number 2 at the moment, and I working to try to get Oregon and California on the same boat after my Colorado case is completed. The US pacific territories are going to need some work, and some inside help since I don't live anywhere near there.
No, the Superintendent is in charge of MSP. If they were suing to strike down the actual criminal prohibition against carry, O'Malley would be the appropriate defendant. No reason to drag in O'Malley into the situation. Gansler is likely going to defend the MSP anyway, so no reason to sue him. Sheridan and the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board are sufficient defendants. If the judge orders the defendants to consider "good and substantial reason" to be "self defense", there's nothing anyone above the Superintendent that can order them to do so. In fact, firing them to refusing to disobey the federal judges order would be considered retaliatory and would push it to a criminal act rather than just a civil violation.
Here's the suit as filed.
11. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies as against the states by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Anybody know the timeline for the lawsuit ? Is this going to get dragged out for eternity ?
Spot77;731928Going through the court system is a lot like playing tennis.[/QUOTE said:Lots of attractive women grunting as they whack a bunch of balls back and forth?
you win this threadLots of attractive women grunting as they whack a bunch of balls back and forth?
Lots of attractive women grunting as they whack a bunch of balls back and forth?