OC vs CC in Maryland

NormH3 · Nov 23, 2014

boundlessdyad said:
A lot of time being spent in this thread in what is likely a "troll poll". I decline to answer. That is all.

So why did you even bother to reply. OOPSS...did I just troll?

NormH3 · Nov 23, 2014

I don't see a problem with open carry if done properly. I've expressed that opinion before. Cops do it. Security guys do it. Citizens in states where it is not illegal do it. Notice I used the term "not illegal". Many states allow it because there is no law that says it's illegal. It may not be the norm, but I'm betting it will become more common over time just because of how things seem to be progressing in our country.

Raineman · Nov 23, 2014

Unknown User said:
.maryland will also be the first state that has mandatory training twice per year putting us ahead of the pack in a sense.

I believe that having "quarterly" advanced or basic training for Everyone that owns a firearm is the way to go.

Seriously man, put the crack pipe down and back away.

"shall not be infringed". Get it!

Now I'm convinced its Frosh.

MudPuppy · Nov 23, 2014

Unknown User said:
The fingerprint and background issue would have already been taken care of via the HQL process. maybe shorten the renewal time from 10 years to every year and anyone who chooses to OC MUSt take a basic or advanced self defense and mandatory gun safety course with a certified instructor twice per year (every 6 months), the certification number can be electronically linked to your HQL via MSP..........

Outrageously burdensome.

danb · Nov 23, 2014

Unknown User said:
I believe that having "quarterly" advanced or basic training for Everyone that owns a firearm is the way to go.

I am all for training. Once. You know, like the way we train to drive autos.

However, this is a constitutional right, and no one would demand formal education before allowing someone to vote. It's arguable whether mandatory training passes muster, certainly not mandatory training quarterly!

This would definitely put us ahead of the pack... from the gun prohibitionist perspective.

When (not if) CCW comes to MD, my expectation is that it will look like IL: http://www.senategop.state.il.us/Portals/0/Concealed-Carry/13 Concealed Carry Report.pdf

16 hours training, valid for 5 years, 3 hours re-certification every five years.

Even that is more burdensome than most states.

smokey · Nov 23, 2014

JVP409 said:
I never understand the resistance to requiring training for carrying. All The constitutional scholars here will jump on the " why do I need a class to execute my constitutional rights" narrative, but you just sound like extremists and add to the anti's claims that we are all gun nuts. Why would better trained people with guns be a bad thing? I think everyone not a felon or with serious mental health issues should be capable of concealed carry if the choose ( I also think Open carry is just plain stupid), but I also believe they should be given the proper training to do so safely and within the laws. If it's too much of a hassle for them to get the training then that's their choice.

So, wishing that our state be limited by the constitution as our founding fathers envisioned makes one an extremist? It should be known that the presence of a training requirement is what changes a "right" to a "privilege", like driving. The 2A is NOT a privilege, it is a right enumerated in our bill of rights. It was so important to our founding fathers that they placed it second, immediately after our 1A rights. It is the mechanism by which we guarantee the rest of our rights and a safeguard to our most important right, the right to exist. As far as mandatory training goes, what is the great evil that happens if training is NOT mandated? How is this NOT already covered by current law? If you are negligent and harm someone by any means, gun..car...food poisoning...etc... there is current legal recourse that can be taken to give a consequence for that behavior.

Nobody is against seeking training....in fact I am a strong advocate for it, but requiring training to exercise a right is something that crosses a line. The abused wife that just left her abuser should immediately have the right to defense without having to jump through cost and time prohibitive hoops first. Training is a luxury some people cannot afford.

As far as the belief that untrained persons will account for a statistically significant onslaught of dead shot people...lets look at the actual data....
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

in 2010 for example, a total of 606 people were killed by the accidental discharge of firearms. While these deaths are tragic, they are not statistically significant enough to base legal policy on. In comparison, 3,782 people died by accidental drowning in that same year. How many people feel we must then mandate swimming and pool training before someone may install a pool, or be near a body of water? 26,009 people died from falling down in that same year, so logically we need to mandate slip/trip/fall training.

So again, yes..training is VERY important and it should be incumbent on any responsible gun owner to seek it out...but there is no great epidemic of accidental shootings that really justify 2A infringement in the form of training mandates. If firearm negligence does result in harm, our current laws can provide recourse for the victim and a consequence to the party that was negligent.

PowPow · Nov 23, 2014

Quarterly firearm training to conceal carry? Annual renewal? Come on, man. None of that makes sense.

If it needs to be done with a permit, do the background, collect the fee, mail the card, and renew it every 10 years.

Really, constitutional carry is the way to go. The other "CC"!

Stoveman · Nov 23, 2014

I'm all for training, just not mandatory. This is a right, not a privilege.

I'm all about OC and when I'm in Free America this is my predominant form of carry. I think that the vast majority of criminals are cowards and OC is a deterrent. This is my opinion and just as valid as those that think OC is stupid.

I don't rag on those who prefer to carry differently than I do, we are all in this together and need to project a unified front to the anti's and gun grabbing politicians.....

smokey · Nov 23, 2014

conversation on Noir about mandatory training, starting about 1:15

p.s.- travis haley is also in this video being an absolute BAMF with the AR at 9:22

NormH3 · Nov 23, 2014

danb said:
I am all for training. Once. You know, like the way we train to drive autos.

I don't think you can compare the two. Perhaps we only get training one time in our lives to learn to drive, but then most of us drive our cars almost everyday for the rest of our lives. I don't know of too many people that have the time or can afford to go to the range most every day. Apples and oranges.

Mark75H · Nov 23, 2014

Unknown User said:
I believe that having "quarterly" advanced or basic training for Everyone that owns a firearm is the way to go..

They can't even man up to do quarterly training with stuff as dangerous as automobiles ... with the inherent safety record of guns, why bother?

Cars first, swimming pools second, then you can talk to me about guns

Get real about what stuff is actually dangerous to the public

Mark75H · Nov 23, 2014

Aren't most gun deaths the result of deliberate action? Safety training has nothing to do with criminals using guns. Also, look into the required training in states that allow both types of carry ... existing data shows its NOT necessary for public safety. Blood does not run in the streets of states that allow carry ... it runs in our streets

Compare the number of accidental gun deaths in MD to accidental car deaths - then you will see where the training should be.

danb · Nov 23, 2014

NormH3 said:
I don't think you can compare the two. Perhaps we only get training one time in our lives to learn to drive, but then most of us drive our cars almost everyday for the rest of our lives. I don't know of too many people that have the time or can afford to go to the range most every day. Apples and oranges.

see below.

Mark75H said:
Aren't most gun deaths the result of deliberate action? Safety training has nothing to do with criminals using guns. Also, look into the required training in states that allow both types of carry ... existing data shows its NOT necessary for public safety. Blood does not run in the streets of states that allow carry ... it runs in our streets

Compare the number of accidental gun deaths in MD to accidental car deaths - then you will see where the training should be.

^^ this.

smokey · Nov 23, 2014

Mark75H said:
Aren't most gun deaths the result of deliberate action? Safety training has nothing to do with criminals using guns. Also, look into the required training in states that allow both types of carry ... existing data shows its NOT necessary for public safety. Blood does not run in the streets of states that allow carry ... it runs in our streets

Compare the number of accidental gun deaths in MD to accidental car deaths - then you will see where the training should be.

Statistically, MOST gun deaths are suicides with roughly 2/3 of gun deaths being suicides. Of course of suicides, roughly half are by gun. Soo roughly 10,000 gun homicides to 20,000 suicides....and roughly 40,000 total suicides, 20,000 being by gun. If you want to have a dramatic impact on needless deaths, it's much more productive to work on suicide awareness and prevention than to go after guns.

The sphinx · Nov 23, 2014

Unknown User said:
The fingerprint and background issue would have already been taken care of via the HQL process. maybe shorten the renewal time from 10 years to every year and anyone who chooses to OC MUSt take a basic or advanced self defense and mandatory gun safety course with a certified instructor twice per year (every 6 months), the certification number can be electronically linked to your HQL via MSP..........

Holy shit! Anything else?

Unknown User · Nov 23, 2014

http://rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/

I think this is a good example of what I'm trying to say.

Indiana Jones · Nov 23, 2014

smokey0118 said:
Hello mysterious low-count poster...Your question doesn't properly get the point across. Here are few more that need clarification.

1) Would you open carry if it was the only means of carry in md?

Yes, I would absolutely open carry everywhere that is was legal.

2) Would you be happy with open carry in md?

Hells no. It is necessary to have BOTH open AND concealed carry as legal options. Most people prefer to carry concealed in order to avoid attention. They don't want to be "SWAT'd" with a MWAG call from hoplophobes, and they don't want criminals attempting to "get the jump" on them. They want to have the best tool for self defense, but fly under the radar. Most all proponents of the ability to carry most wish to be left alone and blend into a crowd. We absolutely aren't out to be vigilantes or look for a fight. The ability to conceal helps us achieve "grey-man" status and blend.

It's also important to have both OC and CC to protect us legally. We don't want to only have CC....then get charged with "brandishing" because our gun showed out from under our shirt when we reached for a jar of honey at the supermarket. We also don't want to be carrying our kid's car-seat while OC'ing and be charged with illegal CC because the car-seat concealed the firearm. Having both gives us the ability to choose which method of carry is the most appropriate for our circumstances and gives us legal protections.

3) Do you think OC or CC is a better method of carry(assuming both are legal) and why?

Carrying a firearm for defense is a very personal thing and should be differentiated for not only the individual, but the circumstances in which they will be carrying. Factors going in to which will be "better" include comfort, the type of gun, the season, the activity, the location, the need to quickly access it, and just personal preference. Generally, open carry is much more comfortable and much easier to quickly access the firearm. It's part of the reason police open carry(along with projecting authority). Some people also enjoy "normalizing" firearms within the community by carrying. When people see elementary school teachers(I am one), bankers, military, shopkeeps, librarians, pastors, soccer moms...etc carrying around them without incident, firearms become commonplace tools, such as a chainsaw, kitchen knife, or baseball bat.

Other people prefer to think "tactically", or just prefer to be a grey-man and choose to conceal. For them, they do not want to give up the element of surprise to a threat. If they are in a bank, and a potential bank-robber is in the room with them, they don't want that bank robber to know that he/she needs to take out the law-abiding citizen with a gun during their robbery. They also may not want criminals to sneak up on them and "get the jump" on them, then take their firearm. Another consideration is the hoplophobes that are scared of guns. They don't want some "moms demand action" lunatic calling the police and reporting a "man with a gun" as they try to shop while OC'ing, go to the movies, or do anything else they'd normally do.

And there's those that would do either, depending on circumstances. If they're doing yardwork, they may open carry. If they're going to dinner and the movies, maybe they'd conceal. If they want to carry their full-sized pistol in the heat of the summer, they may open carry, or if they prefer their sub-compact in winter, they'd conceal. It's really dependent on their mood and the situation they will be in, and they're trained to carry in either manner.

4) Are you ok with the idea that there are different "classes" of people with different rights?

Again, hells no. The 2A reads as follows....

.....the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Our nation operates under the law and with the assumption that all men are created equal. In america, no animal is "more equal" than another. Our right to keep and bear arms in inalienable, endowed by our creator, and SHALL NOT be infringed upon by the state.

By setting up privileged classes of people that have more rights than others, we've violated the very principles that our nation is founded upon. Imagine if only police/security guards/military were allowed to vote, have freedom of speech, or exercise freedom of religion. The 2A is the same, it is an inalienable right and any tiered system of infringements is still a system of infringements, which the state SHALL NOT do.

In this respect, mandatory training, licensing, and an application process are all infringements and should not be tolerated. It's in much the same way that we should not tolerate mandatory training(at our own expense), licensing, and an application process in order to exercise our 1A rights, or 4A, or 5A...

5) Without mandatory licensing, training, and an application process, how will we keep people from committing gun crimes?

...by not limiting ourselves to "gun crimes". Instead, approach it as "crime". It makes no difference to the murder victim if they were killed with a gun, a screwdriver, bare fists, a bomb, or a car...the criminal act is still murder. That should be enough. The victim of a robbery doesn't care which tool the robber used against them, they are still robbed. We have laws on the books right now to address any act by one individual that infringes on the rights of another in our society, we need to start using them and enforcing them instead of creating more meaningless laws for a revolving-door justice system.

Also, the majority of crimes against others are committed by a VERY small minority of our population. Criminals are just plain outnumbered by law-abiding citizens. The problem today is that law-abiding citizens are outgunned so to speak. The law-abiding follow carry laws and walk around maryland unarmed and largely defenseless. The criminals don't obey laws by very definition and are the ones carrying. If we remove the infringements against the 2A right to BEAR arms, law-abiding will be able to defend themselves....since they largely outnumber the criminal element, it puts a large disincentive(potentially losing your life) on choosing criminal behaviors. In pretty much every state that has liberalized their carry laws, violent crimes have plummeted. Recently due to attacks domestically, both russia and isreal have liberalized their carry laws to better enable their people to be more self-sufficient in their own defense. It's a no-brainer.

6) Do you honestly think md politicians will vote to give md'ers the ability to conceal carry?

They do not have a choice. Maryland WILL be a shall-issue state and we WILL have the right to bear arms. Momentum and the law are both on our side. the 2A is winning in the courts and it is only a matter of time before litigation gives us the ability to carry. We have learned lessons from other civil rights movements and are following their example.

Of course, momentum is also in our favor in the general assembly. Any politician who is smart and doesn't want to be booted will recognize their constituency's inalienable 2A rights and will vote to enable them to be self-sufficient in their own defense. If not, we will continue to show up every election cycle and remove them from office like we did in the 2014 elections. Our side is gathering momentum and every coming election we will remove more and more pro-2A infringment politicians. The ones that aren't removed will be forced to spend more money and time to keep their seats.

The pro2A side is getting more organized and we are better understanding how to win elections. We've studied alinsky's playbook and are using it against the system. Maryland polticians will get on board with our side or will be removed, simple as that.

I <3 you long time Smokey!!!

smokey · Nov 23, 2014

Indiana Jones said:
I <3 you long time Smokey!!!

Mark75H · Nov 23, 2014

Unknown User said:
http://rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/

I think this is a good example of what I'm trying to say.

Not following you ... you'll have to explain

Starting to become suspicious like the earlier posters

Brooklyn · Nov 23, 2014

JVP409 said:
I never understand the resistance to requiring training for carrying. All The constitutional scholars here will jump on the " why do I need a class to execute my constitutional rights" narrative, but you just sound like extremists and add to the anti's claims that we are all gun nuts. Why would better trained people with guns be a bad thing? I think everyone not a felon or with serious mental health issues should be capable of concealed carry if the choose ( I also think Open carry is just plain stupid), but I also believe they should be given the proper training to do so safely and within the laws. If it's too much of a hassle for them to get the training then that's their choice.

Because the only thing the left fears more than an untrained gun owner is a trained one.. which may also explain why they don't want off duty cops carrying either. Or why the training most police get is substandard.

In any case ...for some reason they always want 'training' but never an objective performance standard. The latter might even pass IS. But it would cost much and would not be a high enough burden.

OC vs CC in Maryland

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

OC vs CC in Maryland

OC

CC

Banned

Banned

On the 3rd box

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

2A TEACHER

Where's the beef?

TV Personality

2A TEACHER

Banned

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

dont be a dumbass

2A TEACHER

Ultimate Member

Member

Wolverine

2A TEACHER

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

I stand with John Locke.

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics