Shall Issue being hijacked. YOU MUST ACT NOW!‏‏

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!
  • Dave

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 10, 2008
    4,297
    Gamber, Marylanistan
    I sent out emails on Friday and have gotten numerous responses back for our side. none from the opposition. What's to prevent Frosh from simply doing this to every 2A bill? Clearly he doesn't care about his reputation on the matter.
     

    csanc123

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 26, 2009
    4,161
    Montgomery County
    Right, I got that. But doesn't the current HB in its original format just clear the way for [edit] approvals of CCW [/edit] or is it only the fact they added the ammendments that is the problem? I thought that in addition to removing the requirement for LEO training, it would open the door to approval of the CCW applications. Looks like I was mistaken. It sounds to me now that if this is passed its bad but if nothing happens then we still wait for CCW approvals. Please clarify to the non-legals among us.

    If it passes (as amended) pending CCW apps become null and void since we do not have the training (which has YET to be defined)....see what happens?

    Frosh is trying to take advantage of a chicken/egg scenerio. IE: You can apply for CCW only if you have had the requisite training...but guess what...the training does not exist yet....training criteria is not explicitly spelled out in the amendment. It's up to the discretion of the MSP.

    If the ORIGINAL HB579 passes it has no bearing on pending and future CCW apps. The orginal bill is for retired police officers.

    In the end, the amendments to HB579 amount to pushing back against the most recent ruling of G/S being unconstitutional. It affords the MSP a way of rationing CCW permits (as they do now).
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,787
    Messages
    7,295,802
    Members
    33,519
    Latest member
    nexgen98

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom