DOES THE MD-FSA 2013 DISCRIINATE AGAINST THE POOR?

[DC-W]

Then let those in Baltimore change how they vote! Would these be the same poor that drive new Mercedes and BMWs while I drive a 10 year old car?

Stop with the "discriminating against the poor" mantra--it ain't gonna fly and dilutes the real issues! You don't need a f'ing handgun to defend yourself (hint: shotgun), and if you really need a handgun, it doesn't need to be a high end Glock, Sig Sauer, Baretta, etc. Get a 1963 Walther P38 that holds 8+1 9mm luger rounds and is a C&R.

Again, focus on winnable arguments.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

These are similar arguments that many of those ilk make for other issues. Think entitlement attitude.

 

[Nokas]

Here are the names of those Maryland members of the General Assembly who sponsored and supported the unconstitutional FSA 2013.


All Sponsors: The President (By Request - Administration) and Senators Benson, Conway, Currie, Ferguson, Forehand, Frosh, Kelley, King, Madaleno, Manno, Montgomery, Peters, Pinsky, Ramirez, Raskin, Robey, Rosapepe, Young, Zirkin, Jones-Rodwell, and McFadden



Source: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=sb0281&tab=subject3&ys=2013rs


Contact the General assembly and your congressmen and ask they repeal this unconstitutional law.

 

[teratos]

It was brought up in Annapolis several times that it discriminates against the poor. I am a rich doctor. I can afford $50 for a HQL, the $70 for fingerprints, the $150 for the training. I could pay $500 for it. It won't stop me from getting what I want if I want it bad enough. There are a lot of people who see a couple hundred dollars as a huge amount. It will prevent them from being able to defend their families. They don't care.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Yep , not just at COMAR hearing , but continually during GA session that HQL was disporportionally burdemson upon the fixed & low income , and Balt residents specifically.. Burdomsome-ness includes not just the fees per se , but the transportation to several destinations , and the time required over multiple days , potentially interfering with work and/ or family responsabilities.

You can ask 10 gun people about which firearms are suitable/ particularily suitable/ best for various roles, and get 43 opinions. There are several cognigent arguements favoring handguns for various home defense situations.

The SCOUTUS (in Heller) has recognized that handguns are in common usage for home defense , and that they particularily suited for such use.

 

[Blacksmith101]

You also need a computer or access to one and the internet because HQL applications are only available on line.

You must have a means of payment because cash and checks are not acceptable to the MSP.

Fingerprinting can be a challenge as well as an expense for example the web site lists the closest choices to Cecil County as Bel Air, a 75 mile round trip from some places in Cecil plus an $8.00 toll, or Salisbury, 150 mile round trip without the toll.

In addition to the expense these requirements are burdensome to the elderly (a protected class) particularly those living on social security.

 

[Alutacon]

When will people stop being confused about what constitutes legal discrimination. Poverty (or lack of money) is not a protected class! And there is a vast difference between food stamps and guns. I see lots of folks here in Frederick walking or riding bicycles because they can't afford a car.

Here are the protected classes:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Sexual Orientation – United States v. Windsor

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

the OP didn't title the thread does it "legally" discriminate against a protected class. he simply said does it discriminate against the poor. it is a more than fair subject of debate.

 

[JettaRed]

the OP didn't title the thread does it "legally" discriminate against a protected class. he simply said does it discriminate against the poor. it is a more than fair subject of debate.

The argument is a red herring. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Cadillac discriminate against the poor (unless you live in B'more). So now, instead of getting a Glock, the poor buy a Hi-Point.

We can debate this all we want. I just think it's misdirected energy.

Now, if you really want to get a debate going, propose government subsidies for the poor in terms of tax credits, a la Obamacare.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[EL1227]

The argument is a red herring. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Cadillac discriminate against the poor (unless you live in B'more). So now, instead of getting a Glock, the poor buy a Hi-Point.

We can debate this all we want. I just think it's misdirected energy.

Now, if you really want to get a debate going, propose government subsidies for the poor in terms of tax credits a free Hi-Point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

FIFY ...

 

[Ab_Normal]

They have been discriminating against the poor since at least when the 'Saturday Night Special' law as passed.

Besides if the poor wanted to exercise their rights to legally purchase a firearm they could use the cash benefit part of their welfare handout to cover the cost.

FYI - the government only really cares about how the poor vote. Why do you think they give them sooo many benefits?

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Kudos to the OP for generating some great discussion.

My thinking is that the miserable SOBs who create legislation HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of the unintended consequences of their hurried, ham handed legislation. They only care that they pursue, to the Maximum event possible, their parochial legislative agenda and press their advantage whilst they enjoy "numbers" over the other party.

It's not now nor will it ever be about right or wrong. Instead it's about power.

Politics, reduced to its most simple components, is all about the acquisition of and application of POWER. The trunk monkeys that surround politicians just keep spinning reality and blowing smoke. The perception of progress is every bit as good if not better than actual progress.

The poor be damned. Someone else said it; only their votes count. Us bums in the middle will always and forever be a convenient source of funds. Until and unless we organize and VTBO. Vote the bastards OUT.

"DISCRIMINATION" is there predominantly to enable victimization and further weaken the folks in the middle.

 

[danb]

After reading the "plain English" and "non-lawyer" versions by MS forum members, and reading the MSP Licensing webpage, the cost to procure the HQL to buy a handgun in Maryland is expensive, especially for low income and poverty level citizens.

Maybe some of these MD citizens want or need to "exercise their 2A Rights and buy a used inexpensive handgun for personal, family and home protection," especially if they are living in high crime areas.

But along comes MDs FSA and the cost of exercising this right of self defense has now doubled and low income and poverty level citizens cannot afford to legally buy a cheap handgun for self protection.

Will State Government provide low income or poverty level MD [legal & illegal] residents "HQL Subsidy Stamps" towards the purchase of a handgun?

Has MD State Government appropriated taxpayer funding to subsidies handgun purchases by the poor?

Will State Government pay for fingerprinting, firearm safety training, HQL, background check fees, FFL dealer fees and provide transportation, travel expense and a healthy hot lunch to assist the poor in obtaining a handgun under the new FSA regulations? Will the State provide "gun locks" to the impoverished to use on their handguns?

Does MDs FSA violate the president's agenda to "spread the wealth?"

If the MD State Government does not subsidies the low income, poverty level citizens, to comply with the FSA, is this a case of DISCRIMINATION? I wonder???

Frosh said it himself during Senate debate, about half the state gets fingerprinted for jobs. This is the "protect the rich suburbs in HoCo and MoCo" firearms act of 2013. People with public transportation need not apply. If you have any doubt, dig up the DOJ report on who is most likely to be a straw purchaser in MD.

 

[ohen cepel]

Almost all gun laws are biased against the poor or are outright racist. Read the history and it's pretty clear. Many go back to Jim Crow days to keep minorities from the right of self defense; easier to terrorize unarmed people.

 

[abean4187]

$60 for fingerprints
$50 for first license background check
$30-60 for training
$10 for second background check
$0-100 for travel/time needed to finish all necessary steps.

They just made firearm ownership at least $150 more expensive and realistically, they made it closer to 200-250 more expensive. Gun control initially started as a way to remove firearms from the hands of black people and that practice continues today. This bill is a direct assault on the poor and minorities of Maryland, no question about it.

 

[Applehd]

The argument is a red herring. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Cadillac discriminate against the poor (unless you live in B'more). So now, instead of getting a Glock, the poor buy a Hi-Point.

Would I be correct by saying that self-protection is a God-given Right and driving is a privilege. If you have the funds for a certain brand of automobile, by all means, have at it. If not, may I suggest public transportation, a bike, or your feet. The brand and the price of the weapon chosen is irrelevant. If you don't have the funds to pay for all of the hoops you need to jump through to even initiate purchasing a handgun for self-protection, I see THAT burden as discrimination.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[teratos]

Would I be correct by saying that self-protection is a God-given Right and driving is a privilege. If you have the funds for a certain brand of automobile, by all means, have at it. If not, may I suggest public transportation, a bike, or your feet. The brand and the price of the weapon chosen is irrelevant. If you don't have the funds to pay for all of the hoops you need to jump through to even initiate purchasing a handgun for self-protection, I see THAT burden as discrimination.

Exactly. You can't say that Lamborghini discriminates because most of us can't afford them. They make a product that is exceedingly expensive to make, and if you have the money they will sell it to you. You cannot put a tax on a fundamental Right. See poll taxes.....

 

[JettaRed]

You are missing my point. I am NOT saying that the new law isn't burdensome and, by definition, an infringement. I'm saying that being poor is not an argument for discrimination. Any argument that it is will be laughed at.

The argument about being poor only works for healthcare and "buying" votes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teratos]

You are missing my point. I am NOT saying that the new law isn't burdensome and, by definition, an infringement. I'm saying that being poor is not an argument for discrimination. Any argument that it is will be laughed at.

The argument about being poor only works for healthcare and "buying" votes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You misunderstand. Any price put on a fundamental Right is excessive. Poll taxes are an excellent example.

 

[RedWolf762]

I don't think it discriminates against the poor as much as it discriminates against the principled and self-reliant. This law has at least one very clear aim: Rid the state of everyone who refuses to bow before the state. Now that I think about it, all of MOM's laws have had that aim.

 

[JettaRed]

You misunderstand. Any price put on a fundamental Right is excessive. Poll taxes are an excellent example.

No...you misunderstand what I am saying. I am in fact agreeing with you. I am saying that the law is a problem regardless of if you are rich or poor! We need to stop trying to make this about being too poor to pay for the license. Focusing on the poor is a diversion from the real issue.

I hated spending over $100 to get my license. Would I have hated it any less if it was free? No, but it wouldn't have hurt as much. The cost should have nothing to do about whether the law is right or not, but the whole discussion on this thread would lead one to believe it's about cost and not principle.