BUFF7MM
☠Buff➐㎣☠
One thing about it it really no method to their madness that's for sure.
yellowsled said:Should we start harassing them at the 90 day mark?
Should we start harassing them at the 90 day mark?
Buff7mm said:My 90 business days is around the 23rd of July, I'm hoping we have some sort of answer before then. I'm hoping to have at least had them call to just say hi by then.
Short answer for me, on day 92, I will be making a phone call.
Nowhere in the COMAR does it say "business days", it just states 90 days
I guess I just figured since they aren't fooling COMAR anyway that is the next thing they would try to pull.
Oh yeah, there going to try to pull all their tricks out on this one I figure.I updated the link to 5-312.
You know; however they try to rig the game, it will be in their favor
Nowhere in theCOMAR§ 5-312 does it say "business days", it just states 90 days
That's why I like option #1: all DL's are permits by default. Only those who do not qualify get the special mark. That means that even the uber-liberal gun haters technically have a permit.
It jives more with my view of the Constitutional Right: you don't need permission to exercise the right. You should not have to ask. The true exceptions are the rare among us who are not able to exercise the right. Those are the ones that need "the mark".
The primary issue with this is the fingerprints. Most states still require them. But I think the "Compromise Constitutional Carry" proposal would be a background check without fingerprints (NICS, state/fbi can do this) via a driver's license. It's not what the Constitutional Carry people want in theory (no checks), but it does not require a separate permit and it is transparent to the end user. The DMV/MVA already does a background check today - I say we recycle it.
This could work in states that are "almost" passing constitutional carry. The problem is the CC activists are pretty rabid about their viewpoints and become enraged when anyone suggests variations on their accepted dogma. They are their own worst enemies, sometimes. I think most of us agree with them in principle. The problems arise once you try to apply that principle to real life politics. Most of us see these things as a step-wise progress thing. Some of the CC activists are so - let's say, "principled" - that they won't take wins along the way. They want the entire war fought and won in a single skirmish.
I'd say it's the last one, inconsistently consistent. The few troopers that are getting apps and processing them have been consistent, but that consistency isn't being applied to all the apps.That reminds me a a term we used in paramedic class, regularly irregular.
So this would then be .....consistantly inconsistant.
Or would it be inconsistantly consistant?
When I hear or think of constitutional carry I think of open carry. I feel that you have a 2A right to open carry, but the state ( any state ) can allow concealed carry with a permit. I feel that if you want to hide the fact that you're concealing a gun the state has the right to do a background check and set standards and restrictions. However, if you want to openly wear a holstered gun on your side the state doesn't have the right to background check you or set restrictions beyond government buildings, schools, or current prohibited places. I feel that open carry is a 2a constitutional right. The state already gets the chance to deny you the right and background check you when you purchase a gun. That's my take on this whole issue and it probably is in line with the majority.
To sum it up, no background checks or permits required to open carry. Background checks and permits to conceal. Current restrictions for government buildings and schools for open and CCW, training required for CCW.
When I hear or think of constitutional carry I think of open carry. I feel that you have a 2A right to open carry, but the state ( any state ) can allow concealed carry with a permit. I feel that if you want to hide the fact that you're concealing a gun the state has the right to do a background check and set standards and restrictions. However, if you want to openly wear a holstered gun on your side the state doesn't have the right to background check you or set restrictions beyond government buildings, schools, or current prohibited places. I feel that open carry is a 2a constitutional right. The state already gets the chance to deny you the right and background check you when you purchase a gun. That's my take on this whole issue and it probably is in line with the majority.
To sum it up, no background checks or permits required to open carry. Background checks and permits to conceal. Current restrictions for government buildings and schools for open and CCW, training required for CCW.
But when you think of open carry, your doing the same thing as the anti's do when they also put meanings and words into the 2A that are not there to suit their needs.
The 2A does say right to bear arms. The 2A does not say inside or outside. The 2A does not say open or concealed. And the 2A does not say how, when, or where.
But when you think of open carry, your doing the same thing as the anti's do when they also put meanings and words into the 2A that are not there to suit their needs.
The 2A does say right to bear arms. The 2A does not say inside or outside. The 2A does not say open or concealed. And the 2A does not say how, when, or where.
Are you in favor of being able to carry any which way arms into a courtroom, school, airport, or other currently restricted places? Not trolling as I am a new guy, but I understand why there are sensitive areas that should be off limits as to allowing the carriage of arms. I feel that criminals like to conceal their guns. I want everyone to believe I am armed. Open carry just confirms that belief. In regards to restrictions on an unalienable right, the 1A right is restricted. Try yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Since 1A has been examined and tested in the SC, it's widely accepted there are limitations to free speech. Hence there will and can be restrictions to 2A and each and every unalienable right we have.
Are you in favor of being able to carry any which way arms into a courtroom, school, airport, or other currently restricted places? Not trolling as I am a new guy, but I understand why there are sensitive areas that should be off limits as to allowing the carriage of arms. I feel that criminals like to conceal their guns. I want everyone to believe I am armed. Open carry just confirms that belief. In regards to restrictions on an unalienable right, the 1A right is restricted. Try yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Since 1A has been examined and tested in the SC, it's widely accepted there are limitations to free speech. Hence there will and can be restrictions to 2A and each and every unalienable right we have.
I wouldn't be in favor of the restriction. Will visiting these certain places suddenly make you a criminal? Will you wave your gun around threatening people simply because you entered an airport?[/
I don't want to be sitting on a plane with someone who went through security, to a gate only to see his flight is delayed for two hours. He goes to the airport bar and drinks for an hour and a half. Comes back to the gate boards the plane with his luggage and gun and then freaks out at 37,000 feet and starts blazing on the plane.
It only takes one bad apple!
I don't want to be sitting on a plane with someone who went through security, to a gate only to see his flight is delayed for two hours. He goes to the airport bar and drinks for an hour and a half. Comes back to the gate boards the plane with his luggage and gun and then freaks out at 37,000 feet and starts blazing on the plane.
It only takes one bad apple!
I'm not anti gun, I just understand why there should be some restrictions to carry in sensitive areas.Holy hyperbole....