Permit to exercise rights = unconstitutional

[Steve973]

If we do not need a reason to exercise our rights, then we should not need a permit. A permit is the same thing as a reason and it is the same thing as permission. That requirement is indicative of privileges, not of rights.

This is also similar to obtaining a permit to exercise free speech in the form of protests. When are we going to tell our government that they cannot get away with this crap?

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

 

[csanc123]

Rights can be tempered for public safety reasons...It's the reason you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater and cause havoc.

With that said...MD position on carry permits is one of which they tried to temper the right to the point that it crushed law abiding citizens (those who do not intend to yell "fire"). MD basically "assumes" you will yell fire through their permiting process.

Hope this makes sense.

If we do not need a reason to exercise our rights, then we should not need a permit. A permit is the same thing as a reason and it is the same thing as permission. That requirement is indicative of privileges, not of rights.

This is also similar to obtaining a permit to exercise free speech in the form of protests. When are we going to tell our government that they cannot get away with this crap?

 

[yellowsled]

baby steps

 

[pwoolford]

No matter how many times I see that pic I never get tired of it!

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Our rights are often lost little by little, so little by little might be one of the best ways to get them back(aside from 1776).

 

[Steve973]

Rattlesnake, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, then you are free to ignore the discussion. It doesn't really matter much to me if you are tired of this topic.

"Shall not be infringed" does not mean "may be tempered for public safety" so I think you will have to cite something in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that upholds that opinion. That being said, the danger to individuals from the panic that ensues from yelling "fire" in a crowded place is a valid reason to not allow that exclamation. However, carrying a concealed firearm does not pose any danger to the public, just like a hammer in my work bench does not drive any nails into any boards. The action to temper is not the concealed carrying of the weapon, it is the improper use of the weapon. We need to be very, very careful about what we allow the government to do, and we have to be very careful how we let them do it.

 

[csanc123]

Well...do you want your next door neighbor who is schizo but in the process of being treated to have a gun in their posession? I don't. How about the child molester who just got out after serving 25 years for rape and abduction at gunpoint? How about your 6 year old son..should he be allowed to carry?


There are limits albiet they should be VERY limited and not broad but limits nonetheless.

Rattlesnake, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, then you are free to ignore the discussion. It doesn't really matter much to me if you are tired of this topic.

"Shall not be infringed" does not mean "may be tempered for public safety" so I think you will have to cite something in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that upholds that opinion. That being said, the danger to individuals from the panic that ensues from yelling "fire" in a crowded place is a valid reason to not allow that exclamation. However, carrying a concealed firearm does not pose any danger to the public, just like a hammer in my work bench does not drive any nails into any boards. The action to temper is not the concealed carrying of the weapon, it is the improper use of the weapon. We need to be very, very careful about what we allow the government to do, and we have to be very careful how we let them do it.

 

[MDFF2008]

If we do not need a reason to exercise our rights, then we should not need a permit. A permit is the same thing as a reason and it is the same thing as permission. That requirement is indicative of privileges, not of rights.

This is also similar to obtaining a permit to exercise free speech in the form of protests. When are we going to tell our government that they cannot get away with this crap?

When more than 100 gun owners can be bothered to attend demonstrations...

 

[Threeband]

Today Shall Issue.

Tomorrow Constitutional Carry.

 

[twan]

Well...do you want your next door neighbor who is schizo but in the process of being treated to have a gun in their posession? I don't. How about the child molester who just got out after serving 25 years for rape and abduction at gunpoint? How about your 6 year old son..should he be allowed to carry?


There are limits albiet they should be VERY limited and not broad but limits nonetheless.

 

[Walter]

Well...do you want your next door neighbor who is schizo but in the process of being treated to have a gun in their posession? I don't. How about the child molester who just got out after serving 25 years for rape and abduction at gunpoint? How about your 6 year old son..should he be allowed to carry?


There are limits albiet they should be VERY limited and not broad but limits nonetheless.

How exactly does a permission slip, whoops I mean carry permit, keep criminals from carrying firearms? It doesn't. It's about as useful as a gun-free zone sign. And it only burdens law abiding citizens.

If you are not prohibited from owning a firearm, you should not require a permission slip to carry it.

 

[ezliving]

"Shall not be infringed" does not mean "may be tempered for public safety" so I think you will have to cite something in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that upholds that opinion. That being said, the danger to individuals from the panic that ensues from yelling "fire" in a crowded place is a valid reason to not allow that exclamation. However, carrying a concealed firearm does not pose any danger to the public, just like a hammer in my work bench does not drive any nails into any boards. The action to temper is not the concealed carrying of the weapon, it is the improper use of the weapon. We need to be very, very careful about what we allow the government to do, and we have to be very careful how we let them do it.

I've never seen any briefs for any 2A cases arguing "shall not be infringed."

 

[MDFF2008]

Are we really going to go here now?

We just got a huge victory; and it's going to be a big battle to see how Maryland reacts to it. Let's capitalize on our victory by getting permits in people's hands and educating the public, not by bitching that permits are unconstitutional or we didn't get just the absolute right perfect goldylocks ruling.

Let's get ready for Maryland's response, let's get ready to educate and spread the word, let's get permits in people's hands and deal with constitutional carry later. There's still over 1 month in the GA for them to pull antics.

You didn't loose your rights overnight, you won't get them back overnight.

 

[montoya32]

I honestly have no qualms with a permit. I don't want mentally "hindered" people carrying or criminals convicted of violent crimes carrying. I know the NICS check does this when you purchase, but a lot can happen between a purchase and an app for a permit.

 

[Walter]

Are we really going to go here now?

We just got a huge victory; and it's going to be a big battle to see how Maryland reacts to it. Let's capitalize on our victory by getting permits in people's hands and educating the public, not by bitching that permits are unconstitutional or we didn't get just the absolute right perfect goldylocks ruling.

Let's get ready for Maryland's response, let's get ready to educate and spread the word, let's get permits in people's hands and deal with constitutional carry later. There's still over 1 month in the GA for them to pull antics.

You didn't loose your rights overnight, you won't get them back overnight.

Exactly. I'm part of the "2A is my carry permit" crowd, but I know it will take baby steps to get there. We should celebrate every victory and keep pushing for more. Today Shall Issue, Tomorrow Constitutional Carry.

 

[BUFF7MM]

Are we really going to go here now?

We just got a huge victory; and it's going to be a big battle to see how Maryland reacts to it. Let's capitalize on our victory by getting permits in people's hands and educating the public, not by bitching that permits are unconstitutional or we didn't get just the absolute right perfect goldylocks ruling.

Let's get ready for Maryland's response, let's get ready to educate and spread the word, let's get permits in people's hands and deal with constitutional carry later. There's still over 1 month in the GA for them to pull antics.

You didn't loose your rights overnight, you won't get them back overnight.

Very well said, lets take it one step at a time.

 

[parashootman]

Legg puts foot in Maryland's ASS!

 

[gruube]

This fight has just begun. If you think that the state of MD is going to lay down this easy. Of course none of us do. I agree with most of you lets just get the permit first. I also feel that the political atmosphere of MD has the wind of change. We are tired of getting nickel and dime'd at every turn. These are words from my democratic friends. Lets enjoy our victory for now and prepare for a fight soon to follow.

 

[browning guy]

Steve973,

I feel your pain brother! I am a devoated follower of the church of " leave me the hell alone"! I know my right to protect myself and my family is a natural right of man and should not be infringed at all by govermnent. Its a bitch living in a state that views guns and gun owners as evil wacko's. then you drive 40 miles south cross in to Virgina put a 1911 on you hip out in the open and live like the freemen we are.

We must take this victory as it is a first step to regaining the rights that have been eat away at over the years.