We have an MSP Head

[Gryphon]

For the most part I don't mind the banter, and often find some of it informative. Most of us wear big boy pants and can handle differing opinions on strategy. I can do without the personal attacks I sometimes see, but still appreciate the passion that most bring to the discussion.

 

[navycraig]

I am willing to wait until the new super is approved by the GA and then until after sine die for the announcement that self defense is good to go for g&s and that the state police will start to shall issue ccw permits. I have waited this long. after that my opinion of Hogan will change, and not for the better.

and I believe some here are now in fear that they have been duped by Hogan and are trying to push everyone to just wait and wait and maybe wait till his second term and then wait some more instead of just saying that Hogan bullshitted us and is just like the rest of the politicians.

I guess time will tell....but I think time is running out. just like my patients.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Applehd]

Would I be wrong to think that once G&S is defined as self-defense, other parts of the process would become unnecessary and therefore be changed as well. The interview, for instance. Why would it be necessary? Permit Review Board, If you F..k up, wouldn't the courts determine your fate? References? Why? If you pass a BGC, you can buy a gun... right? Need references to buy a gun now? To me it seems like it would certainly be stream-lined. Without re-reading every post... 1) Fill out application 2) Clean background check 3) Here's your permit... Have a nice day. Not sure why the process should take 90 days either. It doesn't take 90 to buy a gun now...does it? 7-day wait to buy a gun... why? I walk in to a gun store with a gun on my hip... but I need to cool off? Really...? I see their house of cards falling once this ball gets rollin... but that's my Unicorn world.

 

[Afield]

Well, this is MDShooters. If there was nothing to snipe about, we'd have to invent it.

To be fair, I think that this thread has stayed rather tame. We've gone 234 posts without bashing the cops or MSP, much.

I do totally get the impatience. But I also have faith.

And nobody has Godwin'd it yet either, right?!

 

[BoxersRock]

There is another... My prior remains that there will be a "precipitating event" - court opinion (e.g. Peruta goes to SCT), national reciprocity, etc. which forces action.

I think that it will take a longer time coming than people think, but when it does happen, it will be like a dam breaking and happen faster than people imagine.

Very true

I thought about that scenario. No way they can "quietly" change the standard. I expect about 1000 "yes! I got my CCW" posts/threads on MDShooters. More than a few "How to" and "status" threads. And, the press monitors MDS. It will be impossible to keep this cat in the bag before the first permit is even issued.

 

[lilgibby]

I am hoping some good comes from this.

 

[Wright45]

Would I be wrong to think that once G&S is defined as self-defense, other parts of the process would become unnecessary and therefore be changed as well. The interview, for instance. Why would it be necessary? Permit Review Board, If you F..k up, wouldn't the courts determine your fate? References? Why? If you pass a BGC, you can buy a gun... right? Need references to buy a gun now? To me it seems like it would certainly be stream-lined. Without re-reading every post... 1) Fill out application 2) Clean background check 3) Here's your permit... Have a nice day. Not sure why the process should take 90 days either. It doesn't take 90 to buy a gun now...does it? 7-day wait to buy a gun... why? I walk in to a gun store with a gun on my hip... but I need to cool off? Really...? I see their house of cards falling once this ball gets rollin... but that's my Unicorn world.

This

 

[Schipperke]

For the most part I don't mind the banter, and often find some of it informative. Most of us wear big boy pants and can handle differing opinions on strategy. I can do without the personal attacks I sometimes see, but still appreciate the passion that most bring to the discussion.

The same people that do that, you'll find comments where they bumped their delegate walking by, or wanted to spit on them in the restroom. As soon as a constituent goes bonkers or slides in subtle insults discussing a position, there is no reward. When it degrades in to an argument you've just solidified their current view. The person holding the cards wins, you have zero leverage personally. The comments where "Delegate "X" runs away when they see me", how does that help? Getting a reputation like that does not help, you have no power. Delegates or Senators amongst themselves can can get "snippy" amongst themselves as they share the power. The people that I find at the head of organizations are very good and understanding that insults and aggressive, combative style discourse with representatives is a no win situation.

 

[cdstraw]

So I'm reading through a different thread on National 2A Issues, its in this thread "Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit
". Specifically, I found this paragraph in the court decision.

In Heller I, the Court held that the Second Amendment protected the possession of guns in the home for self-defense, thus striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U.S. at 635. In the opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia wrote: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id. at 595. After consulting the text’s historical background and the public’s general understanding of the provision, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing, individual right to keep and bear arms, recognizing that the “central component of the right” was self-defense. See id. at 592, 599.

This is the link to the actual document, the quote is on Page 4.
https://edca.4dca.org/DCADocs/2012/3...5_083006_i.pdf

I'll try an edit to the specific thread, but I'm IT challenged to cross link to another post.

Anyway, it's interesting to see a Court decision, admittedly a Florida Court, but regardless state that "After consulting the text’s historical background and the public’s general understanding of the provision, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing, individual right to keep and bear arms, recognizing that the “central component of the right” was self-defense."

Could this be used in our info to the GA? Thoughts?

 

[Mr H]

I like the idea of citing that in written testimony, and maybe even referencing it in oral.

 

[DC-W]

The more homework done for written and spoken testimony, the better
MD has been an echo chamber of ignorance to the fact that carry is common across an overwhelming majority of our country. Court opinions and statistics bolster your argument (and make you sound smarter )

Fmr Sen Jacobs wouldn't let me off the stand before complimenting the stats I went through when after testifying on the G&S bill last year.

 

[Brooklyn]

More smarter stats state I make.
Postfix notion.

Just make sure they are money good... otherwise you open yourself up to a needless battle of stats..

 

[Brooklyn]

So I'm reading through a different thread on National 2A Issues, its in this thread "Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit
". Specifically, I found this paragraph in the court decision.

In Heller I, the Court held that the Second Amendment protected the possession of guns in the home for self-defense, thus striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U.S. at 635. In the opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia wrote: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id. at 595. After consulting the text’s historical background and the public’s general understanding of the provision, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing, individual right to keep and bear arms, recognizing that the “central component of the right” was self-defense. See id. at 592, 599.

This is the link to the actual document, the quote is on Page 4.
https://edca.4dca.org/DCADocs/2012/3...5_083006_i.pdf

I'll try an edit to the specific thread, but I'm IT challenged to cross link to another post.

Anyway, it's interesting to see a Court decision, admittedly a Florida Court, but regardless state that "After consulting the text’s historical background and the public’s general understanding of the provision, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing, individual right to keep and bear arms, recognizing that the “central component of the right” was self-defense."

Could this be used in our info to the GA? Thoughts?

Well we here have known this was a right for some time
If it were me...I would not quote the court directly but paraphrase and state " as I understand it the court said ".....

I means nearly the same thing but keeps a minor error or omission from impuning your credibility... and it makes them look petty when they attack..

This just my personal opinion..I am not a lawyer and I prefer to avoid making bold claims that professionals, who are lawyers,can then attack...

But. Its a very good point to make, however you make it...

 

[PgRefugee]

Hogan was better than Brown no doubt. Hogan is still a politician. The Maryland GA won't move until pushed by a federal or supreme court ruling (don't hold your breath). There is no chance of getting a permit outside of a gubernatorial directive to the MSP head.

 

[PO2012]

I agree but you would be surprised how many LEOs do not want to deal with more citizens concealed carrying. There is a bill in the GA now to prevent LEOs from seeing who has a CC when they are on a car stop. Some LEO some where is going to say more CC is an "officer safety" issue. There are a lot of pro 2A LEOs out there but then again, there are probably just as many Antis.

Every, and I do mean every, Officer and supervisor that I work with wants to see ordinary (read: non-military and police) citizens have the ability to carry firearms outside the home without fear of arrest.

Armed robbery is out of control right now in Central Maryland, particularly commercial armed robbery. The level of violence is ridiculous. In fact this very issue was addressed at roll call today by a supervisor with just shy of 40 years on the job who said that he's never seen this type of volume when it comes to armed robbery. We're tracking five different robbery patterns just in the area that I work and four of those involve armed robbery crews with two or more members. In the short term, the problem could be controlled by having heavily armed plainclothes officers lie in wait for these individuals. Unfortunately no agency in the State of Maryland has the stomach for the headlines and photographs such encounters would inevitably lead to. In the long term, however, criminals need to be taught to fear their potential victims and those potential victims need to have the ability to deal with the issue at the moment it arises. Prison is not a deterrent in today's day and age - being shot to death, however, most definitely is.

As far as knowing if someone has a wear and carry permit on a traffic stop, I don't have that ability. I can look in MSP Guns to see if you have a registered firearm but that doesn't mean you have a permit to carry. In any event, having a registered firearm is not probable cause for a search. If anything it would make me less suspicious since prohibited persons can't (and don't) register their weapons.

 

[redeemed.man]

Ummm yes he did. From Dblas' post he said "first day in office",

He has already failed at that unless we just missed being informed????

 

[abevet101]

As far as knowing if someone has a wear and carry permit on a traffic stop, I don't have that ability. I can look in MSP Guns to see if you have a registered firearm but that doesn't mean you have a permit to carry. In any event, having a registered firearm is not probable cause for a search. If anything it would make me less suspicious since prohibited persons can't (and don't) register their weapons.

We do have a 4th Amendment right BUT I don't see anything wrong with letting a police officer know I have a firearm if I had a permit to carry in Maryland. I just think police officers have a tremendously dangerous job and if I can do anything to aide in letting the officer know I don't have any intentions in doing them harm, why not? Then again I can also understand a police officer treating EVERY situation as if deadly force could be required.

 

[Mr H]

He has already failed at that unless we just missed being informed????

To be literal?

"First day" was an organizational detail, re: his Cabinet.

Anything else was a "to-do" list.

 

[redeemed.man]

We do have a 4th Amendment right BUT I don't see anything wrong with letting a police officer know I have a firearm if I had a permit to carry in Maryland. I just think police officers have a tremendously dangerous job and if I can do anything to aide in letting the officer know I don't have any intentions in doing them harm, why not? Then again I can also understand a police officer treating EVERY situation as if deadly force could be required.

Unless I am in a jurisdiction requiring notification my answer if asked will always be "Nothing illegal here sir". I see no need to draw attention to myself carrying. Hands visible, No sudden movements and cooperation with lawful requests will keep you safe.

 

[abevet101]

Unless I am in a jurisdiction requiring notification my answer if asked will always be "Nothing illegal here sir". I see no need to draw attention to myself carrying. Hands visible, No sudden movements and cooperation with lawful requests will keep you safe.

Seems like a lot of memorization of laws in numerous jurisdictions. But that's your viewpoint and I can respect that.