SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

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!

    • Register Log in
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    BenL

    BenL

    John Galt Speaking.
    Feb 12, 2007
    9,436
    Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
    SkunkWerX said:
    .

    Where does it all lead? Let's assume that in a few years we have maybe 45 or 48 states with Shall Issue? How would the last 2 or 3 or 5 hold-outs be handled?
    I would surmise WE (the people) would seek a National Reciprocity case, in order to get a decision on your National Right to Bear, as you cross state lines.
    Click to expand...

    My first thought is "like a driver's license", but I'm afraid that sends the wrong message: that CCW is a privilege, not a right. That brings me back to the whole idea of "permits" in the first place; as a fundamental right, we shouldn't need permits. I don't have a permit for freedom of speech or religion. People try to argue "wild west", but states that require no permit (like Vermont or Alaska) have no issues with this. Here are good arguments for this policy:

    Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?

    Several states are considering adopting "Vermont-style" concealed carry legislation. Most of the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) laws in the country require citizens to first get permits. But in a couple of states, like Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government- imposed waiting period. There are many reasons for a state to adopt a genuine right to carry law:

    1. Carrying a firearm is a "right" not a "privilege"

    The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right.

    2. The issuing of permits can be abused by officials

    a. Refuse to issue

    * New York City: Officials in New York City routinely deny gun permits for ordinary citizens and store owners because -- as the courts have ruled -- they have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city. In fact, the authorities have even refused to issue permits when the courts have ordered them to do so. (1)

    * Gary, Indiana: Then-Mayor Richard Hatcher let it be known in 1979 that he would not be approving any citizens' concealed carry applications. He then said if they wanted to challenge his authority, they were welcome to take him to court. It took citizens over 10 years (and thousands of dollars in legal fees) to get any relief. (2)

    * San Jose, CA: Joseph McNamara, a former police chief and anti-gun spokesman, bragged in his 1984 book, Safe & Sane, that "in San Jose, I have made it considerably tougher for residents to get handgun permits." (3)

    b. Require fingerprints -- Virginia applicants for concealed carry permits were forced to submit to FBI fingerprint background checks without any authorization requiring such checks. (4)

    c. Revoke for politically incorrect speech -- In Oregon, officials have been known to revoke concealed carry licenses because of one's political views. In one case, a permit holder had his license revoked because he was the editor of a pro-life newspaper. (5)

    d. Print licensee holders' names in newspapers -- In several states, newspapers have frequently printed the names of concealed carry permit holders, which are almost always public information. (6)

    3. Officials can "raise the hurdles" in order to get a permit
    * The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right

    a. Arbitrary Delays -- While New Jersey law requires applications to be responded to within thirty days, delays of ninety days are routine; sometimes, applications are delayed for several years for no readily apparent reason. (7)

    b. Arbitrary Denials -- See the examples above from New York City, Indiana and California.

    c. Arbitrary Fee Increases -- In 1994, the Clinton administration pushed for a license fee increase of almost 1,000 percent on gun dealers. According to U.S. News & World Report, the administration was seeking the license fee increase "in hopes of driving many of America's 258,000 licensed gun dealers out of business." (8) This example clearly shows how easily government officials can abuse the issuing of carry permits. Instead of using lower fees to merely pay for the processing of permits, officials can raise the fees to keep people from exercising their rights.

    4. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.
    Click to expand...


    http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Permits will be constitutional even though it is a right. Even the SAF admits this. They meet a compelling need, are limited in scope and narrowly tailored (once all law-abiding people are able to get one). Arguments will be made that a national reciprocity is required. If you win the argument that carry is a right outside your home, you cannot stop that right at border of your state. That is just another version of "home".

    I hear BenL's concern, but everything in that document is "pre-Fundamental Right". Mayors/states who play games once the lines are drawn will get sued for damages. That is the huge difference in the near future -- none of what gunowners.org reference there existed under a system where keep and bear was a civil right. Seriously, if we win what we want those games are over. Individual officials will be personally liable in some cases (some municipalities have laws that make the individual official liable for knowingly and egregiously subverting civil rights) - will that official risk their house, income and retirement just to slow down your permit application?

    A national system of checks and permit requirements will be in order. The courts will eventually rule on what a state can and cannot require. The "issuing variances" that exist between states will melt away and a floor will be set. States that do not require permits today will still need to offer them to people who travel. Or maybe they'll just make everyone have one anyway to avoid the hassle. The Congress could step in and set the floor and create the permit, in which case AZ/VT will get overruled for the good of all.

    The fastest and sanest way to get this all done with a minimum of fuss is for the Congress to step in as soon as the Supreme Court makes it clear where things need to be. States rights no longer matter here - McDonald makes this an issue with true national scope and under the purview of the Congress. Nobody is talking about that yet, but they will. I highly doubt the SAF and NRA are unaware that this is how it will all eventually play out. Hence the SAF filing fights that are almost guaranteed a return trip to the Supreme Court -- they are getting the lines drawn before the Congress gets involved (the Supreme Court is highly deferential to the wishes of Congress).

    Under the right circumstances, with the right Congress and a President who doesn't veto, we could see national standards on all facets of gun laws regarding carry put in place quickly. After these midterms, we might want to evaluate where we stand and start making our fight in DC, Annapolis be damned.

    This is why the NRA frustrates me so much. They could work the Congress right now if they would swallow their pride and join our mission.
     
    weeman

    weeman

    Active Member
    Oct 2, 2009
    840
    Patrick said:
    Wow. A one paragraph blurb pointing to the Washington Post article. No commentary, no support, no credit...no nothing.

    Yet a front page story about the new Chicago case they are "supporting".

    WTF?
    Click to expand...

    Not a dig at you but when I saw the last post on this thread was from you I was expecting more. I hope you don't take that the wrong way. I guess I am just trying to point out how awesome your posts on these subjects are.

    Thank you for taking the time to do the research and present facts to support your opinions.
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    weeman said:
    Not a dig at you but when I saw the last post on this thread was from you I was expecting more. I hope you don't take that the wrong way. I guess I am just trying to point out how awesome your posts on these subjects are.

    Thank you for taking the time to do the research and present facts to support your opinions.
    Click to expand...

    Thanks, guys. Can't always aim for the high walls.

    Right now I'm wondering where the heck all the briefs, arguments and decisions are in the multitude of cases that are pending nationwide. Not just the new stuff (NY/MD/NC), but things like Palmer, Nordyke, Sykes...all way past time right now. I'd think we'd at least get some decent briefs to chirp over. Paging Krucam...

    Until then we just get to beat up on the NRA, I guess. :)
     
    krucam

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 5, 2008
    8,929
    3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
    Patrick said:
    Thanks, guys. Can't always aim for the high walls.

    Right now I'm wondering where the heck all the briefs, arguments and decisions are in the multitude of cases that are pending nationwide. Not just the new stuff (NY/MD/NC), but things like Palmer, Nordyke, Sykes...all way past time right now. I'd think we'd at least get some decent briefs to chirp over. Paging Krucam...

    Until then we just get to beat up on the NRA, I guess. :)
    Click to expand...

    Working on it...I'm putting together a mother of all links for about a dozen cases right now...

    Palmer v. District of Columbia
    Benson v. Chicago
    Kachalsky v. Cacace (NY)
    Nordyke v. King (CA)
    Sykes v. McGinness (CA)
    Pena v. Cid (CA)
    Woolard v. Sheridan (MD)
    Jacobs v. Reed
    Peruta v. County of San Diego
    Peterson v. LaCabe
    Bateman v. Perdue (NC)

    There's more, including the new Chicago range suit...I'll have it all gathered by the end of the week.

    MUCH, MUCH info can be gathered courtesy of our very active friends out in California, their "Important Cases" links, about 2/3 of the way down at: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

    This is a huge deck of cards being built here by the Brady's and other anti's. It will come crashing down sooner rather than later I believe.
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I am so backed up right now...wish I could read all this stuff. Maybe tonight, huh?

    Looking forward to that "mother of all posts". Thanks for the legwork.

    EDIT: Looks like a lot of paper is due in the next few weeks.

    But the biggest question I have right now is "Where the hell is Palmer and what is taking so long?" Is the District judge waiting for his fortified bunker to be built, or what?
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    yellowsled said:
    "When" the CCW is allowed for the average person, will the permit write out exactly what I will/allowed carry? ex.. 9mm .45?
    Click to expand...

    And color of underwear.

    Honestly, none of that is discussed in the cases. An argument can be made to restrict carry to weapons you have demonstrated proficiency on, assuming a state takes that approach. This case strikes down the the thing that stops us from exercising the right to bear arms in public. MD law does not currently have a proficiency law like the one you ask about...MD lawmakers will need to go back and make changes if they want it. I don't think the governor can create it by fiat.

    Assuming the statehouse gets involved creating such a monster, then it will be time for us to be heard - louder even then the Assault Weapons Ban this last year (which was pulled before a vote because we got so annoying).
     
    Dead Eye

    Dead Eye

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 21, 2010
    3,691
    At Wal-Mart, buying more ammo.
    Maybe a silly question, but where do we go from here? The lawsuits are filed, the checks have been cut, do we sit back and watch? Surely there is something we can do in the meantime. Our Founding Fathers would have built a fire, and placed irons in it, so when the shooting started, they could slap hot iron to the wounded, thus cauterizing it. They also may have melted lead to mold bullets, filled their powder horns, sharpened their long knives, etc... As we wait for the battle to unfold, is there something else we could be doing?
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Dead Eye said:
    Maybe a silly question, but where do we go from here? The lawsuits are filed, the checks have been cut, do we sit back and watch? Surely there is something we can do in the meantime. Our Founding Fathers would have built a fire, and placed irons in it, so when the shooting started, they could slap hot iron to the wounded, thus cauterizing it. They also may have melted lead to mold bullets, filled their powder horns, sharpened their long knives, etc... As we wait for the battle to unfold, is there something else we could be doing?
    Click to expand...

    Ummm, I know the District Court is in Baltimore and all...but this seems a bit harsh even for them. :)

    As far as the court case goes, we're pretty down to funding SAF, watching and waiting.

    But we are in an election cycle. It'd be good to soften up the statehouse a bit. I'd like to work on devising some efforts but am busy for the next few weeks. Sucks, but true. I'm limited to armchair warrior at the moment.

    How about someone else?
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    South Carroll Guns banner ad Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,337
    Messages
    7,277,476
    Members
    33,436
    Latest member
    DominicM

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom