Darkemp
Ultimate Member
2012 group or the 2019 group?
NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
2012 group or the 2019 group?
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,233
The statute includes " propensity for violence or instability " . That leaves the door open to interviewing neighbors , co-workers , ex'es , etc .
That'll make for an interesting court case, if a license under supposed "shall issue" gets denied based on hearsay and alleged acts for which the denied person hasn't been charged with, let alone convicted.
It probably will be. Probably back to SCOTUS on that one. Unless SCOTUS makes it crystal clear on exactly what states can do to evaluate for a permit. Unless the answer is everyone except convicted criminals must be allowed a permit, there will be wiggle room and states will exploit it.
That said, you know there will end up being some instances the other direction if states can’t deny based on evidence other than a criminal conviction, that someone has a history of violence or instability and they end up going on to commit violent crimes and “oh but the state HAD to give this future murderous crazy a license to carry guns! All the signs were there, but evil SCOTUS said we had to let them carry around murder weapons in public!”
That said, most school shooters and even many workplace shooters the “signs were there” and no one bothered (and in many cases legally couldn’t) to do anything about it. Though probably for every 100 or 1000 of them are some people who “show some signs” and are never actually murderous.
But as for workload. The state is going to have to do something to streamline the process. I am pretty sure even a Maryland court is not going to look fondly on MSP holding up permits for years because suddenly 50,000 people are applying for permits and they have 40 investigators (no idea the number) who want to spend a dozen hours on each application conducting interviews.
Just a basic application and the regular background check, outside of the current evidence to substantiate cause for a permit plus interviews, I’d imagine is probably at least 15-30 minutes per application to process it (and obviously several hours for all the other stuff done today for the may issue shit).
50,000 * .25hrs is 12,500hrs. 6 people, full time for a year.
So I hope MSP is at least sitting down to figure out different possible business processes depending on what the SCOTUS decision might look like. Granted it’ll likely take a court case against MGLeg or MSP to get them moving after a SCOTUS decision. But they should at least be considering it.
I know they won’t be. Just saying in a rational world they would be.
PapiBarcelona
Ultimate Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 7,361
Lol. Evidently the very last remaining anti carry permit states (except MD) are preparing for shall issue by doing the whole sensitive places shtick in their state legislature (except MD).
Maybe that's a good thing or not?
Maybe that's a good thing or not?
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,228
My state is shall issue. And there is a legal requirement that all permits not denied must be returned within 120 days…
If you think the usual culprits won’t get creative with avoiding issue, especially without a legal requirement, well.. you know they will.
With the 120 day requirement, some places were taking almost a year to issue during rona.
They used the appointment system, as an example, to delay. You want to apply … make an appointment. (It’s February) we’re taking appointments for June. And the 120 day clock doesn’t start until your AFTER your appointment for the prints and turning in your paperwork on the day of.
In the last several months, this had been almost back to normal… but in the 2a hating states, you know where they will go…. “Man, ole granny Jones, our lone CCW processor, is moving as fast as a 85 year old, one hour a day, part timer can!”
Not being a lawyer, I am not sure how scotus could say something like…
We caution states that have veiled or it so veiled attempts to prohibit lawful carry, your case will be addressed swiftly…
Like with all the cases on hold or requesting review. Not being a lawyer, I don’t know how they would do this but surely there must be a way to address they current case in a way that clearly tells lower courts they’ve screwed up and need to stop the back door attacks.
If you think the usual culprits won’t get creative with avoiding issue, especially without a legal requirement, well.. you know they will.
With the 120 day requirement, some places were taking almost a year to issue during rona.
They used the appointment system, as an example, to delay. You want to apply … make an appointment. (It’s February) we’re taking appointments for June. And the 120 day clock doesn’t start until your AFTER your appointment for the prints and turning in your paperwork on the day of.
In the last several months, this had been almost back to normal… but in the 2a hating states, you know where they will go…. “Man, ole granny Jones, our lone CCW processor, is moving as fast as a 85 year old, one hour a day, part timer can!”
Not being a lawyer, I am not sure how scotus could say something like…
We caution states that have veiled or it so veiled attempts to prohibit lawful carry, your case will be addressed swiftly…
Like with all the cases on hold or requesting review. Not being a lawyer, I don’t know how they would do this but surely there must be a way to address they current case in a way that clearly tells lower courts they’ve screwed up and need to stop the back door attacks.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
MD law requires permits be issued or denied within 90 days, with the time stating when your payment is received (now done electronically via web portal).
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,233
And we saw how that worked out in 2012 with just 365 applications
Darkemp
Ultimate Member
They took a good bit longer than 90 days to deny mine in 2012 when I was in that group as I recall…
In the short run no. Hopefully it is a very short run and we can slap them down in the district court.
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,233
Maryland specifically? It's a mixed blessing .
Good News - MGA won't be able to potentially address TPM until the 2023 Session .
Bad News - ( My prediction ) MSP will stick with the full blown applicant interview , check references , and investigate you for history of " Propensity for Violence or Instability " back to birth , until MGA passes a new statute , or MSI's Lawsuit is fully litigated .
Good News - MGA won't be able to potentially address TPM until the 2023 Session .
Bad News - ( My prediction ) MSP will stick with the full blown applicant interview , check references , and investigate you for history of " Propensity for Violence or Instability " back to birth , until MGA passes a new statute , or MSI's Lawsuit is fully litigated .
‘Fire in a crowded theater’ just won’t die, even among “legal analysts.”
That line is dicta from an effectively overruled 1A case called Schenck v. United States (1919).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47"
For why it’s a bad line that has no legal significance, read this: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
You use this term in my presence and you’re getting five fingers to the face
https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/p...ision/71-ed960584-7840-40af-b2e9-249e5a038beb
That line is dicta from an effectively overruled 1A case called Schenck v. United States (1919).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47"
For why it’s a bad line that has no legal significance, read this: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
You use this term in my presence and you’re getting five fingers to the face
Nobody
Ultimate Member
- Jan 15, 2009
- 2,844
When people say to me "you can not yell fire in a crowded theater" i say yes you absolutely can. At least in two instances.
1, there no fire and the you could be held liable for damages and much like murder, both are illegal.
2, when there is a fire, at which time you would be hailed a hero and much like self defense is legal.
Nobody
1, there no fire and the you could be held liable for damages and much like murder, both are illegal.
2, when there is a fire, at which time you would be hailed a hero and much like self defense is legal.
Nobody
- Oct 25, 2012
- 3,365
Of course the actual quote said "falsely yell fire" and people seem to leave that out when using this in an argument.
Nobody
Ultimate Member
- Jan 15, 2009
- 2,844
This is directly from Schenck:
The 'clear and present danger' precedent set here was effectively done away with in 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Side note on Brandenburg. Those who think Trump incited a riot or insurrection need to look at Brandenburg and ask themselves whether his speech meets the criteria
Sorry for the thread jack.
Reloader
Ultimate Member
It gets old seeing there's a new comment on this thread and finding out it's nothing more than some cackling hens going on about something that barley pertains.
fabsroman
Ultimate Member
That is ridiculous. I have more than 15 people at my place during the summer when we are using the pool. Granted, I am not usually carrying when we are in my backyard. Still utterly ridiculous. Maybe some of my guests are. When people come over for Thanksgiving, etc., they would be breaking the law if they happen to be carrying.
Maryland is utterly ridiculous. The legislators should try repealing all this CCW BS and then seeing if there is any statistical difference in crime. Granted, they think they are playing the "long game", but it looks like the long game is not going to be in their favor. Stupid waste of time and resources.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (9 Viewers)
- Latest: Biggfoot44
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (9 Viewers)- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 30
-
-
-
-
