MSP AT IT AGAIN! HOGAN NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.

44man · Nov 9, 2016

dist1646 said:
I think Hogan has to do something for us in THIS term or he will loose some of the support he needs to win a second term. Ehrlich made that mistake and it cost him!

x 2

BeoBill · Nov 9, 2016

Does anyone know if Federal $$$ can be apportioned by county? If so I know where there will be

Brooklyn · Nov 9, 2016

dist1646 said:
I think Hogan has to do something for us in THIS term or he will loose some of the support he needs to win a second term. Ehrlich made that mistake and it cost him!

And then we got MOM. Brilliant..

And Ehrlich starved to death...oh wait no...he just got on with his life and we got taxed for rain.

Hum. I think maybe it cost us more than it cost him..

CrueChief · Nov 9, 2016

dist1646 said:
I think Hogan has to do something for us in THIS term or he will loose some of the support he needs to win a second term. Ehrlich made that mistake and it cost him!

When you say "us" do you mean the empirical us or the 2A us? Because if you mean the 2A us you may very well be as disappointed as a hilary supporter was last night. :lol2:

deerhtr · Nov 9, 2016

montoya32 said:
No misunderstanding. She applied under self-defense and included the police report of the incident. The interviewing trooper told her that MSP did not issue permits for "crimes of opportunity" and that she should brings business ownership paperwork and deposit slips to her in person interview.

so she cant get one because it was a crime of opportunity. but being robbed with your business receipts is what exactly? :confused:

Muleskinner · Nov 10, 2016

Hogan is not going to win in 2018 if the senate election is any indication of the mindset of central Maryland dems...

Muleskinner · Nov 10, 2016

Brooklyn said:
And then we got MOM. Brilliant..

And Ehrlich starved to death...oh wait no...he just got on with his life and we got taxed for rain.

Hum. I think maybe it cost us more than it cost him..

Hogan is toothless...he can do nothing the GA can't reverse, nor can he stop anything the GA wants to pass...He does however have some wiggle room when it comes to 2A issues, wear and carry issues specifically.Frankly I would rather him make his stand on 2A issues now and lose in 2018 than wait for a 2nd term that history and statistics say will never happen...

DC-W · Nov 10, 2016

Muleskinner said:
Hogan is not going to win in 2018 if the senate election is any indication of the mindset of central Maryland dems...

It's inconsequential. The results of the 2016 election mirror the 2012 election closely. See the State's election results. Not much different.

2012
http://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2012/results/general/index.html

2016
http://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2016/results/general/index.html

Hogan won in MD partly for the same reason Trump won nationally; low Dem turnout.
~900k people didn't vote in MD in 2014, but they did in 2012 and 2016.

rseymorejr · Nov 10, 2016

deerhtr said:
so she cant get one because it was a crime of opportunity. but being robbed with your business receipts is what exactly?

The business receipts must be protected.

They haven't been taxed yet.

Muleskinner · Nov 14, 2016

DC-W said:
It's inconsequential. The results of the 2016 election mirror the 2012 election closely. See the State's election results. Not much different.

2012
http://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2012/results/general/index.html

2016
http://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2016/results/general/index.html

Hogan won in MD partly for the same reason Trump won nationally; low Dem turnout.
~900k people didn't vote in MD in 2014, but they did in 2012 and 2016.

Until Mike and Mike start their rhetoric..add that to those he angered by not supporting Trump and it's going to be uphill the whole way...

Snav · Nov 19, 2016

press1280 said:
Any ordinary citizen applying
for license could be "factually" denied a permit because no one had
actually threatened him. Thus, he would have no "need" to defend
himself. Similarly, if threatened, the permit could be denied on
the basis that the official police agencies were capable of
handling the matter so that he had no "need" to defend himself.

Schubert v. Debard

the irony is that permits are denied because 'police agencies are capable of handling'.. yet they have no duty to defend.

hillbilly grandpa · Nov 19, 2016

If an applicant is denied a carry permit, and the attendant capacity to defend him/her self, then doesn't the responsibility to protect that person revert to the MSP? Doesn't the denial in effect create a "special relationship" with law enforcement rougly comparable to the relationship and responsibility addressed by various courts with reference to incarcerated persons and persons involuntarily committed to a mental health facility? I know this is an expansion of a prior interpretation, but might it not an approach worth pursuing?

The import of this would be that the MSP, and by association the State of Maryland, would be financially liable for costs, losses and damages incurred by the injured party.

CrueChief · Nov 19, 2016

hillbilly grandpa said:
If an applicant is denied a carry permit, and the attendant capacity to defend him/her self, then doesn't the responsibility to protect that person revert to the MSP? Doesn't the denial in effect create a "special relationship" with law enforcement rougly comparable to the relationship and responsibility addressed by various courts with reference to incarcerated persons and persons involuntarily committed to a mental health facility? I know this is an expansion of a prior interpretation, but might it not an approach worth pursuing?

The import of this would be that the MSP, and by association the State of Maryland, would be financially liable for costs, losses and damages incurred by the injured party.

I don't think even a drunk MD Judge would except that interpretation. But hey outside the box thinking like that is what might be needed to advance the ball here, and after all gets the lawyers at least thinking about cashing in both ways. :innocent0

redeemed.man · Nov 20, 2016

hillbilly grandpa said:
If an applicant is denied a carry permit, and the attendant capacity to defend him/her self, then doesn't the responsibility to protect that person revert to the MSP? Doesn't the denial in effect create a "special relationship" with law enforcement rougly comparable to the relationship and responsibility addressed by various courts with reference to incarcerated persons and persons involuntarily committed to a mental health facility? I know this is an expansion of a prior interpretation, but might it not an approach worth pursuing?

The import of this would be that the MSP, and by association the State of Maryland, would be financially liable for costs, losses and damages incurred by the injured party.

I doubt it works but love the thought process.

hillbilly grandpa · Nov 20, 2016

CrueChief said:
I don't think even a drunk MD Judge would except that interpretation. But hey outside the box thinking like that is what might be needed to advance the ball here, and after all gets the lawyers at least thinking about cashing in both ways.

A little over ten years ago the thought of widely accepted same gender marriage, let alone the notion that this would be deemed to be a constitutionally protected right, was considered a fantasy. What moved it forward was ongoing public agitation that led to legal challenges. As is generally the case, private opoinion is followed by public opinion. Public opinion is expanded by public agitation. This leads to the emergence of informal policy. Legal challenges lead to clarification of formal policy reflected in legal rulings. That private opinion now enjoys the privilege of formal legal status. That's generally how it works.

The premis that there are essentially two sources of personal protection--the individual and the state--and if the state forecloses the individual's ability to protect him/her self and loved ones, then primary responsibility falls to the state shouldn't be a stretch at all.

I greatly appreciate and benefit from the wisdom and competence displayed by members of this community. I also note a general reticence to engage in high visibiity broad based public action on behalf of our values and principles. This is where the left has dominated. Their domination has contributed to the advancement of the process I outlined above, which has led to the advancement of their ideas and values as we have seen.

We are ill-served by assuming that state houses are our only arena of action, and that law suits are our primary effective tool. They are useful at the latter stages of a campaign, not as the tip of the spear. This is one lesson we will hopefully take away from the victories of the left. We have the terrain; we simply need to mobilize the troops. (Have you seen the national map showing the voting majorities by county? Astounding.)

CrueChief · Nov 20, 2016

hillbilly grandpa said:
A little over ten years ago the thought of widely accepted same gender marriage, let alone the notion that this would be deemed to be a constitutionally protected right, was considered a fantasy. What moved it forward was ongoing public agitation that led to legal challenges. As is generally the case, private opoinion is followed by public opinion. Public opinion is expanded by public agitation. This leads to the emergence of informal policy. Legal challenges lead to clarification of formal policy reflected in legal rulings. That private opinion now enjoys the privilege of formal legal status. That's generally how it works.

The premis that there are essentially two sources of personal protection--the individual and the state--and if the state forecloses the individual's ability to protect him/her self and loved ones, then primary responsibility falls to the state shouldn't be a stretch at all.

I greatly appreciate and benefit from the wisdom and competence displayed by members of this community. I also note a general reticence to engage in high visibiity broad based public action on behalf of our values and principles. This is where the left has dominated. Their domination has contributed to the advancement of the process I outlined above, which has led to the advancement of their ideas and values as we have seen.

We are ill-served by assuming that state houses are our only arena of action, and that law suits are our primary effective tool. They are useful at the latter stages of a campaign, not as the tip of the spear. This is one lesson we will hopefully take away from the victories of the left. We have the terrain; we simply need to mobilize the troops. (Have you seen the national map showing the voting majorities by county? Astounding.)

Oh there's no question that this would be a lay up if and when the courts are moved even a little to the right. And I agree this can not be a first salvo in this battle. If we are talking about a state with a reasonable judiciary or even a friendly Federal Circuit. Just not THIS state or THIS time. The biggest problem we have isn't non involvement from the citizens but that the legislature has no reason to be worried over their seats with regard to this issue. And if the district lines don't get redrawn they never will. One only has to look to FSA 2013 as proof with the over whelming citizen response against then for and it past anyway. Some will say the pressure lessened it more likely the friendly folks in Annapolis were able to do the best they could and not pressure from us, but I guess people a lot smarter than me can debate this until its repealed.

Rack&Roll · Nov 20, 2016

SCOTUS has already ruled that LEOs have no duty to protect individual 'Mericans.

hillbilly grandpa · Nov 20, 2016

Rack&Roll said:
SCOTUS has already ruled that LEOs have no duty to protect individual 'Mericans.

...unless that individual has a "special relationship" with the police. So stipulate the court rulings.

montoya32 · Nov 20, 2016

hillbilly grandpa said:
If an applicant is denied a carry permit, and the attendant capacity to defend him/her self, then doesn't the responsibility to protect that person revert to the MSP? Doesn't the denial in effect create a "special relationship" with law enforcement rougly comparable to the relationship and responsibility addressed by various courts with reference to incarcerated persons and persons involuntarily committed to a mental health facility? I know this is an expansion of a prior interpretation, but might it not an approach worth pursuing?

The import of this would be that the MSP, and by association the State of Maryland, would be financially liable for costs, losses and damages incurred by the injured party.

No. MSP's, or more accurately the secretary of the SP's, decision is not that they will provide protection from a perceived threat, it is that the individual does not have a threat in need of defense. This, to me, is where MSP will get their asses sued off at some point. Someone will make a claim to a threat and MSP will say there is no threat. Said applicant will be denied and subsequently be assaulted or worse. The applicant's family or friends will then sue the hell out of the MSP. The is no duty for LE to protect anyone, but to restrict one's right to defend themselves takes it to a civil rights and criminal level.

Rack&Roll · Nov 20, 2016

The arc of 2A Justice is long, but it bends toward...us.

MSP AT IT AGAIN! HOGAN NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

I stand with John Locke.

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

R.I.P

Active Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics