- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
I also wish there was a way to allow reciprocity from other states CCL's. Then we oculd just get the FL permit and be done with MD's clowns.
Ohio happened because they had been trying to pass CCW for some time (a few years IIRC), someone brought a case to the Ohio Supreme Court who ruled that open carry could not be banned if CCW was not available. After a few open carry marches around the state capital, they got the hint and made Ohio shall-issue.
... And FWIW, the SAF in other suits has acknowledged the state can determine the method of carry. Everyone who speaks cogently on the topic agrees. There is a lot of history in the USA going back to 1787 saying the state can regulate that choice. Ironically, that regulation was originally in favor of OC because there was a fear of men who would hide a gun. It was expected that honorable men would wear their arms in the open.
Times change.
Realistically the courts will hold themselves to the reliefs requested in the complaint. That relief is predicated on removing the 'good and substantial' requirement. It is up to MD to determine the condition of carry, and right now others here can tell us the expectations, but as I understand it those are 'concealed'.
The words from other people here are that not concealing could result in a loss of the permit. But...if the permit is no longer the gift of the state, but rather a fundamental right - MD law is currently silent on the OC/CCW question. It's just assumed today with the MSP as the adjudication authority that you will tow their line. If the SAF wins their case, current law may not be adequate to tell people which way to go.
For all those who love OC, don't get too excited. Expect the GA to respond to a win with an emergency session to 'fix' this 'problem' and a host of others they come up with. I think that is what happened in Ohio when public carry was introduced. All the scary OC'ers caused a ruckus and the law is now concealed only. Point is that nobody should expect the courts at any level to wade into that choice. It is purely a state matter.
And FWIW, the SAF in other suits has acknowledged the state can determine the method of carry. Everyone who speaks cogently on the topic agrees. There is a lot of history in the USA going back to 1787 saying the state can regulate that choice. Ironically, that regulation was originally in favor of OC because there was a fear of men who would hide a gun. It was expected that honorable men would wear their arms in the open.
Times change.
I honestly don't care, one way or the other. I'm just saying that if the court goes out on a limb (not likely, but a remote possibility) I would be all for a way to stick it to the state, and I could careless. Obviously, like I said, the benefits of concealed are better than open, and I don't care as long as it is "carry."Realistically the courts will hold themselves to the reliefs requested in the complaint. That relief is predicated on removing the 'good and substantial' requirement. It is up to MD to determine the condition of carry, and right now others here can tell us the expectations, but as I understand it those are 'concealed'.
The words from other people here are that not concealing could result in a loss of the permit. But...if the permit is no longer the gift of the state, but rather a fundamental right - MD law is currently silent on the OC/CCW question. It's just assumed today with the MSP as the adjudication authority that you will tow their line. If the SAF wins their case, current law may not be adequate to tell people which way to go.
For all those who love OC, don't get too excited. Expect the GA to respond to a win with an emergency session to 'fix' this 'problem' and a host of others they come up with. I think that is what happened in Ohio when public carry was introduced. All the scary OC'ers caused a ruckus and the law is now concealed only. Point is that nobody should expect the courts at any level to wade into that choice. It is purely a state matter.
And FWIW, the SAF in other suits has acknowledged the state can determine the method of carry. Everyone who speaks cogently on the topic agrees. There is a lot of history in the USA going back to 1787 saying the state can regulate that choice. Ironically, that regulation was originally in favor of OC because there was a fear of men who would hide a gun. It was expected that honorable men would wear their arms in the open.
Times change.
Considering we are "slow & plodding" we are still moving forward. In reality, it is still a legal Blitzkrieg, considering the pace and the number of suits filed right after Heller and now McDonald.Disagree with what, the fact the SAF has acknowledged the state can make that choice, or disagree with their position on it?
If it's a question of what the SAF has written, I will confirm my memory and provide a reference one way or the other. But pretty sure I remember this correctly. I just don't want to chase the references when it really looks like you are disagreeing not with what I remember, but what the SAF says. But if you challenge my limited memory recall abilities, I will rise to that challenge!
As for the legal history of OC...personally have no real detail right now. It's been a secondary issue in my mind, so I have not done a lot of digging there other than to note - as you do - that historically the prohibition on concealed carry appears to have been used when open carry was considered the norm. At least until the Sherman Act in NYC, that is. Again, have not done anything exhaustive to prove/disprove that belief.
Overall, in my opinion, once history stipulates that a choice can be made by government, it is too late to argue that call years later when the choice is suddenly changed to something you do not like. If early generations felt that it was OK to disallow concealed-carry, they opened the door to the act of government choosing one way or the other. And given that history has been guiding the court on these matters, that act of allowing the government to choose changed the tapestry of the right forever. It does not matter what the choice was, just the fact that this choice was given to the government.
I don't think anyone here would argue that they would have a problem with people having the choice themselves. But it might be that our forefathers botched this one.
As for not having the OC fight right now: All of these cases work to loosen the regulation around gun ownership and use in the USA, one issue at a time. It does not matter that the SAF has chosen to not make that fight today. Someone else can tomorrow. They - like the NRA - are not the ultimate arbiters of the right. This is not a negotiation, so nothing is really "given up" by their current position.
What this current position does is eliminate an avenue of argument for the government. By not claiming a particular method of carry - and stipulating that that choice is up to the government - you remove an entire topic from the debate. The goal here is to piecemeal ask simple questions that return simple answers. Then move on to another question. It's slow and plodding, but it looks to be working.
So nothing says the question cannot come up again. Right now we need to win the fight to carry one way or the other. We can nitpick the details later.
Disagree with what, the fact the SAF has acknowledged the state can make that choice, or disagree with their position on it?
Apologies, I should have been more clear. I disagree with their position that the states can select one or the other. Based on history, the state should only be able to regulate concealed, open should be allowed and free-of-charge.
Considering we are "slow & plodding" we are still moving forward. In reality, it is still a legal Blitzkrieg, considering the pace and the number of suits filed right after Heller and now McDonald.
Again, don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind "simple question simple answer" as it is sound legal strategy. I was merely conjecturing about the potential ruling of the court (maybe beyond scope of the case). Either way, win and carry, I could care less which way provided my civil right is codified and I can protect myself and my family.
Apologies, I should have been more clear. I disagree with their position that the states can select one or the other. Based on history, the state should only be able to regulate concealed, open should be allowed and free-of-charge.
The free-of-charge, and not requiring permission (a permit) being the big points for me. Oddly enough, I agree with Gura that the government can regulate concealed carry, require a permit and all (because that's the way it was when founded). However, open carry was the permit and cost free norm at the same time. So, in order to provide equitable coverage, if the government chooses to restrict open carrry, then concealed carry should be permit and cost free.
The Palmer judge had to rewrite one of his infamous rulings (he writes gigantic, in-depth opinions about everything) because FBI realized he included secret/TS information on 20+ pages. He released the revised ruling 1-3 weeks ago and it probably took most of the summer to write.
The free-of-charge, and not requiring permission (a permit) being the big points for me. Oddly enough, I agree with Gura that the government can regulate concealed carry, require a permit and all (because that's the way it was when founded). However, open carry was the permit and cost free norm at the same time. So, in order to provide equitable coverage, if the government chooses to restrict open carrry, then concealed carry should be permit and cost free.
If my history's correct, there was no concealed carry prohibition until the early 1800's. Even at that point I don't recall licensing appearing until after the civil war(where the "need" provision just happened to appear in one of many forms, and was oviously meant to disarm freedmen). I may be wrong about that,because we have to remember preemption didn't exist at the time, so some backwoods town could have had some kind of ban in place.
Never again should any minority in America be forced to give up arms just so they can be raped, robbed and killed at the hands of a political majority.
Sorry, I haven't heard of concealed carry permits being issued in early American history. Do you have any references?
It's a bill of RIGHTS. Keep and bear, and shall not be infringed don't have any wiggle room for having (or buying) a permission slip from the government. The government doesn't have any authority to give the right to carry, nor the authority to restrict carry (read the Second amendment again!), the right is GUARANTEED by the Second Amendment.
Didn't one of the decisions (think it was McDonald, but could have been Heller) say something to the effect of "shouldn't cast aside historical regulation against concealed carry"? I thought there was an explanation in one of them that said that it was considered cowardly for someone to carry concealed, and therefore regulations against it were okay.
I'll fully admit that I could be completely off base, as I've done no research on it. Since no one argued it when the decision came out I took it to be historically accurate. (thought the justice was referencing founding-era prohibitions, perhaps it was reconstruction-era prohibitions? In which case, f-them, where's my constitutional carry!!!)