Whalen v Handgun Permit Review Board Appeal Brief Filed

BeoBill said:

This already exists. The requirement was enshrined in administrative law when the USAF failed to report the nut case that shot up the Texas church before being put down.

Enforcement, however, is an ENTIRELY different story.

Click to expand...

dblas said:

Federal Government agencies, yes, the various states, nope, the administrative law still does not direct states to be 100% in compliance. Nor can the Fed direct the states to do so (Printz v US, 1997)

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Then citizens in their own states should get their state legislatures to pass something requiring their governmental agencies to report 100% to NICS.

Click to expand...

dblas said:

And you would think that this would be a bill that all sides could get behind.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Yeah, one would think that both sides would be completely fine with this. I have no idea why states do not already report everything to NICS. There is a system in place already, and it can be made better IF states will report the required information. Instead, antis want gun control.

I say UBC, Shall Issue, and national reciprocity across the land in one fell swoop, and the antis and pros can meet with their state legislators to get 100% NICS compliance in place. Then, those that want to carry to protect themselves from events like El Paso, Dayton, Orlando, etc. can do so.

Would also propose a law making it quite clear that a property owner/tenant is liable for the safety of its patrons when the property owner/tenant put a gun free zone in place and patrons are killed or wounded from intentional gunfire. Want to make a place gun free, then you provide security to ensure the safety of the patrons.

Of course, I am dreaming.

Click to expand...

PowPow said:

That's 15 minutes of my life that I'll never get back, but I did find the mention of The Militia Acts of 1792 interesting. Thanks, danb!

Click to expand...

nedsurf said:

If you are new to this, it is understandable where you are coming from if you have not read up on the history of gun control. Most here don't see it as compromise because they have seen first hand the same groups of people come back year after year asking for more restrictions each time. That is not compromise; it is the deliberate strategy of incrementalism. That strategy is working towards an end goal that is sometimes revealed by the anti gun people such as in Peter Curran's paper that he called "A Farewell To Arms". Please read it as it describes deliberate incrementalism along with deliberate cultural shifting to get society to reject 2A rights. It is linked in a sticky thread on this website.

A good case study of this is Maryland's Montgomery County Delegate Kathleen Dumais. Year after year she introduces further firearms restrictions. Her rhetoric each time contains some form of "We are only asking for...." It is all recorded so you can fact check it if you want. At the federal level legislators like Diane Feinstein who said if she had the votes she would tell "Mr. and Mrs. America" to turn them all in. That is on video all over the internet.

These people calling for compromise come to the table with no genuine interest in stopping with what they are asking for at the moment. In their more genuine moments they openly state that they do have a strategy of incrementalism. Over the years gun owners have foolishly heeded the public shaming tactic of "being reasonable" and giving in to "compromise" and have been subject to increasing infringements with no compromise given in return. It is foolish to allow that smart people like Kathleen Dumais are not doing this intentionally.

Lastly, it is an enumerated, constitutional right. No compromise is needed for such a thing.

Click to expand...

danb said:

I don't support mandatory training, I think that the evidence is that its unnecessary.

That said, the first thing that Congress did after the Bill of Rights was adopted was pass a bill in 1791 or 1792 (The Militia Acts).... attempting for force states to institute mandatory training for all able bodied males. So, mandatory training is perfectly consistent with the original scope of the 2nd Amendment. If you bet that a conservative Justice would strike mandatory training as unconstitutional, based on the scope, text, and history of the 2nd Amendment... you will very highly lose that bet.

Click to expand...

LeadSled1 said:

It was mandatory training to be supplied for able body males, but not as a predecessor to bearing arms.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Yeah, one would think that both sides would be completely fine with this. I have no idea why states do not already report everything to NICS. There is a system in place already, and it can be made better IF states will report the required information. Instead, antis want gun control.

I say UBC, Shall Issue, and national reciprocity across the land in one fell swoop, and the antis and pros can meet with their state legislators to get 100% NICS compliance in place. Then, those that want to carry to protect themselves from events like El Paso, Dayton, Orlando, etc. can do so.

Would also propose a law making it quite clear that a property owner/tenant is liable for the safety of its patrons when the property owner/tenant put a gun free zone in place and patrons are killed or wounded from intentional gunfire. Want to make a place gun free, then you provide security to ensure the safety of the patrons.

Of course, I am dreaming.

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

Govt unions would hate the NICS reporting bill as it could assign liability to employees for failure to notify.

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

Govt unions would hate the NICS reporting bill as it could assign liability to employees for failure to notify.

Click to expand...

Brychan said:

Should be UBC, all background checks are exclusively the federal system, all states must report. This would cut out the MSP. Do away with waiting periods. In and out in 15 or so minutes, unless there is a hold. That is the only compromise I could stomach.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

I’d rather state police are an option for background checks if you’d prefer.

Some people don’t mind it being more on the books and $10 rather than $30-50 makes a difference to some folks.

Click to expand...

dblas said:

NICS cost a buyer nothing, the MSP background check cost a buyer $10. If Maryland would send all of the information from all of the databases that MSP checks, to NICS, then MSP wouldn't have to charge anything either.

But, that requires the Circuit Court system to send all of their information to DPSC or turning their databases over to them to maintain. That requires DHMH to send their information to DPSC.

Why DPSC?

DPSC is the sole Maryland entity, certified by the FBI, that has access to enter and delete Maryland information from NICS.

Click to expand...

danb said:

So, are they still not doing this? I though the electronic 77r was part of initiative to do this? HQLs and 77rs appear to be processing very fast now (you can see on your 77e when MDSP processes NICS check), so I thought the information MDSP needs was already centralized.

.

Click to expand...

dblas said:

Bwahahahahahahahaha......Nope

The electronic 77R was simply to make it easier for MSP LD to do the paperwork in their house. It had absolutely nothing to do with centralizing the databases that MSP looks at. MSP does not control ANY database it looks at, or gets info from, and there are 17 of them.

In the case of the mental health queries, MSP still sends an e-mail to DHMH with a list of names and DHMH replie to the email with a yes ot no beside each name.

Circuit Court records are maintained by the Circuit Courts, MSP logs in and does a records search, in certain extreme cases, they have to follow up with a phone call to verify the records. They also have to call the Circuit Courts in the case of anyone under 30, to verify if there are any incidents as a minor.

Then you have the various County Courts that may or may not have their records in an electronic database that is remotely accessable.

Click to expand...