X-Factor
I don't say please
Hate typing on here with my phone, my spelling and grammar SUCK.
No this lawsuit is to strike the enforcement if "Good and Substantial Reason" to issue a LCTF.
Once MD is forced to issue permits, then the sky is the limit on how you wist to do so.
Except for Drinking and Carrying there is a law on that, the ironny I know a local MSP or two, who drink and are carrying at the same time.
No this lawsuit is to strike the enforcement if "Good and Substantial Reason" to issue a LCTF.
Once MD is forced to issue permits, then the sky is the limit on how you wish to do so.
Except for Drinking and Carrying there is a law on that, the ironny I know a local MSP or two, who drink and are carrying at the same time.
§ 5-314. Carrying, wearing, or transporting handgun while under influence of alcohol or drugs.
So if it's found that legal open long gun carry is the exact same as oprn handgun carry then the open carry of handguns without a permis part of 4-203 would neednto go.
Hm, it just says you can't carry a handgun while under the influence. I guess I'll have to get a nice single-point sling for my Yugo underfolder for when I go out to the bar
No, it is legal already for open long gun.
MD will have to issue you a LCTF, if you request one for "Self Defense". Unless of course, MD can prove you are not worthy (convicted felon, mentally unstable, etc...).
You're missing my point. If it's said that open long gun carry (currently legal...or at least gray) without a permit is found to be the same as open handgun carry without a permit (illegal currently ) then the law saying that permitless OC of handguns would have to change in 4-203.
You're missing my point. If it's said that open long gun carry (currently legal...or at least gray) without a permit is found to be the same as open handgun carry without a permit (illegal currently ) then the law saying that permitless OC of handguns would have to change in 4-203. And as was said earlier, SCOTUS DID say that. So it could come into play now.
I think what you're getting at, X-Factor, and what Inigoes isn't seeing, is the basis for a new case.
I think Gansler just handed the judge a gift-wrapped option: rule for public open RKBA, assign it intermediate scrutiny -which Gansler acknowledges includes citizen carry of loaded firearms without a permit, and then use Heller's direct guidance on handguns to extend the long-gun concession to handguns. Maryland is suddenly a no-permit required Open Carry state.
I assumed he was responding to this...
if it would be ruled on THIS time around and at this level.
Currently there is a big toe holding the door open (Motion for Summary Judgement under equal protection). Once there is a win, the foot will slide in nicely, allowing access for the rest of the body.
Alright, after a good deal of searching, the only thing that I could find about transport of long guns in vehicles is that they have to be unloaded and be in accordance with the prohibited places of concealed/open carry.
Shoulda said "just the tip."
Thats close to the information I recieved when I called the MSP firearms division.
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=7050
However, They told me...
MD doesn't have the character clause like most states.
The closest that MD law comes to is
§ 5-306
And if we had really pushed for a Shall issue Bill this year, someone could have offered an amendment to fix that...
Well, there's you're problem
in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ ”