Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12th, 2010, 12:54 AM #521
mrjam2jab's Avatar
mrjam2jab mrjam2jab is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 678
mrjam2jab mrjam2jab is offline
Member
mrjam2jab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The special restrictions will probably have to disappear, other than possibly dictating concealed carry for civilians, open carry for uniformed security. Once self-defense qualifies as "justifiable need", it would make no sense for someone to go get a restricted permit for work for example.
Its not there now...don't add it.
__________________
Prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed
mrjam2jab is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 01:09 AM #522
Trapper's Avatar
Trapper Trapper is offline
I'm a member too.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western AA county
Posts: 1,356
Images: 13
Trapper Trapper is offline
I'm a member too.
Trapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western AA county
Posts: 1,356
Images: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by miles71 View Post
A little off topic but my wife told me tonight that they have a sign at the local Toy R Us stating "No firearms on the premises". She hadnt really noticed it before and we have only recently been going to Toys R Us due to our first sons birth. Since I am "always on the computer talking about guns" she told me about this.

It hadnt hit me how stupid this practice is until now. Bad Guy "Gee, I wonder what store I should rob? Maybe the one with no guns allowed."

One of the most important things I could protect would be my son and wife, makes me wonder. What will happen if this suit is won, will some businesses start to lose customers?

TD

I completely support the right of the store owner / management to refuse service to those carrying weapons. I also completely support my right to patronize establishements that don't restrict us. As far as I can see, its in their best interest, but "you can't make him drink" is still true today.
__________________
"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court. (1943)

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573. (1944)

Note: Copied from EZLiving's sig, because it says it all.
Trapper is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 01:00 PM #523
zombiehunter zombiehunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,464
zombiehunter zombiehunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper View Post
I completely support the right of the store owner / management to refuse service to those carrying weapons. I also completely support my right to patronize establishements that don't restrict us. As far as I can see, its in their best interest, but "you can't make him drink" is still true today.
Yup. Cinemark at Muvico in RapeCentral (aka, Arundel Mills) has a little sign that says no guns. I'd ignore it personally, worst they can do is ask you to remove the gun or leave. Worst you can do is say no, then they can get you for trespassing and your day gets bad quick.
zombiehunter is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 01:06 PM #524
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 38,353
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 38,353
Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 01:37 PM #525
HardHatMan's Avatar
HardHatMan HardHatMan is offline
FBHO
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,341
Images: 2
HardHatMan HardHatMan is offline
FBHO
HardHatMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,341
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by miles71 View Post
A little off topic but my wife told me tonight that they have a sign at the local Toy R Us stating "No firearms on the premises". She hadnt really noticed it before and we have only recently been going to Toys R Us due to our first sons birth. Since I am "always on the computer talking about guns" she told me about this.

It hadnt hit me how stupid this practice is until now. Bad Guy "Gee, I wonder what store I should rob? Maybe the one with no guns allowed."

One of the most important things I could protect would be my son and wife, makes me wonder. What will happen if this suit is won, will some businesses start to lose customers?

TD
Kind of reminds me of this:

Name:  door.jpg
Views: 234
Size:  38.0 KB
__________________
MSI
SAF
NRA


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis View Post
people have every right not to agree with or even accept the way others live their life...however people have no right to let that dislike limit the freedom of others.
HardHatMan is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 01:58 PM #526
mikec's Avatar
mikec mikec is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Off I-83
Posts: 11,346
mikec mikec is offline
Senior Member
mikec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Off I-83
Posts: 11,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Eye View Post
SAF package came today. Nice! I love the "Home Security" sticker! I put the belt buckle in our curio cabinet, right next to my father's Smith and Wesson buckle. I thought it only fitting.
Mine came today. I didn't expect it. In the past I must have just donated and never joined.
mikec is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 02:16 PM #527
miles71 miles71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belcamp, Md.
Posts: 1,589
miles71 miles71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belcamp, Md.
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.
Really? How could due process be honored if everyone has a different version of the law in thier pocket? If/when this suit is won I plan on sending a letter with my renewal requesting restrictions being lifted on the permit.

I understand the business restrictions, I am more concerned with the individual restrictions specific to each permit holder.
TD
miles71 is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 02:40 PM #528
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Pro 2A Gastronome
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 1,475
Send a message via AIM to yellowfin
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Pro 2A Gastronome
yellowfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 1,475
Send a message via AIM to yellowfin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.
That lawsuit is underway already, Palmer v. DC.
yellowfin is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 02:44 PM #529
Tom43491's Avatar
Tom43491 Tom43491 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Timonium
Posts: 145
Tom43491 Tom43491 is offline
Member
Tom43491's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Timonium
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
Don't get your hopes up. This lawsuit is to deem self defense as a good and substantial reason.

This has nothing to do with the restrictions. I can see tricks being played by the MSP, to allow carry permits on your own property, or other lawful purpose already on the books. This would allow the MSP to report statistics in a light favorable to them.

Down the road, another lawsuit will be needed to take care of the restrictions.
The lawsuit is not to establish self defense as a good and substantial reason. The lawsuit is to remove the requirement to show a good and substantial reason altogether, which is in and of itself unconstitutional because it gives the beaurocracy the power to deny citizens their fundamental right to keep and bear, as set forth in the 2nd Amendment and clarified as a fundamental civil right in the McDonald case.

Here is the text from the original post showing the text of the filing:
Quote:
The lawsuit alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is ‘necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.

“Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can’t possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims.”
__________________
NRA EPL member
MSI member
SAF member
Tom43491 is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 03:02 PM #530
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 38,353
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 38,353
Quote:
The lawsuit alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is ‘necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.

“Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can’t possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims.”
Thought I would highlight it for you. The lawsuit isn't going to change the law.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline  
Closed Thread

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Tags
woollard


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service