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 14th, 2010, 10:13 AM #601
Norton's Avatar
Norton Norton is offline



NRA Endowment Member
Rifleman
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 83,129
Images: 6
Norton Norton is offline



NRA Endowment Member
Rifleman
Norton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 83,129
Images: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
Helmke makes $250K? You're getting hosed, man.
well, to be fair it was only $249,555
Norton is offline  
Old August 14th, 2010, 10:16 AM #602
Afield Afield is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 181
Afield Afield is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton View Post
well, to be fair it was only $249,555
Wow. I'd almost be anti ANYTHING for that kind of money every year! Just kidding. Still have my integrity to answer to!
Afield is offline  
Old August 14th, 2010, 10:19 AM #603
Rattlesnake46319's Avatar
Rattlesnake46319 Rattlesnake46319 is offline
Curmidget
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jefferson County, MO
Posts: 10,855
Images: 2
Rattlesnake46319 Rattlesnake46319 is offline
Curmidget
Rattlesnake46319's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jefferson County, MO
Posts: 10,855
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton View Post
well, to be fair it was only $249,555
Ok, we can start paying you that kind of coin, but we're gonna have to cut Spot's salary.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
well, this degenerated from unnecessary to downright bizarre in a hurry.
Rattlesnake46319 is offline  
Old August 14th, 2010, 10:26 AM #604
Norton's Avatar
Norton Norton is offline



NRA Endowment Member
Rifleman
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 83,129
Images: 6
Norton Norton is offline



NRA Endowment Member
Rifleman
Norton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 83,129
Images: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake46319 View Post
Ok, we can start paying you that kind of coin, but we're gonna have to cut Spot's salary.
sweet....does that mean he has to PAY money in now?
Norton is offline  
Old August 14th, 2010, 10:36 AM #605
BenL's Avatar
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,349
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
BenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunkWerX View Post
.

Where does it all lead? Let's assume that in a few years we have maybe 45 or 48 states with Shall Issue? How would the last 2 or 3 or 5 hold-outs be handled?
I would surmise WE (the people) would seek a National Reciprocity case, in order to get a decision on your National Right to Bear, as you cross state lines.
My first thought is "like a driver's license", but I'm afraid that sends the wrong message: that CCW is a privilege, not a right. That brings me back to the whole idea of "permits" in the first place; as a fundamental right, we shouldn't need permits. I don't have a permit for freedom of speech or religion. People try to argue "wild west", but states that require no permit (like Vermont or Alaska) have no issues with this. Here are good arguments for this policy:

Quote:
Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?

Several states are considering adopting "Vermont-style" concealed carry legislation. Most of the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) laws in the country require citizens to first get permits. But in a couple of states, like Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government- imposed waiting period. There are many reasons for a state to adopt a genuine right to carry law:

1. Carrying a firearm is a "right" not a "privilege"

The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right.

2. The issuing of permits can be abused by officials

a. Refuse to issue

* New York City: Officials in New York City routinely deny gun permits for ordinary citizens and store owners because -- as the courts have ruled -- they have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city. In fact, the authorities have even refused to issue permits when the courts have ordered them to do so. (1)

* Gary, Indiana: Then-Mayor Richard Hatcher let it be known in 1979 that he would not be approving any citizens' concealed carry applications. He then said if they wanted to challenge his authority, they were welcome to take him to court. It took citizens over 10 years (and thousands of dollars in legal fees) to get any relief. (2)

* San Jose, CA: Joseph McNamara, a former police chief and anti-gun spokesman, bragged in his 1984 book, Safe & Sane, that "in San Jose, I have made it considerably tougher for residents to get handgun permits." (3)

b. Require fingerprints -- Virginia applicants for concealed carry permits were forced to submit to FBI fingerprint background checks without any authorization requiring such checks. (4)

c. Revoke for politically incorrect speech -- In Oregon, officials have been known to revoke concealed carry licenses because of one's political views. In one case, a permit holder had his license revoked because he was the editor of a pro-life newspaper. (5)

d. Print licensee holders' names in newspapers -- In several states, newspapers have frequently printed the names of concealed carry permit holders, which are almost always public information. (6)

3. Officials can "raise the hurdles" in order to get a permit
* The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right

a. Arbitrary Delays -- While New Jersey law requires applications to be responded to within thirty days, delays of ninety days are routine; sometimes, applications are delayed for several years for no readily apparent reason. (7)

b. Arbitrary Denials -- See the examples above from New York City, Indiana and California.

c. Arbitrary Fee Increases -- In 1994, the Clinton administration pushed for a license fee increase of almost 1,000 percent on gun dealers. According to U.S. News & World Report, the administration was seeking the license fee increase "in hopes of driving many of America's 258,000 licensed gun dealers out of business." (8) This example clearly shows how easily government officials can abuse the issuing of carry permits. Instead of using lower fees to merely pay for the processing of permits, officials can raise the fees to keep people from exercising their rights.

4. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

..........................................-Hanlon's Razor

"No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

..........................................-16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
BenL is offline  
Old August 14th, 2010, 11:54 AM #606
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Permits will be constitutional even though it is a right. Even the SAF admits this. They meet a compelling need, are limited in scope and narrowly tailored (once all law-abiding people are able to get one). Arguments will be made that a national reciprocity is required. If you win the argument that carry is a right outside your home, you cannot stop that right at border of your state. That is just another version of "home".

I hear BenL's concern, but everything in that document is "pre-Fundamental Right". Mayors/states who play games once the lines are drawn will get sued for damages. That is the huge difference in the near future -- none of what gunowners.org reference there existed under a system where keep and bear was a civil right. Seriously, if we win what we want those games are over. Individual officials will be personally liable in some cases (some municipalities have laws that make the individual official liable for knowingly and egregiously subverting civil rights) - will that official risk their house, income and retirement just to slow down your permit application?

A national system of checks and permit requirements will be in order. The courts will eventually rule on what a state can and cannot require. The "issuing variances" that exist between states will melt away and a floor will be set. States that do not require permits today will still need to offer them to people who travel. Or maybe they'll just make everyone have one anyway to avoid the hassle. The Congress could step in and set the floor and create the permit, in which case AZ/VT will get overruled for the good of all.

The fastest and sanest way to get this all done with a minimum of fuss is for the Congress to step in as soon as the Supreme Court makes it clear where things need to be. States rights no longer matter here - McDonald makes this an issue with true national scope and under the purview of the Congress. Nobody is talking about that yet, but they will. I highly doubt the SAF and NRA are unaware that this is how it will all eventually play out. Hence the SAF filing fights that are almost guaranteed a return trip to the Supreme Court -- they are getting the lines drawn before the Congress gets involved (the Supreme Court is highly deferential to the wishes of Congress).

Under the right circumstances, with the right Congress and a President who doesn't veto, we could see national standards on all facets of gun laws regarding carry put in place quickly. After these midterms, we might want to evaluate where we stand and start making our fight in DC, Annapolis be damned.

This is why the NRA frustrates me so much. They could work the Congress right now if they would swallow their pride and join our mission.
Patrick is offline  
Old August 16th, 2010, 01:23 PM #607
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 38,331
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 38,331
The NRA just picked up the story

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=14134
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline  
Old August 16th, 2010, 01:28 PM #608
BenL's Avatar
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,349
BenL BenL is offline
John Galt Speaking.
BenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pelham, New Hampshire, Thank God
Posts: 9,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
Hey, welcome to the party. Thanks for stopping by.

More and more, i have to talk myself into renewing my membership every year.
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

..........................................-Hanlon's Razor

"No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

..........................................-16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
BenL is offline  
Old August 16th, 2010, 02:18 PM #609
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Patrick Patrick is offline
MSI Executive Member
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 7,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
Wow. A one paragraph blurb pointing to the Washington Post article. No commentary, no support, no credit...no nothing.

Yet a front page story about the new Chicago case they are "supporting".

WTF?
Patrick is offline  
Old August 16th, 2010, 02:21 PM #610
hairba111's Avatar
hairba111 hairba111 is offline
XGMG2
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Close to Tim Hafer's shop, Hagerstown
Posts: 4,714
Images: 4
hairba111 hairba111 is offline
XGMG2
hairba111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Close to Tim Hafer's shop, Hagerstown
Posts: 4,714
Images: 4
I sent the announcement into "Cam & Company NRA News" last week. Cricketts chirped for the rest of the show.
__________________

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."


When it comes to firearms, a license or permit only ALLOWS us to own or carry a firearm. The SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES that we CAN! We don't need to be ALLOWED to. Therefore licenses and permits are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
hairba111 is offline  
Closed Thread

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

Tags
woollard


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 01:48 PM.


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