Merlin
Ultimate Member
The problem is, (And who can blame them) If the MSP puppets do not play ball they will loose their jobs. Ask Ed Norris.
PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED
- Thread starter FNH High Power
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The problem is, (And who can blame them) If the MSP puppets do not play ball they will loose their jobs. Ask Ed Norris.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
There is a much easier way: driver's licenses could do it all. When you get your DR, they do the background check. If you are not prohibited, you get the regular license. If you are prohibited for some reason, your license has a big red box around your photo. They already do this for those who cannot buy alcohol. Alternatively the license could have a box for those who were checked, such as "Firearm Permit". It's a two-fer. I like two-fers.
In other words, the check is part of the license process. Renewals are handled at the same time as the license renewal.
Waiting for a state to do this (Florida).
DeadeyeJack
Supporter of Freedom
There is a much easier way: driver's licenses could do it all. When you get your DR, they do the background check. If you are not prohibited, you get the regular license. If you are prohibited for some reason, your license has a big red box around your photo. They already do this for those who cannot buy alcohol. Alternatively the license could have a box for those who were checked, such as "Firearm Permit". It's a two-fer. I like two-fers.
In other words, the check is part of the license process. Renewals are handled at the same time as the license renewal.
Waiting for a state to do this (Florida).
I do not want my DL in any way conferring firearm info. Think about how many times a normal person presents ID. I do not want the 2 digit IQ functionary knowing this.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
That's why I like option #1: all DL's are permits by default. Only those who do not qualify get the special mark. That means that even the uber-liberal gun haters technically have a permit.
It jives more with my view of the Constitutional Right: you don't need permission to exercise the right. You should not have to ask. The true exceptions are the rare among us who are not able to exercise the right. Those are the ones that need "the mark".
The primary issue with this is the fingerprints. Most states still require them. But I think the "Compromise Constitutional Carry" proposal would be a background check without fingerprints (NICS, state/fbi can do this) via a driver's license. It's not what the Constitutional Carry people want in theory (no checks), but it does not require a separate permit and it is transparent to the end user. The DMV/MVA already does a background check today - I say we recycle it.
This could work in states that are "almost" passing constitutional carry. The problem is the CC activists are pretty rabid about their viewpoints and become enraged when anyone suggests variations on their accepted dogma. They are their own worst enemies, sometimes. I think most of us agree with them in principle. The problems arise once you try to apply that principle to real life politics. Most of us see these things as a step-wise progress thing. Some of the CC activists are so - let's say, "principled" - that they won't take wins along the way. They want the entire war fought and won in a single skirmish.
It jives more with my view of the Constitutional Right: you don't need permission to exercise the right. You should not have to ask. The true exceptions are the rare among us who are not able to exercise the right. Those are the ones that need "the mark".
The primary issue with this is the fingerprints. Most states still require them. But I think the "Compromise Constitutional Carry" proposal would be a background check without fingerprints (NICS, state/fbi can do this) via a driver's license. It's not what the Constitutional Carry people want in theory (no checks), but it does not require a separate permit and it is transparent to the end user. The DMV/MVA already does a background check today - I say we recycle it.
This could work in states that are "almost" passing constitutional carry. The problem is the CC activists are pretty rabid about their viewpoints and become enraged when anyone suggests variations on their accepted dogma. They are their own worst enemies, sometimes. I think most of us agree with them in principle. The problems arise once you try to apply that principle to real life politics. Most of us see these things as a step-wise progress thing. Some of the CC activists are so - let's say, "principled" - that they won't take wins along the way. They want the entire war fought and won in a single skirmish.
SRD
R.I.P.
Thanks.Trying to keep pace with the couple of permit threads is tuff.
JMangle
Handsome Engineer
I can think of no reason why this couldn't be.
Oh yeah, the hippies in Maryland would shit a brick.
What a great idea!
I wonder if the FBI could be enlisted to open a Civil rights investigation against Maryland State Police and the Permit Review Board?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes
That would definitely open a new front
http://www.fbi.gov/baltimore/
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes
That would definitely open a new front
http://www.fbi.gov/baltimore/
Straightshooter
Ultimate Member
I like the MVA idea, after all if they can affirm the right of illegal aliens to vote, why not our right to carry?
- Apr 9, 2012
- 47
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive the DMV/MVA only looks for traffic violations and open wants/warrents. When a police officer pulls you over and runs the MVA/DMV/NICS check, the check doesn't include a past criminal record. The FBI and CJIS can do full criminal checks on you. I wouldn't want a lazy or corrupt DMV employee to be responsible for deciding whether or not I get a CCW permit. I don't have a better answer for how to impliment the checks.
One exception to what I said above is in regards to fingerprinting at the MVA for Hazmat commercial Drivers which is a TSA requirement.
Threeband
The M1 Does My Talking
I really like Patrick's idea, but I see one little problem.
Say everyone who is a Prohibited Person has a green border around their photo, and the words "Not Valid For Handgun".
You realize there would be a statistical distribution showing a very pronounced ethnic component. Al Sharpton would hop the first plane to Maryland.
Also, it would stigmatize people with prior convictions who have "paid their debt", and are trying to put their past mistakes behind them and live right.
But I would vote for the idea.
Say everyone who is a Prohibited Person has a green border around their photo, and the words "Not Valid For Handgun".
You realize there would be a statistical distribution showing a very pronounced ethnic component. Al Sharpton would hop the first plane to Maryland.
Also, it would stigmatize people with prior convictions who have "paid their debt", and are trying to put their past mistakes behind them and live right.
But I would vote for the idea.
FNH High Power
Member
...been reading, listening to other's opinions, processing the info, and doing some creative thinking.
I got my app back with the check and a form letter as we all know. Being it was not approved, and that COMAR only allows for TWO options (approve or disapprove), I am left with the only option remaining, disapproved. This in itself negates the need to resubmit to licensing division. It looks like I (and the rest of us in this scenario) just got mine processed for free (well $55 for print scan).
Now in my appeal to the review board, I should only need to provide the original initial aapplication, with the timeline, and my reason for the request for review, correct? And I have 10 days to do that, from when? I'm guessing the date of the form letter since that would have been the date of the decision to deny.
Can someone post a link to COMAR so that I may quote the approve/deny section in my request for review.
I got my app back with the check and a form letter as we all know. Being it was not approved, and that COMAR only allows for TWO options (approve or disapprove), I am left with the only option remaining, disapproved. This in itself negates the need to resubmit to licensing division. It looks like I (and the rest of us in this scenario) just got mine processed for free (well $55 for print scan).
Now in my appeal to the review board, I should only need to provide the original initial aapplication, with the timeline, and my reason for the request for review, correct? And I have 10 days to do that, from when? I'm guessing the date of the form letter since that would have been the date of the decision to deny.
Can someone post a link to COMAR so that I may quote the approve/deny section in my request for review.
FNH High Power
Member
That's where the creative thinking part came in. I've never been accused of thinking INSIDE the box.
If I understand this correctly, a stay allows them to temporarily return to processing as to prior Woollard. It does not indicate that the G&S clause has magically been deemed constitutional all of a sudden, just that they have permission to process under the broken system while developing a process that does not violate 2A.
Maybe the review board will see that US Constitutional rights spelled out in 2A ARE being denied by this process, and realizing that the system is broken, will rule favorable to our rights irregardless of the G&S clause.
FNH High Power
Member
Would it not be best to put in the application, under the reason, the quote from Judge Legg about any Right requiring a Good & Substantial Reason, along with the "Self-Defense and other Lawful reasons"? Seems that would make them think about just returning it, and that you would have, per the application, supplied that good and substantial reason in applying for the permit.
iobidder
1 point'er
I am surprised you are are surpised by this....
martinithebun
FNP40
I agree. Most of the time its when they're off duty that they're real a$$holes who think they're better than everyone else.
You might want to have Judge Legg's decision in your hip pocket, to let them know their actions are unconstitutional.
Be prepared for the condescending attitude from the carry permit review board.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (3 Viewers)- Latest: RFBfromDE
-
-
-
Grand Power Stribog Restocked 9mm & 10mm $689.95 to $1649.00 Shipped (6 Viewers)- Latest: DK Firearms
-
-
Smith & Wesson Revolvers $399.95- $1859.00 Shipped, Smith & Wesson $50-$75 Rebate Available On Select Revolvers (7 Viewers)
- Latest: DK Firearms
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Grand Power Stribog Restocked 9mm & 10mm $689.95 to $1649.00 Shipped (6 Viewers)
- Started by DK Firearms
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
