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:
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
Any idea which specific case this brief is related to?
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
In the legal world, any assertions and phrases must have specific definitions or they're arbitrarily vague and vagueness in law tilts towards the plaintiff in a suit. The phrases "common sense" and "gun safety" are deliberately vague and arbitrary. Using vague phrases by the government is how they get the camel's nose under the tent to further expand it as the government defines it as time goes on.
All this presupposes any court it's argued in would be unbiased and follow time tested legal principles and the Constitution. We can't presume this will happen in many courts...especially a Maryland court.
All this presupposes any court it's argued in would be unbiased and follow time tested legal principles and the Constitution. We can't presume this will happen in many courts...especially a Maryland court.
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,001
It's ironic that these Ivy League-educated, urban-dwelling coastal politicians and AG's like him with absolutely no connection to the common man often invoke "common sense," when those who know and work with their ilk know that they typically have the least amount of common sense of anyone in our society.
"Common sense" is their code term, their dog whistle for, "I know better, so don't argue with me."
Is there any limit to their own notion of "common sense gun laws," short of prohibiting firearms altogether? No.
One could conjure up endless scenarios where a person is injured by a firearm under a multitude of circumstances, and of states wanting to pass a "common sense gun law" to address each one, or prevent them all. Theoretically.
Taken as a whole, it's death by a thousand cuts.
At some point, these AG's who represent the Leftist states' legislatures should be required to make an honest admission of their real intent.
And be driven from office.
Vote for Wolf for MD AG.
"Common sense" is their code term, their dog whistle for, "I know better, so don't argue with me."
Is there any limit to their own notion of "common sense gun laws," short of prohibiting firearms altogether? No.
One could conjure up endless scenarios where a person is injured by a firearm under a multitude of circumstances, and of states wanting to pass a "common sense gun law" to address each one, or prevent them all. Theoretically.
Taken as a whole, it's death by a thousand cuts.
At some point, these AG's who represent the Leftist states' legislatures should be required to make an honest admission of their real intent.
And be driven from office.
Vote for Wolf for MD AG.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
There are some folks who, if they fell head first in a Porta potty and were drowning, that I would not save.
Just saying
Just saying
- Feb 17, 2011
- 14,024
Are his stats true???? Or are they sort of like how 55% of gun deaths are self inflicted and included in the overall death number. I would say the 800 citizens killed by CCW are probably mostly justified homicides
NYRangers917
Active Member
Not surprised in the least. Frosh will never stop till he's voted out.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
This is Marylandstan...Frosh is in the same mold as the apparatchik Joe Curran. Unless we can vote him out he'll be succeeded by someone else in the same mold.
Of course Frosh hates the little people to be able to carry. He does nothing to stop his own MSP officers from carrying a weapon to protect him. Just think what might happen to him if he did not have the MSP looking over him..
hillbilly grandpa
Active Member
And ALL these AGs belong to a privileged class of citizens. They enjoy not only ordinary security protection, but enhanced security protection--provided by other citizens who carry firearms--paid for by the rest of us. This in the face of long standing judicial findings that LEOs have NO DUTY to protect the private citizen. So you can argue a demonstrated need to be armed in order to prevent being robbed, raped, hijacked, mugged, etc. A SECOND TIME.
This case - Gould v O'Leary
1st Circuit Court of Appeals 17-2202
http://comm2a.org/55-projects/234-gould
https://www.northeastshooters.com/x...-comm2a-carry-case-v-boston-brookline.327627/
Name Taken
Ultimate Member
So he's okay with the 300 plus murders in Baltimore mostly by guns? His laws are helping to keep Marylander's safe correct? So 300 lives lost is safe in his book?
CrueChief
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
Look at the demographics of those victims, that is all anyone needs to do. Combine that with his statements should be all one needs to know about how he and his ilk feel.
And they call conservatives racists.
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,001
.
HRDWRK
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
It's time to help Craig Wolf in whatever way you can.
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=219588
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
NateIU10
Ultimate Member
Let's presume that Frosh under-reported and all of the cited are non-justified. 1,000 over a ten-year period. That's 100 / year. Now I'm no mathematician, but that seems like it would be a pretty low homicide rate for permit holders as compared to the general public.
