Whalen v Handgun Permit Review Board Appeal Brief Filed

esqappellate · Jul 30, 2019

fidelity said:
Even with this provision, is there a strategic or other legal reason that the HPRB was named instead of the State Police LD?

The legal reason is that the administrative agency at issue (the decision maker) is the Board, which sustained the MSP. This is just a matter of MD administrative law, it is how it works.

esqappellate · Jul 30, 2019

nedsurf said:
I'm surprised that everything hasn't gone to e-filing. I guess that court still has a bunch of clerks to take filings, Bates stamp etc...

A lot of the state has gone to mdec, which is the MD efiling service. But if the court below is not an efile jurisdiction (Baltimore City Circuit Court in this case), then everything has to be filed in paper at the court of special appeals.

roadking · Jul 30, 2019

lazarus said:
I know I am unpopular for saying I don’t have a serious issue with there being some requirements to get a permit. But a reason other than “I’ve chosen to exercise my right to bear arms”.

So how do you document that into a regulation? Is living in Balt City enough of a reason? But if you live in Howard, you don’t deserve one? Do you have to have documented attacks or threats against you, otherwise you don’t deserve one? Or perhaps we decide based on income. You’re pretty wealthy, so more likely to be a target for an attack, so you get a permit. But I’m a pauper, so I don’t deserve one because who’d want to attack me?

Despite the arguments above to the contrary, I do believe a training and competency requirement is a good idea. Having recently done the HQL, it’s a joke. You are in no way prepared even to safely go to the range after that. So for carrying? Yes, safety instruction and proficiency. We have this for cars, for Pete’s sake. There are a lot of really stupid, really careless people in this world. And while I’m all for protecting our rights, I’m not sure I’d want every moron armed. When I went to get my motorcycle license, I took an operating class. During the class, they kicked a girl out and sent her home. She was nervous, shaky and kept going the wrong way during drills (directly into other riders). She was dangerous. She needed to go home WITHOUT her motorcycle endorsement. With firearms, we should do the same. Drop your gun during the class, you get sent home. Fire at the wrong time, or in the wrong direction, sent home. Etc. Yes, we have rights. But this is serious safety stuff. And reasonable proficiency (not expert level, just competency) isn’t an unreasonable requirement. Well, that and not being a drug user, under psych care or a criminal...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbird7282 · Jul 30, 2019

roadking said:
So how do you document that into a regulation? Is living in Balt City enough of a reason? But if you live in Howard, you don’t deserve one? Do you have to have documented attacks or threats against you, otherwise you don’t deserve one? Or perhaps we decide based on income. You’re pretty wealthy, so more likely to be a target for an attack, so you get a permit. But I’m a pauper, so I don’t deserve one because who’d want to attack me?

Despite the arguments above to the contrary, I do believe a training and competency requirement is a good idea. Having recently done the HQL, it’s a joke. You are in no way prepared even to safely go to the range after that. So for carrying? Yes, safety instruction and proficiency. We have this for cars, for Pete’s sake. There are a lot of really stupid, really careless people in this world. And while I’m all for protecting our rights, I’m not sure I’d want every moron armed. When I went to get my motorcycle license, I took an operating class. During the class, they kicked a girl out and sent her home. She was nervous, shaky and kept going the wrong way during drills (directly into other riders). She was dangerous. She needed to go home WITHOUT her motorcycle endorsement. With firearms, we should do the same. Drop your gun during the class, you get sent home. Fire at the wrong time, or in the wrong direction, sent home. Etc. Yes, we have rights. But this is serious safety stuff. And reasonable proficiency (not expert level, just competency) isn’t an unreasonable requirement. Well, that and not being a drug user, under psych care or a criminal...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cars and motorcycles are not a right. The simple fact is that as a society we no longer place much value in personal responsibility, even though it is one of our founding principles. The government was to essentially stay out of our way (for the most part) while we live our lives. If one is buying a firearm, it is up to them to get instruction/training on the proper use of one.
The entire country should be shall issue with no training requirement at all.
Just because people take drivers ed and get a license doesn’t mean they should be driving. Fact is some people are just bad at things, whether it’s driving, owning a gun, talking, or any number of things. Training doesn’t always change that.
The problem is that asking/encouraging action by the government usually results in over the top regulation which is almost impossible to roll back or get rid of once it’s in place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inigoes · Jul 30, 2019

roadking said:
So how do you document that into a regulation? Is living in Balt City enough of a reason? But if you live in Howard, you don’t deserve one? Do you have to have documented attacks or threats against you, otherwise you don’t deserve one? Or perhaps we decide based on income. You’re pretty wealthy, so more likely to be a target for an attack, so you get a permit. But I’m a pauper, so I don’t deserve one because who’d want to attack me?

Despite the arguments above to the contrary, I do believe a training and competency requirement is a good idea. Having recently done the HQL, it’s a joke. You are in no way prepared even to safely go to the range after that. So for carrying? Yes, safety instruction and proficiency. We have this for cars, for Pete’s sake. There are a lot of really stupid, really careless people in this world. And while I’m all for protecting our rights, I’m not sure I’d want every moron armed. When I went to get my motorcycle license, I took an operating class. During the class, they kicked a girl out and sent her home. She was nervous, shaky and kept going the wrong way during drills (directly into other riders). She was dangerous. She needed to go home WITHOUT her motorcycle endorsement. With firearms, we should do the same. Drop your gun during the class, you get sent home. Fire at the wrong time, or in the wrong direction, sent home. Etc. Yes, we have rights. But this is serious safety stuff. And reasonable proficiency (not expert level, just competency) isn’t an unreasonable requirement. Well, that and not being a drug user, under psych care or a criminal...

You are right!

Everyone must be proficient in Civics, and complete a test with a passing score of 80% before they allowed a permit to vote!

Because, you wouldn't want every moron voting either! :sarcasm:

Stoveman · Jul 30, 2019

roadking said:
So how do you document that into a regulation? Is living in Balt City enough of a reason? But if you live in Howard, you don’t deserve one? Do you have to have documented attacks or threats against you, otherwise you don’t deserve one? Or perhaps we decide based on income. You’re pretty wealthy, so more likely to be a target for an attack, so you get a permit. But I’m a pauper, so I don’t deserve one because who’d want to attack me?

Despite the arguments above to the contrary, I do believe a training and competency requirement is a good idea. Having recently done the HQL, it’s a joke. You are in no way prepared even to safely go to the range after that. So for carrying? Yes, safety instruction and proficiency. We have this for cars, for Pete’s sake. There are a lot of really stupid, really careless people in this world. And while I’m all for protecting our rights, I’m not sure I’d want every moron armed. When I went to get my motorcycle license, I took an operating class. During the class, they kicked a girl out and sent her home. She was nervous, shaky and kept going the wrong way during drills (directly into other riders). She was dangerous. She needed to go home WITHOUT her motorcycle endorsement. With firearms, we should do the same. Drop your gun during the class, you get sent home. Fire at the wrong time, or in the wrong direction, sent home. Etc. Yes, we have rights. But this is serious safety stuff. And reasonable proficiency (not expert level, just competency) isn’t an unreasonable requirement. Well, that and not being a drug user, under psych care or a criminal...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So much wrong in this post.

With all due respect, please don't breed. Thank you.

Adolph Oliver Bush · Jul 30, 2019

lazarus said:
I know I am unpopular for saying I don’t have a serious issue with there being some requirements to get a permit. But a reason other than “I’ve chosen to exercise my right to bear arms”.

The problem that I have with permits, other than it is the only constitutionally-guaranteed right that needs government approval, is that it then provides the state with a list of gun owners. Records that can be hacked, as was done in Commiefornia, published by the newspapers, as was done in New York, or used to confiscate guns. Oh, that and the fact that few criminals bother to seek permission from their government to carry a gun. If you're going to kill somebody, BFD. Life for murder or life for murder plus 10 for "gun crimes" is the same sentence.

I encourage you Lazarus to do what I did 6.5 years ago, and start reading what the Founding Fathers said about arms. You may also want to read the English Common Law of 1689 or so, to see how the king codified the use of guns, well, unless you were a minority -- kinda like a lot of gun control laws in the US. And read the Federalist Papers. And study the meaning of preferatory clauses, like "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state..." And study the meaning of "infringe." Or come to the epiphany that I did when I started paying attention, that the Second Amendment does not establish a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, it merely references a pre-existing right. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The 2A says nothing about needing to be in a militia to have a gun. Not intending these comments as a personal affront, merely enumerating reasons why permits for rights are a bad idea.

True fact: As I heard Shannon Watts say last night, I too was moved by the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I was a borderline gun-grabber when I started looking into gun control critically for the first time, and what I saw and learned appalled me. I was so moved that in recent years I spent 5 or more vacation days in Annapolis testifying against gun control bills, and I give up over 1/4 of my Saturday's to fight for gun rights. And I go to as many in-person events as I can, to try and have a reasoned discussion with fence-sitters about gun control.

I am reminded of a bumper sticker that I saw 40 years ago. I thought it rather simple-minded at the time. I now think that it eloquently sums up the real problem with gun control:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Finally, let us not forget. Our very nation was founded because private individuals brought their own unregistered, unserialized, untraceable guns from home to oppose what had become a tyrannical government bent on taking their guns -- an action surely on the minds of our Founding Fathers when the wrote the documents that formed the basis of the laws of our new country -- all of which are still in effect. And I make it a point to remind all of my snowflake friends how our nation got its start every Independence Day.

nedsurf · Jul 30, 2019

esqappellate said:
A lot of the state has gone to mdec, which is the MD efiling service. But if the court below is not an efile jurisdiction (Baltimore City Circuit Court in this case), then everything has to be filed in paper at the court of special appeals.

Hmm. Probably for the best lest that court would get jammed up with ransomeware.

Stoveman · Jul 30, 2019

Adolph Oliver Bush said:
The problem that I have with permits, other than it is the only constitutionally-guaranteed right that needs government approval, is that it then provides the state with a list of gun owners. Records that can be hacked, as was done in Commiefornia, published by the newspapers, as was done in New York, or used to confiscate guns. Oh, that and the fact that few criminals bother to seek permission from their government to carry a gun. If you're going to kill somebody, BFD. Life for murder or life for murder plus 10 for "gun crimes" is the same sentence.

I encourage you Lazarus to do what I did 6.5 years ago, and start reading what the Founding Fathers said about arms. You may also want to read the English Common Law of 1689 or so, to see how the king codified the use of guns, well, unless you were a minority -- kinda like a lot of gun control laws in the US. And read the Federalist Papers. And study the meaning of preferatory clauses, like "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state..." And study the meaning of "infringe." Or come to the epiphany that I did when I started paying attention, that the Second Amendment does not establish a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, it merely references a pre-existing right. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The 2A says nothing about needing to be in a militia to have a gun. Not intending these comments as a personal affront, merely enumerating reasons why permits for rights are a bad idea.

True fact: As I heard Shannon Watts say last night, I too was moved by the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I was a borderline gun-grabber when I started looking into gun control critically for the first time, and what I saw and learned appalled me. I was so moved that in recent years I spent 5 or more vacation days in Annapolis testifying against gun control bills, and I give up over 1/4 of my Saturday's to fight for gun rights. And I go to as many in-person events as I can, to try and have a reasoned discussion with fence-sitters about gun control.

I am reminded of a bumper sticker that I saw 40 years ago. I thought it rather simple-minded at the time. I now think that it eloquently sums up the real problem with gun control:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Finally, let us not forget. Our very nation was founded because private individuals brought their own unregistered, unserialized, untraceable guns from home to oppose what had become a tyrannical government bent on taking their guns -- an action surely on the minds of our Founding Fathers when the wrote the documents that formed the basis of the laws of our new country -- all of which are still in effect. And I make it a point to remind all of my snowflake friends how our nation got its start every Independence Day.

And that right there friends, is a

echo6mike · Jul 31, 2019

Inigoes said:
You are right!

Everyone must be proficient in Civics, and complete a test with a passing score of 80% before they allowed a permit to vote!

Because, you wouldn't want every moron voting either!

Well, ya know, this isn't such a bad idea IMHO - seriously, have you *seen* some of the idiots out there voting?

Pass a civics test and an IQ test, then maybe you can vote.

abean4187 · Jul 31, 2019

The metrics for the 4th Circuit Court are also looking better thanks to Trump. Right now it is 50/50 RNC/DNC appointees. If 1-2 DNC judges retire/die soon we could end up getting a winning majority for gun rights in Maryland.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/2019-outlook-trump-judge-picks-could-flip-circuits-2

teratos · Jul 31, 2019

Adolph Oliver Bush said:
The problem that I have with permits, other than it is the only constitutionally-guaranteed right that needs government approval, is that it then provides the state with a list of gun owners. Records that can be hacked, as was done in Commiefornia, published by the newspapers, as was done in New York, or used to confiscate guns. Oh, that and the fact that few criminals bother to seek permission from their government to carry a gun. If you're going to kill somebody, BFD. Life for murder or life for murder plus 10 for "gun crimes" is the same sentence.

I encourage you Lazarus to do what I did 6.5 years ago, and start reading what the Founding Fathers said about arms. You may also want to read the English Common Law of 1689 or so, to see how the king codified the use of guns, well, unless you were a minority -- kinda like a lot of gun control laws in the US. And read the Federalist Papers. And study the meaning of preferatory clauses, like "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state..." And study the meaning of "infringe." Or come to the epiphany that I did when I started paying attention, that the Second Amendment does not establish a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, it merely references a pre-existing right. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The 2A says nothing about needing to be in a militia to have a gun. Not intending these comments as a personal affront, merely enumerating reasons why permits for rights are a bad idea.

True fact: As I heard Shannon Watts say last night, I too was moved by the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I was a borderline gun-grabber when I started looking into gun control critically for the first time, and what I saw and learned appalled me. I was so moved that in recent years I spent 5 or more vacation days in Annapolis testifying against gun control bills, and I give up over 1/4 of my Saturday's to fight for gun rights. And I go to as many in-person events as I can, to try and have a reasoned discussion with fence-sitters about gun control.

I am reminded of a bumper sticker that I saw 40 years ago. I thought it rather simple-minded at the time. I now think that it eloquently sums up the real problem with gun control:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Finally, let us not forget. Our very nation was founded because private individuals brought their own unregistered, unserialized, untraceable guns from home to oppose what had become a tyrannical government bent on taking their guns -- an action surely on the minds of our Founding Fathers when the wrote the documents that formed the basis of the laws of our new country -- all of which are still in effect. And I make it a point to remind all of my snowflake friends how our nation got its start every Independence Day.

A Permit is the government selling your rights to you.

rbird7282 · Jul 31, 2019

teratos said:
A Permit is the government selling your rights to you.

exactly

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

krucam · Jul 31, 2019

abean4187 said:
The metrics for the 4th Circuit Court are also looking better thanks to Trump. Right now it is 50/50 RNC/DNC appointees. If 1-2 DNC judges retire/die soon we could end up getting a winning majority for gun rights in Maryland.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/2019-outlook-trump-judge-picks-could-flip-circuits-2

Thanks for the link, has me smiling...

dblas · Jul 31, 2019

Adolph Oliver Bush said:
The problem that I have with permits, other than it is the only constitutionally-guaranteed right that needs government approval, is that it then provides the state with a list of gun owners. Records that can be hacked, as was done in Commiefornia, published by the newspapers, as was done in New York, or used to confiscate guns. Oh, that and the fact that few criminals bother to seek permission from their government to carry a gun. If you're going to kill somebody, BFD. Life for murder or life for murder plus 10 for "gun crimes" is the same sentence.

I encourage you Lazarus to do what I did 6.5 years ago, and start reading what the Founding Fathers said about arms. You may also want to read the English Common Law of 1689 or so, to see how the king codified the use of guns, well, unless you were a minority -- kinda like a lot of gun control laws in the US. And read the Federalist Papers. And study the meaning of preferatory clauses, like "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state..." And study the meaning of "infringe." Or come to the epiphany that I did when I started paying attention, that the Second Amendment does not establish a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, it merely references a pre-existing right. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The 2A says nothing about needing to be in a militia to have a gun. Not intending these comments as a personal affront, merely enumerating reasons why permits for rights are a bad idea.

True fact: As I heard Shannon Watts say last night, I too was moved by the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I was a borderline gun-grabber when I started looking into gun control critically for the first time, and what I saw and learned appalled me. I was so moved that in recent years I spent 5 or more vacation days in Annapolis testifying against gun control bills, and I give up over 1/4 of my Saturday's to fight for gun rights. And I go to as many in-person events as I can, to try and have a reasoned discussion with fence-sitters about gun control.

I am reminded of a bumper sticker that I saw 40 years ago. I thought it rather simple-minded at the time. I now think that it eloquently sums up the real problem with gun control:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Finally, let us not forget. Our very nation was founded because private individuals brought their own unregistered, unserialized, untraceable guns from home to oppose what had become a tyrannical government bent on taking their guns -- an action surely on the minds of our Founding Fathers when the wrote the documents that formed the basis of the laws of our new country -- all of which are still in effect. And I make it a point to remind all of my snowflake friends how our nation got its start every Independence Day.

You have come a very long way in a short time. I am proud to sit next to in Annapolis any time.

rseymorejr · Jul 31, 2019

All this talk about mandatory training is horseshit
I don't need some smug, knows better than everyone politician(or anyone else) telling me I need some ******** training to buy, own, carry or shoot a gun. My Father taught me what I needed to know at a young age as I have taught my kids.
If politicians want to do something actually productive they should require a class in middle school that includes gun safety, basic civics, how to balance a check book, how to make change and 1000 other things that everyone should know to make it through life.

BeoBill · Jul 31, 2019

rseymorejr said:
...If politicians want to do something actually productive they should require a class in middle school that includes gun safety, basic civics, how to balance a check book, how to make change and 1000 other things that everyone should know to make it through life.

If they did that they and their legislative monkeyshines would be out on their collective ears. I firmly believe that we are in a "Good vs. Evil" struggle here. Our very freedom itself is at stake.

danb · Jul 31, 2019

rseymorejr said:
All this talk about mandatory training is horseshit
I don't need some smug, knows better than everyone politician(or anyone else) telling me I need some ******** training to buy, own, carry or shoot a gun. My Father taught me what I needed to know at a young age as I have taught my kids.
If politicians want to do something actually productive they should ~~require a class in middle school that includes gun safety, basic civics, how to balance a check book, how to make change and 1000 other things that everyone should know to make it through life.~~ off themselves.

Fixed
Here's hoping...

rseymorejr · Jul 31, 2019

danb said:
Fixed
Here's hoping...

That'll work too

Not_an_outlaw · Jul 31, 2019

rseymorejr said:
All this talk about mandatory training is horseshit
I don't need some smug, knows better than everyone politician(or anyone else) telling me I need some ******** training to buy, own, carry or shoot a gun. My Father taught me what I needed to know at a young age as I have taught my kids.
If politicians want to do something actually productive they should require a class in middle school that includes gun safety, basic civics, how to balance a check book, how to make change and 1000 other things that everyone should know to make it through life.

I had a gun safety and a safe hunters course in Western Maryland in 6th grade at outdoor school.

Whalen v Handgun Permit Review Board Appeal Brief Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

President, MSI

President, MSI

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

TV Personality

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics