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

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 1st, 2019, 11:13 AM #961
Blacksmith101's Avatar
Blacksmith101 Blacksmith101 is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 14,803
Blacksmith101 Blacksmith101 is offline
Grumpy Old Man
Blacksmith101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 14,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbird7282 View Post
AFAIK in MD if you can’t legally get an HQL, then you are prohibited from owning firearms. I understand the HQL is not for possession. We’ve had people post about having their HQL revoked/not approved and then a visit from the MSP. Am I mistaken on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not true. A HQL is only needed to purchase new handguns. Many members of this forum have refused to get an HQL however they continue to legally own handguns and previously regulated and other long arms acquired prior to the passage of this unconstitutional law. They also continue to purchase long arms legally.

I believe the case you are referring to about having a HQL revoked and a visit by the MSP deals with an individual who moved to Maryland after the passage of the law and subsequent to obtaining a HQL and registering his legally acquired and previously owned firearms was tripped up by a technical difference in two different states laws and how they handle offenses and was not considered a Prohibited Person in the previous state he lived in and probably should not be considered Prohibited in Maryland.

If someone is a Prohibited Person they should not be able to get a HQL nor can they legally posses firearms or ammunition.
Link to the ATF Identify Prohibited Persons page:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identif...ibited-persons

There are many reasons you might not be able to get an HQL and not be a Prohibited Person. For example: if you do not have a credit/debit card, if you do not have access to or the skills to use a computer with an internet connection, you do not have a way to get to a LiveScan fingerprint location, if you can not afford the fees, you lack the required training regardless of your knowledge and experience, or possibly other reasons.
Blacksmith101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 11:24 AM #962
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 32,778
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 32,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
There is also the lower courts stating that "bear" is not core to the 2A, bucking Heller. Which is exactly what happened in this case. The appelatte court sided with NYC, only for NYC to "give in" after the case being granted cert.

I think the SCOTUS will be giving direction about "bear" being an equal part for the civil right.
I hope you are correct. It is an easy and logical leap to make.
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 11:28 AM #963
delaware_export delaware_export is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 907
delaware_export delaware_export is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 907
Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming it’s not mooted)

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/gu...rt-state-rifle
delaware_export is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 11:45 AM #964
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 67
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaware_export View Post
Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming itís not mooted)

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/gu...rt-state-rifle

Iíve always wondered about how states can regulate private property after itís legally owned and being used in a non threatening manner?

Isnít the commerce complete once the product is purchased and youíve taken possession
ddestruel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 11:47 AM #965
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 67
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaware_export View Post
Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming itís not mooted)

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/gu...rt-state-rifle

Iíve always wondered about how states can regulate private property after itís legally owned and being used in a non threatening manner?

Isnít the commerce complete once the product is purchased and youíve taken possession? Thatís what always fascinated me about magazine bans or retroactive semi automatic rifle bans. They turn the clock back and want to take back or change the rules on what you already own.

It is interesting the us solicitor generals position regarding Mootness and the plaintiffs original claims. Our attorneys are going to be threading yarn in a knitting needle to keep this as broad as possible while not loosing themselves in the weeds of several competing discussions. Ny is going to be threading a micro thread through an even small needle hopefully wasting most itís time on the Mootness argument. And scotus could go any number of directions given all these twist and circus antics
ddestruel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 11:52 AM #966
inkd's Avatar
inkd inkd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ridge
Posts: 6,076
inkd inkd is offline
Senior Member
inkd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ridge
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacksmith101 View Post
Not true. A HQL is only needed to purchase new handguns. Many members of this forum have refused to get an HQL however they continue to legally own handguns and previously regulated and other long arms acquired prior to the passage of this unconstitutional law. They also continue to purchase long arms legally.

I believe the case you are referring to about having a HQL revoked and a visit by the MSP deals with an individual who moved to Maryland after the passage of the law and subsequent to obtaining a HQL and registering his legally acquired and previously owned firearms was tripped up by a technical difference in two different states laws and how they handle offenses and was not considered a Prohibited Person in the previous state he lived in and probably should not be considered Prohibited in Maryland.

If someone is a Prohibited Person they should not be able to get a HQL nor can they legally posses firearms or ammunition.
Link to the ATF Identify Prohibited Persons page:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identif...ibited-persons

There are many reasons you might not be able to get an HQL and not be a Prohibited Person. For example: if you do not have a credit/debit card, if you do not have access to or the skills to use a computer with an internet connection, you do not have a way to get to a LiveScan fingerprint location, if you can not afford the fees, you lack the required training regardless of your knowledge and experience, or possibly other reasons.
I think the difference is between choosing to not get an HQL versus not being able to get one because of something prohibiting you, legally, from getting one.
inkd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 12:58 PM #967
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 18,152
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 18,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by daNattyFatty View Post
Lastly, some schmuck from Brady cries about unelected judges having such an impact on things, namely, ďgun safetyĒ policy.
Funny, I never heard them whine when the lower court cases went THEIR way...
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy." To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
ďThose who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who donít.Ē

Dark to Light; sheep no more. WWG1WGA WWNC
#MorePatriotsThanHandcuffs
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 01:04 PM #968
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 18,152
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 18,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaware_export View Post
Just saw an article suggesting this case may be exclusively viewed as a commerce clause issue as opposed 2a.

What are the thoughts from the legal folks here that this may be ruled ONLY based on the commerce clause and leave the anti2a issues hanging?

Considering all the 2a cases they held for this, would it be likely they ONLY base the ruling on commerce? (Assuming itís not mooted)

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/gu...rt-state-rifle
Commerce clause wouldn't apply if travel was completely within NY State.

My crystal ball is all clouded up, but it's fun and edifying watching people opine.
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy." To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
ďThose who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who donít.Ē

Dark to Light; sheep no more. WWG1WGA WWNC
#MorePatriotsThanHandcuffs
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 01:21 PM #969
danb's Avatar
danb danb is offline
dont be a dumbass
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: google is your friend, I am not.
Posts: 22,006
danb danb is offline
dont be a dumbass
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: google is your friend, I am not.
Posts: 22,006
As the merits briefs have noted "there is no reason to decide the commerce clause" question because the 2A is implicated.

In other words, if the case is not moot, they will next decide 2A. If for some remote reason the 2A is not implicated, they will go to commerce clause. Anyone who thinks it will be decided on commerce clause grounds is absurdly optimistic beyond all reason that the 2A is not implicated.
danb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2019, 01:41 PM #970
HaveBlue's Avatar
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 530
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
HaveBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 530
Please stop posting MD HQL information in this thread.
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

Tags
eat it nyc, nyspra, supreme court


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 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service