SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

OLM-Medic · Oct 28, 2010

I also wish there was a way to allow reciprocity from other states CCL's. Then we oculd just get the FL permit and be done with MD's clowns.

Kharn · Oct 28, 2010

Ohio happened because they had been trying to pass CCW for some time (a few years IIRC), someone brought a case to the Ohio Supreme Court who ruled that open carry could not be banned if CCW was not available. After a few open carry marches around the state capital, they got the hint and made Ohio shall-issue.

Nobody · Oct 28, 2010

Kharn said:
Ohio happened because they had been trying to pass CCW for some time (a few years IIRC), someone brought a case to the Ohio Supreme Court who ruled that open carry could not be banned if CCW was not available. After a few open carry marches around the state capital, they got the hint and made Ohio shall-issue.

As I remember Ohio also has, that MURDERland does not, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in their State Constitution. Although MD says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it has RTKAB, this is MD and it has no meaning until SCOTUS says so + 7-10 years.

NOBODY

Trapper · Oct 28, 2010

Patrick said:
... And FWIW, the SAF in other suits has acknowledged the state can determine the method of carry. Everyone who speaks cogently on the topic agrees. There is a lot of history in the USA going back to 1787 saying the state can regulate that choice. Ironically, that regulation was originally in favor of OC because there was a fear of men who would hide a gun. It was expected that honorable men would wear their arms in the open.

Times change.

I disagree with the underlined part, for the reason of the highlighted part. From that far back the states were allowed to regulate concealed carry, open carry was simply allowed. If that was the meaning at the time of 2A's ratification, then it should be the meaning today.

While I believe you are correct in that the current sham courts will identify it as an option of one or the other (just as they keep erroneously saying "in the home"), the original regulation was only for concealed carry, and it should be thus. Open carry (even in a pocket as the SC stated) should be the norm.

ToneGrail · Oct 29, 2010

Patrick said:
Realistically the courts will hold themselves to the reliefs requested in the complaint. That relief is predicated on removing the 'good and substantial' requirement. It is up to MD to determine the condition of carry, and right now others here can tell us the expectations, but as I understand it those are 'concealed'.

The words from other people here are that not concealing could result in a loss of the permit. But...if the permit is no longer the gift of the state, but rather a fundamental right - MD law is currently silent on the OC/CCW question. It's just assumed today with the MSP as the adjudication authority that you will tow their line. If the SAF wins their case, current law may not be adequate to tell people which way to go.

For all those who love OC, don't get too excited. Expect the GA to respond to a win with an emergency session to 'fix' this 'problem' and a host of others they come up with. I think that is what happened in Ohio when public carry was introduced. All the scary OC'ers caused a ruckus and the law is now concealed only. Point is that nobody should expect the courts at any level to wade into that choice. It is purely a state matter.

And FWIW, the SAF in other suits has acknowledged the state can determine the method of carry. Everyone who speaks cogently on the topic agrees. There is a lot of history in the USA going back to 1787 saying the state can regulate that choice. Ironically, that regulation was originally in favor of OC because there was a fear of men who would hide a gun. It was expected that honorable men would wear their arms in the open.

Times change.

Actually, OC is currently permitted in OH.

Patrick · Oct 29, 2010

Disagree with what, the fact the SAF has acknowledged the state can make that choice, or disagree with their position on it?

If it's a question of what the SAF has written, I will confirm my memory and provide a reference one way or the other. But pretty sure I remember this correctly. I just don't want to chase the references when it really looks like you are disagreeing not with what I remember, but what the SAF says. But if you challenge my limited memory recall abilities, I will rise to that challenge!

As for the legal history of OC...personally have no real detail right now. It's been a secondary issue in my mind, so I have not done a lot of digging there other than to note - as you do - that historically the prohibition on concealed carry appears to have been used when open carry was considered the norm. At least until the Sherman Act in NYC, that is. Again, have not done anything exhaustive to prove/disprove that belief.

Overall, in my opinion, once history stipulates that a choice can be made by government, it is too late to argue that call years later when the choice is suddenly changed to something you do not like. If early generations felt that it was OK to disallow concealed-carry, they opened the door to the act of government choosing one way or the other. And given that history has been guiding the court on these matters, that act of allowing the government to choose changed the tapestry of the right forever. It does not matter what the choice was, just the fact that this choice was given to the government.

I don't think anyone here would argue that they would have a problem with people having the choice themselves. But it might be that our forefathers botched this one.

As for not having the OC fight right now: All of these cases work to loosen the regulation around gun ownership and use in the USA, one issue at a time. It does not matter that the SAF has chosen to not make that fight today. Someone else can tomorrow. They - like the NRA - are not the ultimate arbiters of the right. This is not a negotiation, so nothing is really "given up" by their current position.

What this current position does is eliminate an avenue of argument for the government. By not claiming a particular method of carry - and stipulating that that choice is up to the government - you remove an entire topic from the debate. The goal here is to piecemeal ask simple questions that return simple answers. Then move on to another question. It's slow and plodding, but it looks to be working.

So nothing says the question cannot come up again. Right now we need to win the fight to carry one way or the other. We can nitpick the details later.

fightinbluhen51 · Oct 29, 2010

Patrick said:
Realistically the courts will hold themselves to the reliefs requested in the complaint. That relief is predicated on removing the 'good and substantial' requirement. It is up to MD to determine the condition of carry, and right now others here can tell us the expectations, but as I understand it those are 'concealed'.

The words from other people here are that not concealing could result in a loss of the permit. But...if the permit is no longer the gift of the state, but rather a fundamental right - MD law is currently silent on the OC/CCW question. It's just assumed today with the MSP as the adjudication authority that you will tow their line. If the SAF wins their case, current law may not be adequate to tell people which way to go.

For all those who love OC, don't get too excited. Expect the GA to respond to a win with an emergency session to 'fix' this 'problem' and a host of others they come up with. I think that is what happened in Ohio when public carry was introduced. All the scary OC'ers caused a ruckus and the law is now concealed only. Point is that nobody should expect the courts at any level to wade into that choice. It is purely a state matter.

And FWIW, the SAF in other suits has acknowledged the state can determine the method of carry. Everyone who speaks cogently on the topic agrees. There is a lot of history in the USA going back to 1787 saying the state can regulate that choice. Ironically, that regulation was originally in favor of OC because there was a fear of men who would hide a gun. It was expected that honorable men would wear their arms in the open.

Times change.

I honestly don't care, one way or the other. I'm just saying that if the court goes out on a limb (not likely, but a remote possibility) I would be all for a way to stick it to the state, and I could careless. Obviously, like I said, the benefits of concealed are better than open, and I don't care as long as it is "carry."

fightinbluhen51 · Oct 29, 2010

Patrick said:
Disagree with what, the fact the SAF has acknowledged the state can make that choice, or disagree with their position on it?

If it's a question of what the SAF has written, I will confirm my memory and provide a reference one way or the other. But pretty sure I remember this correctly. I just don't want to chase the references when it really looks like you are disagreeing not with what I remember, but what the SAF says. But if you challenge my limited memory recall abilities, I will rise to that challenge!

As for the legal history of OC...personally have no real detail right now. It's been a secondary issue in my mind, so I have not done a lot of digging there other than to note - as you do - that historically the prohibition on concealed carry appears to have been used when open carry was considered the norm. At least until the Sherman Act in NYC, that is. Again, have not done anything exhaustive to prove/disprove that belief.

Overall, in my opinion, once history stipulates that a choice can be made by government, it is too late to argue that call years later when the choice is suddenly changed to something you do not like. If early generations felt that it was OK to disallow concealed-carry, they opened the door to the act of government choosing one way or the other. And given that history has been guiding the court on these matters, that act of allowing the government to choose changed the tapestry of the right forever. It does not matter what the choice was, just the fact that this choice was given to the government.

I don't think anyone here would argue that they would have a problem with people having the choice themselves. But it might be that our forefathers botched this one.

As for not having the OC fight right now: All of these cases work to loosen the regulation around gun ownership and use in the USA, one issue at a time. It does not matter that the SAF has chosen to not make that fight today. Someone else can tomorrow. They - like the NRA - are not the ultimate arbiters of the right. This is not a negotiation, so nothing is really "given up" by their current position.

What this current position does is eliminate an avenue of argument for the government. By not claiming a particular method of carry - and stipulating that that choice is up to the government - you remove an entire topic from the debate. The goal here is to piecemeal ask simple questions that return simple answers. Then move on to another question. It's slow and plodding, but it looks to be working.

So nothing says the question cannot come up again. Right now we need to win the fight to carry one way or the other. We can nitpick the details later.

Considering we are "slow & plodding" we are still moving forward. In reality, it is still a legal Blitzkrieg, considering the pace and the number of suits filed right after Heller and now McDonald.

Again, don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind "simple question simple answer" as it is sound legal strategy. I was merely conjecturing about the potential ruling of the court (maybe beyond scope of the case). Either way, win and carry, I could care less which way provided my civil right is codified and I can protect myself and my family.

Trapper · Oct 29, 2010

Patrick said:
Disagree with what, the fact the SAF has acknowledged the state can make that choice, or disagree with their position on it?

Apologies, I should have been more clear. I disagree with their position that the states can select one or the other. Based on history, the state should only be able to regulate concealed, open should be allowed and free-of-charge.

The free-of-charge, and not requiring permission (a permit) being the big points for me. Oddly enough, I agree with Gura that the government can regulate concealed carry, require a permit and all (because that's the way it was when founded). However, open carry was the permit and cost free norm at the same time. So, in order to provide equitable coverage, if the government chooses to restrict open carrry, then concealed carry should be permit and cost free.

Patrick · Oct 29, 2010

Trapper said:
Apologies, I should have been more clear. I disagree with their position that the states can select one or the other. Based on history, the state should only be able to regulate concealed, open should be allowed and free-of-charge.

That's what I figured. Thanks for not asking me to dig up the references (though I probably will now anyway).

I mostly agree with your position, FWIW.

Patrick · Oct 29, 2010

fightinbluhen51 said:
Considering we are "slow & plodding" we are still moving forward. In reality, it is still a legal Blitzkrieg, considering the pace and the number of suits filed right after Heller and now McDonald.

Again, don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind "simple question simple answer" as it is sound legal strategy. I was merely conjecturing about the potential ruling of the court (maybe beyond scope of the case). Either way, win and carry, I could care less which way provided my civil right is codified and I can protect myself and my family.

It seems slow, but in comparison with what the NAACP had to endure these cases are moving pretty fast. Of course, much of what they had to do in terms of civil rights litigation included laying the foundation for future cases. We are just riding the roads they made. At some point I'd like history to acknowledge the interplay between these fights, but for now I'm just happy that our side gets to stand on those tall shoulders all these years later.

And speaking of slow fights: I cannot stop wondering about Palmer lately. DC didn't respond to the notice on McDonald and there has been zero action since July. I wonder if something earth-shattering is afoot...like a settlement?

Kharn · Oct 29, 2010

The Palmer judge had to rewrite one of his infamous rulings (he writes gigantic, in-depth opinions about everything) because FBI realized he included secret/TS information on 20+ pages. He released the revised ruling 1-3 weeks ago and it probably took most of the summer to write.

Patrick · Oct 29, 2010

As you wrote your post on that topic, I was updating our Palmer thread with the same info. What a mess that turned out to be.

It explains the delay. Hopefully he is now free to work on Palmer, though it may take some time for him to completely catch up all of his old cases plus the new ones. Probably needs vacation and a drink.

EDIT: Waiting on this. It's District Level but will be still be huge. I earlier mistakenly said it was Circuit Level. My bad.

press1280 · Oct 29, 2010

Trapper said:
Apologies, I should have been more clear. I disagree with their position that the states can select one or the other. Based on history, the state should only be able to regulate concealed, open should be allowed and free-of-charge.

The free-of-charge, and not requiring permission (a permit) being the big points for me. Oddly enough, I agree with Gura that the government can regulate concealed carry, require a permit and all (because that's the way it was when founded). However, open carry was the permit and cost free norm at the same time. So, in order to provide equitable coverage, if the government chooses to restrict open carrry, then concealed carry should be permit and cost free.

If my history's correct, there was no concealed carry prohibition until the early 1800's. Even at that point I don't recall licensing appearing until after the civil war(where the "need" provision just happened to appear in one of many forms, and was oviously meant to disarm freedmen). I may be wrong about that,because we have to remember preemption didn't exist at the time, so some backwoods town could have had some kind of ban in place.

press1280 · Oct 29, 2010

Kharn said:
The Palmer judge had to rewrite one of his infamous rulings (he writes gigantic, in-depth opinions about everything) because FBI realized he included secret/TS information on 20+ pages. He released the revised ruling 1-3 weeks ago and it probably took most of the summer to write.

I honestly don't even care if he rules the other way-the delay is worse than a loss.

marlin.357 · Oct 29, 2010

Trapper said:
The free-of-charge, and not requiring permission (a permit) being the big points for me. Oddly enough, I agree with Gura that the government can regulate concealed carry, require a permit and all (because that's the way it was when founded). However, open carry was the permit and cost free norm at the same time. So, in order to provide equitable coverage, if the government chooses to restrict open carrry, then concealed carry should be permit and cost free.

Sorry, I haven't heard of concealed carry permits being issued in early American history. Do you have any references?

It's a bill of RIGHTS. Keep and bear, and shall not be infringed don't have any wiggle room for having (or buying) a permission slip from the government. The government doesn't have any authority to give the right to carry, nor the authority to restrict carry (read the Second amendment again!), the right is GUARANTEED by the Second Amendment.

Patrick · Oct 29, 2010

press1280 said:
If my history's correct, there was no concealed carry prohibition until the early 1800's. Even at that point I don't recall licensing appearing until after the civil war(where the "need" provision just happened to appear in one of many forms, and was oviously meant to disarm freedmen). I may be wrong about that,because we have to remember preemption didn't exist at the time, so some backwoods town could have had some kind of ban in place.

My reading is that the rise of gun control was largely tied to post civil-war reconstruction. The goal was to restrict former slaves from having arms to defend themselves. Keep in mind many of these men were veterans of the war and knew a thing or two about deploying and using a weapon.

Even in more recent times, many of the bans on so-called 'dangerous' weapons (an oxymoron if one ever existed) were initially designed around keeping poor (black) people from owning arms. The Saturday Night Special comes to mind.

Again, if real people knew the history, the political landscape we face would change overnight. As it stands, they only hear history from those who are enamored with destroying it.

Reconstruction is not complete until racism and gun control are both taken down. They are intimately tied and cannot be separated. Never again should any minority in America be forced to give up arms just so they can be raped, robbed and killed at the hands of a political majority.

Hopalong · Oct 29, 2010

Patrick said:
Never again should any minority in America be forced to give up arms just so they can be raped, robbed and killed at the hands of a political majority.

Well said sir, well said....

Trapper · Oct 29, 2010

marlin.357 said:
Sorry, I haven't heard of concealed carry permits being issued in early American history. Do you have any references?

It's a bill of RIGHTS. Keep and bear, and shall not be infringed don't have any wiggle room for having (or buying) a permission slip from the government. The government doesn't have any authority to give the right to carry, nor the authority to restrict carry (read the Second amendment again!), the right is GUARANTEED by the Second Amendment.

Didn't one of the decisions (think it was McDonald, but could have been Heller) say something to the effect of "shouldn't cast aside historical regulation against concealed carry"? I thought there was an explanation in one of them that said that it was considered cowardly for someone to carry concealed, and therefore regulations against it were okay.

I'll fully admit that I could be completely off base, as I've done no research on it. Since no one argued it when the decision came out I took it to be historically accurate. (thought the justice was referencing founding-era prohibitions, perhaps it was reconstruction-era prohibitions? In which case, f-them, where's my constitutional carry!!!)

Patrick · Oct 30, 2010

Trapper said:
Didn't one of the decisions (think it was McDonald, but could have been Heller) say something to the effect of "shouldn't cast aside historical regulation against concealed carry"? I thought there was an explanation in one of them that said that it was considered cowardly for someone to carry concealed, and therefore regulations against it were okay.

I'll fully admit that I could be completely off base, as I've done no research on it. Since no one argued it when the decision came out I took it to be historically accurate. (thought the justice was referencing founding-era prohibitions, perhaps it was reconstruction-era prohibitions? In which case, f-them, where's my constitutional carry!!!)

You remember correctly. Came from Heller.

The context was the "historical" reference regarding states deciding to ban concealed carry when open was available. At least, that's how our side reads it. The other side obviously has their view.

I'll try to dig it up today for everyone to read and decide for themselves.

SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I'm a member too.

MSI, NRA, & SAF Member

MSI Executive Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

I'm a member too.

MSI Executive Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

NRA Life Member, MSI, SAF

MSI Executive Member

Man of Many Nicknames

I'm a member too.

MSI Executive Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics