Larry Hogan 2A

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!
  • Knuckle66

    One of the 365
    Mar 11, 2012
    615
    Hagerstown
    All, I just read on Change Maryland's FB page that he is for 2A and against SB281. If you want to see the comment go here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?....390155597676276.95052.199826043375900&type=1
    Once there under someone else's post Bill Thomas Change Maryland replied to his question about 2A. I've copied and pasted it here for the people that don't have FB.

    Change Maryland Larry Hogan & Boyd Rutherford are not career politicians and have never held elected office. Larry is a small business owner with over 25 years in the private sector and a proven track record of bringing hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs to Maryland. Boyd also has a wealth of private sector experience and both have the right public management experience from their respective roles as Maryland Cabinet Secretaries and Boyd as an administrator on the federal level under George W. Bush. Boyd has also been credited with making government more effective and less costly for taxpayers at the same time. In addition Larry Hogan is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and is opposed to SB 281. He will work to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill. Hogan supports tougher mandatory sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with a gun, but he is against taking away the rights of law abiding citizens
     

    Straightshooter

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 28, 2010
    5,015
    Baltimore County
    Doesn't sound like any better stance on 2A then we got from Ehrlich.
    We need to pin both Hogan and Craig down on a promise to order MSP to accept personal protection as G&S and their willingness to push for repeal of FAS2013, not simply that the stand for 2A.
     

    oupa

    Active Member
    Apr 6, 2011
    859
    "... supports tougher mandatory sentencing..."

    Anyone who says this is someone I'd be leery of. The framers put a legal system in place like no other. It's primary goal was protection of the innocent even at the cost of allowing the guilty to go free in the absence of evidence unfitting such protections of basic rights. They did this because THEY saw first hand how a government gone astray can trample the individual who gets in it's way. We can see it today when the full weight of the largest nation on earth is directed at individuals for both good and bad reasons.

    Each case was to be judged individually and penalties handed down accordingly.

    "Mandatory sentences" is merely a legislator's way of getting around said protections for the purpose of appearing "tough on crime" for the sole purpose of getting elected. The problem is "the law of unintended consequences."
    Anyone who embraces mandatory minimums must first believe that government will not turn on it's own citizens.

    Most cops and prosecutors are normal working stiffs out to do a good job. Unfortunately, as the founders knew they would, some are not. Our principals are in place to protect us all. Once we pervert the principals to make it easier to penalize the guilty, we also make it easier to penalize the innocent. Mandatory minimums make it impossible to be understanding of a clear, mistake. ...if only life were so clear and easy to navigate.:cool:
     

    Knuckle66

    One of the 365
    Mar 11, 2012
    615
    Hagerstown
    I believe tougher sentencing means the opposite of what MoM is doing now, which is basically letting them go. You can have tougher sentencings like mandatory 5 years for a crime with a gun and no parole. Instead of 1 or 2 years with a chance for parole. I believe that if you make the sentencing more harsh people will think twice about committing the crime in the first place.
    (I don't know what the law says now I didn't look it up, I'm just making an example)
     

    Knuckle66

    One of the 365
    Mar 11, 2012
    615
    Hagerstown
    Doesn't sound like any better stance on 2A then we got from Ehrlich.
    We need to pin both Hogan and Craig down on a promise to order MSP to accept personal protection as G&S and their willingness to push for repeal of FAS2013, not simply that the stand for 2A.

    100% agree. But at least this is a step in the right direction. I was going to make a post on his FB page but you can't, you can only comment on posts they make.
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,786
    Westminster, MD
    "... supports tougher mandatory sentencing..."

    Anyone who says this is someone I'd be leery of. The framers put a legal system in place like no other. It's primary goal was protection of the innocent even at the cost of allowing the guilty to go free in the absence of evidence unfitting such protections of basic rights. They did this because THEY saw first hand how a government gone astray can trample the individual who gets in it's way. We can see it today when the full weight of the largest nation on earth is directed at individuals for both good and bad reasons.

    Each case was to be judged individually and penalties handed down accordingly.

    "Mandatory sentences" is merely a legislator's way of getting around said protections for the purpose of appearing "tough on crime" for the sole purpose of getting elected. The problem is "the law of unintended consequences."
    Anyone who embraces mandatory minimums must first believe that government will not turn on it's own citizens.


    Most cops and prosecutors are normal working stiffs out to do a good job. Unfortunately, as the founders knew they would, some are not. Our principals are in place to protect us all. Once we pervert the principals to make it easier to penalize the guilty, we also make it easier to penalize the innocent. Mandatory minimums make it impossible to be understanding of a clear, mistake. ...if only life were so clear and easy to navigate.:cool:

    The other edge of that sword is to balance the judges who impose pathetically weak sentences. I used to be in favor of of mandatory sentences, but I've grown weary of them. Weak judges and politicians are the problem for convicted felons being allowed to continue their evil ways against the public.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,058
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    Doesn't sound like any better stance on 2A then we got from Ehrlich.
    We need to pin both Hogan and Craig down on a promise to order MSP to accept personal protection as G&S and their willingness to push for repeal of FAS2013, not simply that the stand for 2A.

    So has anyone been able to pin him down on this issue yet?

    Will anyone try?
     

    Straightshooter

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 28, 2010
    5,015
    Baltimore County
    If I see him again I'll definitely ask him. Had a chance twice but it didn't cross my mind at the time. The best bet would be for MSI or another body to pose the question as that word hold more water than SS standing up later and asking when he's going to keep his promise should he win.
     

    abean4187

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2013
    1,327
    I believe that if you make the sentencing more harsh people will think twice about committing the crime in the first place.
    (I don't know what the law says now I didn't look it up, I'm just making an example)

    It won’t make people think twice, criminals rarely have long term goals and ambitions. Rather, this would keep violent offenders behind bars for a longer period of time and keep them off the streets, which is a good thing.

    Overall, it would reduce violent crime because most of the violent crime is done by repeat offenders. Granted, concealed carry keeps them off the streets forever, if you catch my drift.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    Unless the candidate is willing to issue an official gubernatorial proclamation stating "self-defense is a good and substantial reason", they are blowing smoke up everyone's backside.
     

    Straightshooter

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 28, 2010
    5,015
    Baltimore County
    That's exactly what I said. Unless we pin them down on their willingness to make a proclamation including a time period to get it done, then were back to the same " if they send me a ccw bill I'll sign" crap that Ehrlich fed us. Who among us ever thought such a bill would make it out of the GA?
     

    Ragnar

    Ultimate Member
    May 7, 2013
    1,164
    Berkeley Springs, WV
    How about if MSI or Take Back Maryland sends around a short survey to all gubernatorial candidates asking their positions on 3-4 specific gun issues like repeal of FSA, shall-issue carry permits, etc.?
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,366
    White Marsh
    How about if MSI or Take Back Maryland sends around a short survey to all gubernatorial candidates asking their positions on 3-4 specific gun issues like repeal of FSA, shall-issue carry permits, etc.?

    MSI has done that in the past but I couldn't say if there are plans to do it for this election cycle.
     

    oupa

    Active Member
    Apr 6, 2011
    859
    The other edge of that sword is to balance the judges who impose pathetically weak sentences. I used to be in favor of of mandatory sentences, but I've grown weary of them. Weak judges and politicians are the problem for convicted felons being allowed to continue their evil ways against the public.


    :beer::clap:
     

    Lougotagun

    Member
    May 19, 2013
    23
    Baltimore City
    "... supports tougher mandatory sentencing..."

    Anyone who says this is someone I'd be leery of. The framers put a legal system in place like no other. It's primary goal was protection of the innocent even at the cost of allowing the guilty to go free in the absence of evidence unfitting such protections of basic rights. They did this because THEY saw first hand how a government gone astray can trample the individual who gets in it's way. We can see it today when the full weight of the largest nation on earth is directed at individuals for both good and bad reasons.

    Each case was to be judged individually and penalties handed down accordingly.

    "Mandatory sentences" is merely a legislator's way of getting around said protections for the purpose of appearing "tough on crime" for the sole purpose of getting elected. The problem is "the law of unintended consequences."
    Anyone who embraces mandatory minimums must first believe that government will not turn on it's own citizens.

    Most cops and prosecutors are normal working stiffs out to do a good job. Unfortunately, as the founders knew they would, some are not. Our principals are in place to protect us all. Once we pervert the principals to make it easier to penalize the guilty, we also make it easier to penalize the innocent. Mandatory minimums make it impossible to be understanding of a clear, mistake. ...if only life were so clear and easy to navigate.:cool:

    Very well put.
     

    willandtestament

    Active Member
    Jan 14, 2011
    130
    So has anyone been able to pin him down on this issue yet?

    Will anyone try?

    I will. I am friends with Boyd and we have discussed this extensively in the past. I do not know Larry but I will be getting to know him well in the future. This is at the top of my list to be addressed in addition to obvious business issues for full support.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    For any R to have any vaguely realistic chance of winning statewide office , they will need to get substantial number of votes from the proverial Triangle . Not a majority , but double digit percentages. If they were to go on record for the things we really want , they would be totally demonized by the Dems and the media , and there crossover votes would dry up. And thereby not come close to getting elected.

    Our dream candidate would need three things :

    1. Let us know by winks and nods that he will come thru on 2A.

    2. Once elected remember those winks and nods.

    3. Take office acepting that he will be un-reelectable , and any further political ambitions in Md are dead. Don't waste any effort futile bipartisanship or compromise, and go scorched earth from day 1.
     

    abean4187

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2013
    1,327
    For any R to have any vaguely realistic chance of winning statewide office , they will need to get substantial number of votes from the proverial Triangle . Not a majority , but double digit percentages. If they were to go on record for the things we really want , they would be totally demonized by the Dems and the media , and there crossover votes would dry up. And thereby not come close to getting elected.

    Our dream candidate would need three things :

    1. Let us know by winks and nods that he will come thru on 2A.

    2. Once elected remember those winks and nods.

    3. Take office acepting that he will be un-reelectable , and any further political ambitions in Md are dead. Don't waste any effort futile bipartisanship or compromise, and go scorched earth from day 1.

    ^This

    Moderate Republicans have zero chance of winning in MD so I am not sure why people are calling for Republicans to start hitting up the Tea Party mantra. If Republicans are going to win they are going to have to hardcore lie about what they stand for. Just remember, Obama said he wasn’t coming for our guns and then after he was re-elected the first thing he did was come for our guns. Had he ran on that he would have lost. Likewise, if you run on a pro gun platform in MD you will lose.
     

    Knuckle66

    One of the 365
    Mar 11, 2012
    615
    Hagerstown
    It won’t make people think twice, criminals rarely have long term goals and ambitions. Rather, this would keep violent offenders behind bars for a longer period of time and keep them off the streets, which is a good thing.

    Overall, it would reduce violent crime because most of the violent crime is done by repeat offenders. Granted, concealed carry keeps them off the streets forever, if you catch my drift.

    Oh I catch your drift. :thumbsup:
     

    Knuckle66

    One of the 365
    Mar 11, 2012
    615
    Hagerstown
    For any R to have any vaguely realistic chance of winning statewide office , they will need to get substantial number of votes from the proverial Triangle . Not a majority , but double digit percentages. If they were to go on record for the things we really want , they would be totally demonized by the Dems and the media , and there crossover votes would dry up. And thereby not come close to getting elected.

    Our dream candidate would need three things :

    1. Let us know by winks and nods that he will come thru on 2A.

    2. Once elected remember those winks and nods.

    3. Take office acepting that he will be un-reelectable , and any further political ambitions in Md are dead. Don't waste any effort futile bipartisanship or compromise, and go scorched earth from day 1.

    100% agree!
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,721
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom