The government declared an opioid crisis. I’d bet most murders are related to drugs. Put a gun to my head and I can produce opiates like a fountain. Anyone with a business license can get an unrestricted permit....I can’t. Apprehended danger, you say?
Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed
- Thread starter MJD438
- Start date
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:
The government declared an opioid crisis. I’d bet most murders are related to drugs. Put a gun to my head and I can produce opiates like a fountain. Anyone with a business license can get an unrestricted permit....I can’t. Apprehended danger, you say?
I don't think that's how the thought process goes. They are NOT issuing permits to protect (for example) medications. They are issuing the permit to the person who they agree has a heightened risk to life and limb because they have access to those medications and are thus a bad guy magnet.
The more traditional "making bank deposits" G&S wasn't about the money. It was about the perception that the person making the deposits was personally at more risk because they made the bank runs.
They aren’t really too worried about the person who has access to medication, or I’d have an unrestricted permit. My permit treats me like an employee. To and from the office and while “doing business”. If I go out to lunch and am attacked by a junkie I refused to prescribe for, I will be unarmed.
Merlock40
Member
- Apr 1, 2019
- 7
Just saw this - looks like the Supreme Court may take up the case:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/21-st...e-court-to-void-maryland-gun-law_3184841.html
Way to go !!!!1
https://www.theepochtimes.com/21-st...e-court-to-void-maryland-gun-law_3184841.html
Way to go !!!!1
krucam
Ultimate Member
It’s an Amicus (Friend of the Court) brief, filed in support. Also, not showing this being entered on Dec 18th as the article states. MD’s brief in opposition was filed on the 18th. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html
Not to worry! Open carry your long guns. If challenged, simply refer LEO to the Superintendent's declaration. 
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
It was filed 18 Nov according to the docket.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,970
Lying SOB
The quote illustrates the problem. “With a good and substantial reason”. The activities he is referring to do not include self defense. I have a permit. I can carry to and from the office. If I am out to lunch, I can’t carry.
ShafTed
Ultimate Member
The statement also fails to point out the difference between "carry" and "transort" in the MD laws. With no permit, the "transport" to a very limited set of places must be unloaded, versus the usual public "bearing" of a loaded handgun for self defense in Free America.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,970
"Historically, Maryland has granted the overwhelming majority of permit applications based on a claimed good and substantial reason" -contains the Big Lies. "Overwhelming' is a crock; "Claimed" G&S is equally false. You can claim it all you want; MSP is not inclined to accept your claims.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
So with the earliest conference being 10 January, Clement has another week or so to write his reply brief if he's going to rush the print job over the weekend to have it at the Court for the 6th for the clerk to distribute it on the 7th. I can't wait to see him tear the state a new one on the deception in their response.
Especially when the desk sergeants would tell you you would be denied when you asked for the application packet, the fingerprint trooper would tell you you'd be denied, the interviewer would give you the option to have your check back if you'd rip up your application during the interview, etc.
The online application system should have some very interesting outcomes now that everyone gets a tracking number and can't be voluntarily withdrawn without some record existing.
Especially when the desk sergeants would tell you you would be denied when you asked for the application packet, the fingerprint trooper would tell you you'd be denied, the interviewer would give you the option to have your check back if you'd rip up your application during the interview, etc.
The online application system should have some very interesting outcomes now that everyone gets a tracking number and can't be voluntarily withdrawn without some record existing.
Steel Hunter
Active Member
- Nov 10, 2019
- 552
I can't even read that without ironically laughing. That's some top tier BS.
Given that it's a filing to a Federal court, wouldn't it be better described as "perjury"?
Well then their is a whole LOT of Perjury in the reply that Maryland filled with the court. Hmm could it bee that if Herr Frosh approved that reply to the court then Herr Frosh approved of the perjury that was in that reply thus giving grounds for removal of the head of MSP , the staff in the AG's office that wrote that and any and or all others that conspired to commit perjury under the color of law thus making it a felony under title 18 section 242
Deprivation of rights under color of law
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
It is not perjury because it is a factually true statement. MSP does a good job helping people understand how they interpret G&S. This is why almost everyone voluntarily withdraws their application. From their reference report, there were 2024 new and 3572 renewal wear and carry permits issued compared to 292 denials in 2014. That certainly seem overwhelming to me.
MSP's interpretation of G&S does include self defense. Woollard was able to get a permit because there was a particularized need for self defense. He was denied on one of the renewals because he no longer had that particularized need. The court upheld that determination.
Separate facts, and fragments thereof, assembled into the statement are individually true, but create an incomplete and intentionally misleading context. Certainly not the "whole truth".
And Woollard’s nemesis IIRC went on to kill one or both of his parents.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (1 Viewer)- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 41