Today is the Day

dogbone · Sep 30, 2016

Time to kick in another contribution to the HQL law suit fund!
https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/16-fundraising/9-fightmdhql

Muleskinner · Sep 30, 2016

I wouldn't get too excited...several other states have various "permission" cards and are still required...unless there is something compellingly different about the HQL I wouldn't hold my breath for reversal...yeah I know...y'all are going to call me negative...I prefer to be called a realist and I hope I am wrong...It would be nice to go into my favorite firearms shop and buy a new pistol again...for now I am content to do the 80% thing...I have zero trust in the courts...especially with Scalia gone

BeoBill · Sep 30, 2016

Muleskinner said:
I wouldn't get too excited...several other states have various "permission" cards and are still required...unless there is something compellingly different about the HQL I wouldn't hold my breath for reversal...yeah I know...y'all are going to call me negative...I prefer to be called a realist and I hope I am wrong...It would be nice to go into my favorite firearms shop and buy a new pistol again...for now I am content to do the 80% thing...I have zero trust in the courts...especially with Scalia gone

Regardless, this sends a CLEAR message to Frosh, the MGA and the MSP LD - the natives are restless.

Jaybeez · Sep 30, 2016

Muleskinner said:
I wouldn't get too excited...several other states have various "permission" cards and are still required...unless there is something compellingly different about the HQL I wouldn't hold my breath for reversal...yeah I know...y'all are going to call me negative...I prefer to be called a realist and I hope I am wrong...It would be nice to go into my favorite firearms shop and buy a new pistol again...for now I am content to do the 80% thing...I have zero trust in the courts...especially with Scalia gone

Several differences from other states.

The HQL is redundant. It almost completely duplicates the pre existing background check that has been in place since 1996 and regulation of handguns since 1968. It serves no new purpose beyond a new burden.

Although it is called a handgun license, it doesnt actually license anyone to do anything related to a handgun. Its not for possession, carry, or even purchase, because to purchase, one must go through the same process again, almost entirely. But at almost 1/5th the cost and 1/4 the wait. How do they justify that?

The only thing new about it are the fees and the fingerprints. Fingerprints are tied to the same background check systems and NICS, they add no new measure of public protection.

Even the training component was preexisting. They could have just altered that.

In cases like this, the decision should be at the very least based on accomoishing a goal by the least restrictive means necessary. MD's stated goal was already accomplished by the existing regulated firearms process. The actual goal of preventing or reducing legal ownership isnt allowed.

Laddertowr · Sep 30, 2016

Awesome.....and H B D.... Don

light12pdr · Sep 30, 2016

Muleskinner said:
I wouldn't get too excited...several other states have various "permission" cards and are still required...unless there is something compellingly different about the HQL I wouldn't hold my breath for reversal...yeah I know...y'all are going to call me negative...I prefer to be called a realist and I hope I am wrong...It would be nice to go into my favorite firearms shop and buy a new pistol again...for now I am content to do the 80% thing...I have zero trust in the courts...especially with Scalia gone

You are not negative, just pessimistic. Totally understandable. However, I applaud those guys for fighting the fight. By going on the offense, our side gives pushback and makes the other side spend time and resources to defend their tenuous anti-2A position. That 2nd amendment gives us a solid base to stand on, while their foundations are soft sand.

Never give an inch, and fight hard to defend your RIGHT!

Muleskinner · Sep 30, 2016

BeoBill said:
Regardless, this sends a CLEAR message to Frosh, the MGA and the MSP LD - the natives are restless.

Frosh is too arrogant to be afraid, which will be his downfall one day.

Muleskinner · Sep 30, 2016

Jaybeez said:
Several differences from other states.

The HQL is redundant. It almost completely duplicates the pre existing background check that has been in place since 1996 and regulation of handguns since 1968. It serves no new purpose beyond a new burden.

Although it is called a handgun license, it doesnt actually license anyone to do anything related to a handgun. Its not for possession, carry, or even purchase, because to purchase, one must go through the same process again, almost entirely. But at almost 1/5th the cost and 1/4 the wait. How do they justify that?

The only thing new about it are the fees and the fingerprints. Fingerprints are tied to the same background check systems and NICS, they add no new measure of public protection.

Even the training component was preexisting. They could have just altered that.

In cases like this, the decision should be at the very least based on accomoishing a goal by the least restrictive means necessary. MD's stated goal was already accomplished by the existing regulated firearms process. The actual goal of preventing or reducing legal ownership isnt allowed.

good info...

DC-W · Sep 30, 2016

Also don't forget the live fire requirement from the MSP.

Introduced in the September 23rd 2013 AELR hearing after being expressly rejected from SB281 during the legislative session.

NO other state has a similar requirement.

Uncle Duke · Sep 30, 2016

You know folks, no doubt this is a thinking thing. And I'm sure there's been a whole lot of thought put into these upcoming arguments.

But if nothing else, sometimes here in the "free" state of Maryland? Hard not to like the thought of being the f)$kER for a change, rather than the f)$kEE.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

j_h_smith · Sep 30, 2016

Subscribed for content.

daggo66 · Sep 30, 2016

light12pdr said:
You are not negative, just pessimistic. Totally understandable. However, I applaud those guys for fighting the fight. By going on the offense, our side gives pushback and makes the other side spend time and resources to defend their tenuous anti-2A position. That 2nd amendment gives us a solid base to stand on, while their foundations are soft sand.

Never give an inch, and fight hard to defend your RIGHT!

Ironically we get to pay for both through our tax dollars.

Blacksmith101 · Sep 30, 2016

Also the amount charged for the HQL has no relation to the cost of providing it so it is a TAX on a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right. What next Poll taxes and Speech taxes?

DC-W · Sep 30, 2016

Blacksmith101 said:
Also the amount charged for the HQL has no relation to the cost of providing it so it is a TAX on a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right. What next Poll taxes and Speech taxes?

I'll never forget the night the price was debated on the house floor. It started at 100, then 75, 50, 25 -- and that's where the speaker got flustered and said "well it has to cost something" and it took it back to $50.

Completely arbitrary and purposefully burdensome.

Mr H · Sep 30, 2016

Blaster229 said:
I am wondering what the retaliation is going to be like now. But good to hear!

Yeah...

I'm waiting for the next round of Van Hollowhead ads... maybe even another MPGV piece of drivelous tripe.

Jaybeez · Sep 30, 2016

Mr H said:
Yeah...

I'm waiting for the next round of Van Hollowhead ads... maybe even another MPGV piece of drivelous tripe.

This is the retaliation. A massive Baltimore Sun "book" on gun violence, published today.

http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/shoot-to-kill/

No doubt Bloomberg funded. Looks like half the sun's staff contributed. Whole lot of made up fairy tales in here, and no blame on anything except guns.

Racer Doug14 · Sep 30, 2016

Tally ho!! And good luck.

Boondock Saint · Sep 30, 2016

Excellent. :thumbsup:

Jim12 · Sep 30, 2016

DC-W said:
I'll never forget the night the price was debated on the house floor. It started at 100, then 75, 50, 25 -- and that's where the speaker got flustered and said "well it has to cost something" and it took it back to $50.

Completely arbitrary and purposefully burdensome.

This.

It should have cost the Speaker his high political office.

And now it's going to cost the State even more, to litigate it.

In a state that his party spent into debt as far as the eye can see.

cad68m_m · Sep 30, 2016

Good work Mark. As soon as I get done supporting my preferred politicians I will contribute again to the HQL lawsuit.

Today is the Day

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

trigger puller

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

Thread killer

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Member MSI, SAF, NRA

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics