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

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!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    :thumbsup:


    As Gray noted, the argument over a permitting system will likely be made if we win. My opinion is one will be allowed; there is enough of an argument that it will be held constitutional provided it does the things we need it to do. The Courts may go our way on this phase but are not likely to go so far as a gun free-for-all. I am not saying that is my preferred outcome, only my educated opinion.

    We need the ability to carry first, then the ability to carry without paying fees or very minimal fees. If the state cannot collect money from gun owners to pad their general revenue budget, they will drop the licensing system entirely. The stubborn ones will eventually get targetted.
     

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    Spot I second that. I spend a lot of time on other Gun Boards and this group is by far the most civil, knowledgeable and supportive place I have found.

    It doesn't hurt that they also possess the wackiest sense of humor ever.

    "I love you man"

    ;)

    MD Shooters and CalGuns are two of my favorite haunts.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    Civility? This thread yes.

    Take a look at all the civility in the Gaga thread!:sad20:

    I don't know who Lady GaGa is so I skipped it.

    I'm old. This is still the best forum I visit for the aforementioned reasons. Civil includes being able to agree to disagree which for the most part we do. It can get heated at times Il admit.. Other sites re frequented by pimply faced pubescent kids, keyboard commandos who poll parrot back what the have read with no actual experience, trolls or mall Ninjas IMO
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    C'mon over, Patrick. You know you want to! :D

    She's hot but her spiked shoes would probably maim me. I'll pass.

    Gray Peterson said:
    We need the ability to carry first, then the ability to carry without paying fees or very minimal fees. If the state cannot collect money from gun owners to pad their general revenue budget, they will drop the licensing system entirely. The stubborn ones will eventually get targetted.

    Hope you are right. My personal opinion (and nothing more) is that the Feds will stick their noses in and we'll be looking at a national regime in a few years.

    I have worked with the Feds long enough to know that a vacuum must be filled. Now that McDonald came down, the Feds have a new authority over the states. Incorporation never means a reduction in law, only a replacement of those making it.

    We'll need the NRA for that one. Which is why we need to work on the NRA now, so they don't roll over like they tend to do around those in power.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    And once again he NRA tries to take credit and not even mention the SAF in the latest American Rifleman.

    Low class IMO. We're in this together. Or so I thought
     

    Trapper

    I'm a member too.
    Feb 19, 2009
    1,369
    Western AA county
    You need an actual right to bear outside of the home respected by the courts before you go after fees, training requirements, other restrictions, before you go for the kill with annihilating the licensing system itself.

    Gura is one of the best legal maestros ever, and on 2A issues, there is no one better.

    Roger. That can wait until next week (going after the fees, etc...). ;)

    As Gray noted, the argument over a permitting system will likely be made if we win. My opinion is one will be allowed; there is enough of an argument that it will be held constitutional provided it does the things we need it to do. The Courts may go our way on this phase but are not likely to go so far as a gun free-for-all. I am not saying that is my preferred outcome, only my educated opinion.

    And just to rile you up ( ;) ), I also think (humble opinion only) that in the future a limited registration scheme may be allowed but with a toothless penalty. But not with this Court; a future Court will go there. If we don't see a registration challenge soon after this set of cases, that fight will live on. If we win, the grabbers are going to learn and will tone back attacks until they know they can win. Stuff like registration will go unanswered and they will be fought under more permissive environments. You can see why this is important right now.

    Also do not see most of what we hate about NFA or FOPA (MG Ban) being undone without legislative intervention under this Court or a likely future one.

    I'm not saying that we start that case today, or tomorrow, but I really don't see it as that difficult to prove, to this SC, that permits are as useless and infringing as bans.

    Isn't it already illegal for government to keep a list of gun owners? Not that this stops MD.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    I'm not saying that we start that case today, or tomorrow, but I really don't see it as that difficult to prove, to this SC, that permits are as useless and infringing as bans.

    Isn't it already illegal for government to keep a list of gun owners? Not that this stops MD.

    The law is a federal one, part of the FOPA. Now it can be argued that the states can maintain 50 registries. :sad20:
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    It's a hard notion to accept that the Founders, on one hand, would insist on including the 2A in the BoR and, on the other, give up their arms to the states.

    Its hard to think about that when seen through the lens that a lot of modern popular society views the founding fathers through, yes. However, at the time, the entire concept of even HAVING a union of the several states was so incredibly fragile that they knew that in order to get the Constitution ratified at all that they'd have to give up a lot to the individual states. People were so gun shy about powerful central governments at the time that it's a bit of a wonder that they got anything done at all.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    I respectfully disagree with your analysis. If truely looking from the "why permit at all" perspective, it seems to me that permitting serves no useful purpose.

    As we have seen with the bans and restrictions, the purpose of keeping criminals and crazy people from getting guns is not served by issuing permits. Those people who are willfully violating the law will continue to do so.

    This leaves my simple argument as "the State cannot prove a compelling interest to issue permits, because permits do not prohibit someone from carrying a gun". All the permit does is provide another restriction "you can't carry without a permit", but they don't actually stop anyone from doing it.
    The State could prove a compelling interest in denying criminals and crazy people firearms, but permits don't do that, background checks when purchasing firearms do. Even if another background check is done for the permit, that won't keep them from getting a gun, they probably already have it!

    You're 100% correct. And, My way of thinking too.
    +1 :thumbsup:
     

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,725
    Bowie, MD
    Its hard to think about that when seen through the lens that a lot of modern popular society views the founding fathers through, yes. However, at the time, the entire concept of even HAVING a union of the several states was so incredibly fragile that they knew that in order to get the Constitution ratified at all that they'd have to give up a lot to the individual states. People were so gun shy about powerful central governments at the time that it's a bit of a wonder that they got anything done at all.

    I don't think they ever thought the states would take their firearms. Of the first 16 states to join the union, only MD, NJ and NY are devoid of a 2A statement. Maryland as was pointed out earlier thought such an inclusion was redundant since it's constitution declares allegiance to the federal document.

    Anyway, that was then and this is now.
     

    SirMrManGuy

    Active Member
    Feb 14, 2010
    228
    Taupo NZ
    I don't think they ever thought the states would take their firearms. Of the first 16 states to join the union, only MD, NJ and NY are devoid of a 2A statement. Maryland as was pointed out earlier thought such an inclusion was redundant since it's constitution declares allegiance to the federal document.

    Anyway, that was then and this is now.

    The founders were the men who were in power with the state goverments, they didn't intend to take their own guns.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,078
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom