Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Civility? This thread yes.
Take a look at all the civility in the Gaga thread!
Half-breed cousin-brothers. All of them.
Civility? This thread yes.
Take a look at all the civility in the Gaga thread!
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.
Half-breed cousin-brothers. All of them.
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"
Civility? This thread yes.
Take a look at all the civility in the Gaga thread!
Half-breed cousin-brothers. All of them.
C'mon over, Patrick. You know you want to!
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.
Read pgs 22-26 of the Scherr (2005) case: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2005/780s04.pdf
They (MD) still live in that world...
Does anyone have a pdf link to Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 45 Md. App. 464 (1980) ?
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.
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.
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!
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.
So...we would expect the response will be an explanation of why the MTD is wrong, and will include a MSJ?.
Unless SAF wants to do discovery, yes, that is how this case will proceed.So...we would expect the response will be an explanation of why the MTD is wrong, and will include a MSJ?.