Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Yesterday, 11:25 AM #2621
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWO Daddy View Post
Suddenly I don't want to apply so much. That's ridiculous.
It is also untrue that this is about concealed carry. That is a map drawn from a law on doubling of penalties for gun crimes, and is not related to licensed concealed carry.
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:29 AM #2622
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
I'm glad that's true, and IANAL, but for the life of me I can't figure out why this doesn't apply to legal CCW as well. The exception seems to be for people who live and work within the 1000 foot zone. As I said I am glad it doesn't apply

Maybe my reading comprehension needs work. Seems to have fooled Mr. Lott as well.
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:38 AM #2623
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur
I like this interpretation but that’s not my read. I’ll go with George Lyons interpretation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Certainly an excellent interpretation to go on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC-W View Post
Certainly an excellent interpretation to go on.
George Lyon and anyone with any expertise's interpretation is that it does NOT refer to concealed carry license holders unless you are talking about if you have a CCL and decide to mug someone with your CCL gun.

My attorney who does have an expertise in criminal law code says the same thing Lyon says, which is the law Lott is idiotically citing is not about concealed carry either.

Washington times has been wrong many times on gun law before, claiming long after several laws were jettisoned due to litigation or threat of litigation, that those laws were still in place.

Lott has an expertise on the gun crime affects of certain laws, whether for example more concealed carriers results in more or less crime -- but he has no expertise whatsoever on criminal law code.
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:39 AM #2624
Klunatic's Avatar
Klunatic Klunatic is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Montgomery Cty
Posts: 2,694
Klunatic Klunatic is online now
Senior Member
Klunatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Montgomery Cty
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
I wonder how many previously denied applications they are dealing with
Here are the numbers from the previous 3 years according to MCPD for CC applications, I would be curious to see how many re-apply as well.

"In the three years the good-reason rule was in effect, the city had received 668 applications for concealed-carry permits and had made decisions on 574 of them. Of those, 130 were approved and 123 were still active.
Another 444 applications were denied — 425 of them because of the good reason clause."
__________________
kLunatic
SAF Life Member
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
Utah Permit
Maryland 365 Unrestricted permit Rejected 5/13/13

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights, The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg, 5 Mar 2012
Klunatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:44 AM #2625
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
As I stated, even if the number is relatively small, just because you sent in the form to resubmit, some background checks (NICS) will have to be redone. It won't be automatic and may take some time. I assume previous applicants will get priority so current apps will take longer.

90 days doesn't seem unreasonable, given the freshness of the circuit ruling. Even without that, it's still not unreasonable IMO

my .02
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:47 AM #2626
Stoveman's Avatar
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 8,590
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
Stoveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 8,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown50 View Post
Thanks for the clarification. Please forgive my passion for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms battle.


No forgiveness necessary, I love it that people are passionate about the fight.
__________________
_______________
Proud CCW Cultist
Stoveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:51 AM #2627
Klunatic's Avatar
Klunatic Klunatic is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Montgomery Cty
Posts: 2,694
Klunatic Klunatic is online now
Senior Member
Klunatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Montgomery Cty
Posts: 2,694
Public statement by Phil Mendelson regarding Gun Free zones in the Washington Times seems pretty clear as to the laws intent regardless of how poorly written.

" Second Amendment supporters and at least one legal analyst said the law is “bafflingly drafted” and they think permit holders could run afoul of it. John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said he has never seen such an expansive law and that it could make it “impossible for somebody to legally carry a gun.”
But Mr. Mendelson said the law is clear and applies only to those carrying illegally in those buffer zones — not to lawfully permitted weapons owners.
“It’s a penalty section — that’s all it is. It’s just an enhanced penalty,” the chairman said.
The other section of law, which includes an absolute prohibition, is more narrowly drawn. It outlaws possession in buildings associated with city government, public and private schools and colleges, medical offices, public transportation, places where alcohol is served, sports arenas, the National Mall, areas around the White House and the Naval Observatory, and at public gatherings or anywhere else the police chief officially puts off limits.
That section doesn’t have a 1,000-foot buffer zone, cutting down on collateral restrictions.
Mr. Mendelson said the city struck a careful balance.
He said when the council was drafting gun legislation several years back, the federal government asked for expansive no-carry zones around major government sites. One of those would have prohibited weapons from 14th Street to 20th Street and from I or K Street down to the National Mall.
Instead, the city drew a smaller box from 15th to 17th streets and from Constitution Avenue to H Street, precisely because of worries about going too far.
Mr. Mendelson said he expects debate about expanding those no-gun zones but doesn’t think the council will take that step once folks realize how much the current law already covers.
Mr. Mendelson and Mr. Allen said city residents should know the limits of the court’s ruling, which, while it struck down the good-reason requirement, left the rest of the strict laws in place."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ikely-tighten/
__________________
kLunatic
SAF Life Member
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
Utah Permit
Maryland 365 Unrestricted permit Rejected 5/13/13

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights, The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg, 5 Mar 2012

Last edited by Klunatic; Yesterday at 11:53 AM. Reason: added link
Klunatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:57 AM #2628
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
Except that restaurants and hotels that have C/R, D/R, C/H and D/H licenses (beer, wine, and spirits) are exempted from the prohibition, which means restaurants and hotels are ok as long as you don't consume.

Perhaps Mr. Mendelson or the reporter need to reread the legislation.


ETA Fixed because Rascal points out it wasn't a direct quote

.
Attached Images
 
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:12 PM #2629
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
I'm glad that's true, and IANAL, but for the life of me I can't figure out why this doesn't apply to legal CCW as well.
Frankly for the same reason doubling driving infraction penalties in school zone doesn't affect people driving legally with their license. And the same reason being in a 1,000' "Drug free school zone" doesn't affect you carrying your narcotic prescription medicine for your back injury unless you are trying to illegally sell it in that zone. In both of those cases fines and penalties are doubled too.

Lott claiming this is a law created due to the court decision is also incorrect as well since this law dated back to the 1930s enhancing penalties for gun crime within a certain defined distance of playgrounds, "arcades" for children, and schools.

Quote:
The exception seems to be for people who live and work within the 1000 foot zone
I also thought that exemption part made no sense until I read it three times. What that means, and this is also the case in case law on drug free zones, is the jurisdiction isn't going to penalize you double if you commit the crime in a drug free zone in which you live. It has to do with intentionally putting yourself into the zone from somewhere else.

FYI here are "drug free school zones" where penalties were enhanced in high density Bridgeport and low density Bridgewater Connecticut.
https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/...xnv-v3PCn.jpeg

What ought to be done by DC gun owners, since this does increase penalties, possibly converting misdemeanorr to felony, for inadvertent mistakes such as printing, carrying 21 rounds, etc, is we ought to note that drug free zones are argued by virtually the entire left to be unfair to urban residents, documented to affect African Americans more than other groups -- and DC has repealed its drug free school zones penalty enhancements exactly for that reason.
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:15 PM #2630
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
Except that restaurants and hotels that have C/R, D/R, C/H and D/H licenses (beer, wine, and spirits) are exempted from the prohibition, which means restaurants and hotels are ok as long as you don't consume.Perhaps Mr. Mendelson needs to read his own legislation.
.
We don't know that that read is simply a(nother) mistake by the Wash. times. Note they are not quoting him about alcohol establishments, but the times reporter is making their own statement
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:18 PM #2631
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
Well just for clarification of readers here, carry in a restaurant or hotel with a C or D license is not prohibited.

someone got it wrong. Whether it was the reporter or Mendelson is not clear, I agree
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:21 PM #2632
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal View Post
What ought to be done by DC gun owners, since this does increase penalties, possibly converting misdemeanorr to felony, for inadvertent mistakes such as printing, carrying 21 rounds, etc, is we ought to note that drug free zones are argued by virtually the entire left to be unfair to urban residents, documented to affect African Americans more than other groups -- and DC has repealed its drug free school zones penalty enhancements exactly for that reason.
IIRC the penalty for violation the CCW statutes is 6 months aka 180 days. Doubling that still would be a misdemeanor unless DC law specifies something else.(less than a year.)

But I though another crime needed to be committed and these were enhancements.

Obviously separate from whatever crime might be committed.
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:36 PM #2633
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
I know the ammo requirements and concealment rules are in the DCMR. Is violating them a chargeable offense under the actual statute?

Yes I'm too lazy to go look as I have no plans to violate either.
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:33 PM #2634
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 369
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 369
Of all of their prohibitions (and it's the same in Illinois under the post-Moore scheme), I find the ban on carrying on public transit the most offensive. It basically means that unless you live close enough to work to walk, you can't carry at all that day. I haven't seen any justification for that other than the usual "It'll save lives" nonsense.

I also have no doubt that if Congress somehow manages to pass the reciprocity bill, New York will rush to ban carrying on the subways and commuter trains, basically making carry in NYC a non-issue for most people.

Each law needs to be judged based on strict scrutiny or all of this is a waste of time.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:57 PM #2635
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 115
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlocksAndPatriots View Post
Of all of their prohibitions (and it's the same in Illinois under the post-Moore scheme), I find the ban on carrying on public transit the most offensive. It basically means that unless you live close enough to work to walk, you can't carry at all that day. I haven't seen any justification for that other than the usual "It'll save lives" nonsense.

I also have no doubt that if Congress somehow manages to pass the reciprocity bill, New York will rush to ban carrying on the subways and commuter trains, basically making carry in NYC a non-issue for most people.

Each law needs to be judged based on strict scrutiny or all of this is a waste of time.

Seems like a great “disparate impact” case to me. It disproportionately harms the poor which statistically tend to be monorities. Single moms would also be heavily discriminated against by this regime.

I can carry while riding Metro in VA. People do all the time with no ill effects.

What I don’t know is if I can open carry on Metro in VA. Anyone know?
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 12:52 AM #2636
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oregon
Posts: 23
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oregon
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
...90 days doesn't seem unreasonable, given the freshness of the circuit ruling. Even without that, it's still not unreasonable IMO

my .02
Well, from the other side of the country, my opinion is that 90 days is totally unreasonable for permission to exercise an enumerated right.

What takes so long? They do a NICS check and verify your training. Should be less than 2 weeks.

If you walk in with the training certificate, they should be able to do the NICS in a few minutes and you should be able to walk out with your license...

Maybe the next court challenge should be on the time it takes. I would love to see a ruling that 2 weeks after an application is submitted, a copy of the application is good as a temporary license.
CurlyDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:54 AM #2637
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
Well then many states would have to be examined. I don't know of any state that requires less than 30 days for permit issuance, other than those that issue in person. According to you, that's also unreasonable.

Different states dedicate different resource levels for permit issuance. If the residents of the state are unhappy with the processing times, they have the right to change it.

Being a non resident means you don't get a say in other states'permit procedures. No issue for me YMMV

Of course that's another benefit of National Reciprocity. You only worry about your home state's procedures

Of course procedures are different than the actual control of the right. The court settled that.

As an example, VA allows 45 days for courts to issue a resident permit. After 45 days your application is your permit. But it isn't two weeks either.
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:57 AM #2638
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveBlue View Post
Seems like a great “disparate impact” case to me. It disproportionately harms the poor which statistically tend to be monorities. Single moms would also be heavily discriminated against by this regime.

I can carry while riding Metro in VA. People do all the time with no ill effects.

What I don’t know is if I can open carry on Metro in VA. Anyone know?
Metro follows the law of the state they operate in. Based on that OC in VA would be ok.

VA amended their statutes to override an older Metro policy.

DC allows TRANSPORT on Metro. DC does not allow CARRY on Metro.

Transport means unloaded in a locked case.

IANAL.
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 06:32 AM #2639
ironpony's Avatar
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 2,774
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
ironpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 2,774
.gov should be required to add gun free zones to gps maps used for navigation, this many gfz's almost eliminates their use for CCLs.
ironpony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 06:35 AM #2640
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,541
The Lott map was based on an erroneous interpretation of a DC penalty enhancement statute.

It isn't much different than many other states except for the fact of the Federal Govt. being here. And in a couple ways, more lax than some other states, ie. carry in restaurants where alcohol is served


   
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Tags
sisyphus


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (1 members and 5 guests)
Applehd
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service