MD Gun Law History & Current Racial Climate

Among the modern gun laws the classic example was banning "Saturday Night Specials" ie inexpensive cheaply made guns for the masses. These laws directly targeted the poor, and blacks as well as other minorities are disproportionately represented among the poor.

The HQL law does the same thing but is doing it in a more subtle fashion through training requirements and fees.

I live her in 82 it was completely normal as was California when I move ther. I left in 90 before their AWB.

Rack&Roll said:

Can you smell what the Grutz is cookin'?

I can, and I like it. Nice goin' Mark.

Click to expand...

The Rock approves of this post.
.
.

dblas said:

Both have their own sticky, here: https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=79715

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Jim12 said:

Amazon has a book about the racial roots of gun control. Haven't read it:

Gun Control and Black Powerlessness: The Racist Origins, and Legacy of Firearms Legislation Kindle Edition
by Mikhah Ben David (New Dawn Publications, April, 2012)


"Following the widely publicized 2012 shooting of the unarmed youth Trayvon Martin, many opportunistic politicians and anti-gun-rights activists took it upon themselves to blame Florida gun laws, Concealed Carry permits and so on for the death of this young man. These opportunists, however, have ignored the fact that gun-control legislation has historically emerged to disempower black communities, when they were perceived as a threat. The historical record provides irrefutable evidence that racism, overtly and covertly, underlies Gun Control laws. The history of Gun Control in America contains an ugly, often unknown component of discrimination, particularly against black people. Throughout the bulk of American history, Gun Control has been openly stated as a method for keeping black people “in their place,” and to quiet the fears of whites. This work will provide a summary of the historical interweaving and inseparable relationship of Gun Control with American Racism."

Click to expand...

Excellent, I've heard of this book. Wish modern libtards would read it.

So come 2018 session and what ever bills are introduced regarding CCW or HQL repeal etc. They're a racist if they don't support it?

Blacksmith101 said:

Among the modern gun laws the classic example was banning "Saturday Night Specials" ie inexpensive cheaply made guns for the masses. These laws directly targeted the poor, and blacks as well as other minorities are disproportionately represented among the poor.

The HQL law does the same thing but is doing it in a more subtle fashion through training requirements and fees.

Click to expand...

Is there any way I can write up an affidavit testifying to the fact that as a member of Maryland's working poor, I am unjustly and adversely affected by the HQL law? I can hammer out a multi-page essay on that, if need be. I might not have a college indoctrination but as an autodidact and a polymath, I am fully capable of producing written rhetoric and discourse of a caliber far surpassing the quality of any Bachelor's or Master's degree holder, on-par with or even exceeding the quality of writing that Doctorates and post-docs are expected to produce.

MSI may want to hear from you.

Heymering's history has some inaccuracies, at least with the parts im familiar with.

Its also way too long and covers too much time.

I suggest just focusing on one part. The 1972 "stop and frisk" emergency legislation that banned constitutional carry and created the wear and carry permit.
Its recent enough that some members of the general assembly that helped pass it are still in office (Miller), and Washington/Baltimore media covered it extensively. Many of the racial fears predicted in 1972 have come to pass. But none of the crime reduction. Its almost comical reading wapo and sun articles about it.

You've never seen a democrat senator snap to attention faster than when you testify that stop and frisk only exists because of wear and carry licenses.

Its a very simple and easy to digest message. It can be laser focused and hammered home.

The historical msi threads by spir have many of the articles.

Jaybeez said:

Heymering's history has some inaccuracies, at least with the parts im familiar with.

Its also way too long and covers too much time.

I suggest just focusing on one part. The 1972 "stop and frisk" emergency legislation that banned constitutional carry and created the wear and carry permit.
Its recent enough that some members of the general assembly that helped pass it are still in office (Miller), and Washington/Baltimore media covered it extensively. Many of the racial fears predicted in 1972 have come to pass. But none of the crime reduction. Its almost comical reading wapo and sun articles about it.

You've never seen a democrat senator snap to attention faster than when you testify that stop and frisk only exists because of wear and carry licenses.

Its a very simple and easy to digest message. It can be laser focused and hammered home.

The historical msi threads by spir have many of the articles.

Click to expand...

That was my fear about his article, I'd like to see the source material he used. As I said earlier I haven't done any real research on the topic, but what parts are BS? Given the time period in which the laws were written, it does seem plausible that there is at least some truth to it, perhaps embellished for effect, but plausible none the less.

I just see this as an effective way to open eyes to the topic, even if it is based on a partial truth. Really does not change the fact that the current Maryland system is screwy.

Mark

I would love to see a change in the law and an attainable conceal carry permit etc but this whole thread just seems to me as being so disingenuous. I understand having to have a strategy to find ways to make a change but you really have no true concern for the gun rights of those groups who you want to ride the backs of to improve those laws. That being the case you will never know how they are actually impacted negatively by the current laws but how you think they would be. The basis of your arguments seem to be that black people don't have the money to gain proper licencing. That may be the case for some but there are plenty white people who don't have licencing money either. Therefore not a good argument.

All that to say im sure there are plenty of real issues with the history of gun laws and race that can be found to lead the way not only to changes in the law but that also improve 2a rights those impacted communities.

First, thanks to all the posters here for some (at least to me) original thinking on this topic. I get so irritated with the boneheaded Maryland laws on this topic that I don't really like to read about them - makes me mad for the rest of the day. But I also think there are some flaws in the logic. The boyz in the 'hood already have weapons, legally or not. Gun violence is a huge problem in the inner city. Hogan said recently that the average Baltimore City murder victim had 11+ arrests on his record at the time of his killing. He went on to say that the same people are one day the shooter and the next day the victim. That's an astonishing number. How many arrests do you think it takes to be in the top 10%? But back to the logic, do we think people in the 'hood would be safer if there were more guns down there - like maybe everybody had one? It seems to me that all the people likely to use a gun there, even for self defense, already have one. The problem I have is that the antis in Maryland want to pass ever more restrictive gun control laws, while those laws are ignored and in no way affect the people who are doing the shooting. Instead, they only affect people who think about the law before they pick up their gun - people like the ones on this board. So any argument that in effect says, "Gee - gun laws disproportionately affect poor black people" is doomed. The people driving this problem pay no attention to any gun laws. The others who have to live in the urban Baltimore hellholes are not at all concerned about gun rights. They already can't afford basic necessities of life, much less a gun, so it doesn't surprise me that they are willing to give up their Constitutional right to carry a gun they can't afford, for the benefit of maybe having less gun violence in their neighborhood. The Maryland antis are trying to treat the problem of lawlessness with a prescription of more laws. We can all see how effective that has been.

Mdlowrider: Otis McDonald, God rest his soul, undoubtedly approves of your post!

mdlowrider said:

First, thanks to all the posters here for some (at least to me) original thinking on this topic. I get so irritated with the boneheaded Maryland laws on this topic that I don't really like to read about them - makes me mad for the rest of the day.

The Maryland antis are trying to treat the problem of lawlessness with a prescription of more laws. We can all see how effective that has been.

Click to expand...

Rack&Roll said:

Mdlowrider: Otis McDonald, God rest his soul, undoubtedly approves of your post!

Click to expand...