After Marine veteran makes rescue, Baltimore police file gun charges against him

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!
  • bjmsam

    The Skeptic
    After Marine veteran makes rescue, Baltimore police file gun charges against him

    Cullens can be heard on police body cam footage telling officers, "If he hadn’t helped me, that guy would have killed me."

    An officer responded, "I mean, look, the laws are the way they are in Maryland on handguns. Talk to city council, talk to your congressman about open carry, especially about a veteran who’s got a valid carry in another state."

    Muldrow told Fox News his arrest is likely a constitutional violation.

    "Is it violating the Second Amendment? Of course," Muldrow said. "When you are talking about military veterans, we serve our country overseas against enemies foreign and domestic, and here we are facing a state-to-state carry law? I really feel it is an injustice to our Constitution. It’s a technicality from one state to another."
     

    Sirex

    Powered by natural gas
    Oct 30, 2010
    9,141
    Westminster, MD
    No good deed goes unpunished. I mean, the mayors are telling police not to pursue suspects, and enforce laws, but a brave veteran goes out of his way to help, doesn't use his firearm, and is arrested??? While the revolving door of justice lets kids with stolen guns back onto the streets. The powers that be don't want the people safe.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,884
    I hope he has good representation and this goes all the way and leads to reciprocity.

    I disagree that it’s just a technicality and you should know the laws of states you go to. Especially when anyone with half a brain should know guns law vary a ton from state to state and carry laws especially do.

    I’ve got a heaping of “thank you for your service”, but none for “well I should get specials privileges related to a constitutional right because I am a veteran.” Should veterans only be allowed freedom of speech next?

    It’s crappy what the prosecutor is doing. He should have known better to carry in MD without a MD carry permit. Or he did know and took that risk and he doesn’t want to deal with the consequences. Prosecutorial discretion, they should let the guy loose. Yes a good action often outweighs a bad one.

    But all aside, reciprocity should be required. So I hope this gets the higher court attention it needs to get that done.
     

    Docster

    Active Member
    Jul 19, 2010
    9,588
    I hope he has good representation and this goes all the way and leads to reciprocity.

    I disagree that it’s just a technicality and you should know the laws of states you go to. Especially when anyone with half a brain should know guns law vary a ton from state to state and carry laws especially do.

    I’ve got a heaping of “thank you for your service”, but none for “well I should get specials privileges related to a constitutional right because I am a veteran.” Should veterans only be allowed freedom of speech next?

    It’s crappy what the prosecutor is doing. He should have known better to carry in MD without a MD carry permit. Or he did know and took that risk and he doesn’t want to deal with the consequences. Prosecutorial discretion, they should let the guy loose. Yes a good action often outweighs a bad one.

    But all aside, reciprocity should be required. So I hope this gets the higher court attention it needs to get that done.
    THIS^^. Like it or not, if gun owners are to be law-abiding gun owners they must know and be prepared to follow the laws. If one chooses to use a gun, even for a good or moral reason, without a permit they must accept responsibility
     

    csanc123

    Active Member
    Aug 26, 2009
    3,604
    Montgomery County
    THIS^^. Like it or not, if gun owners are to be law-abiding gun owners they must know and be prepared to follow the laws. If one chooses to use a gun, even for a good or moral reason, without a permit they must accept responsibility
    Even unconstitutional ones? Just wondering where the line is. There are MANY laws on the books in many states that are 'orphaned'...people don't follow or are remnants of past times. Where should we draw the line?
     

    bjmsam

    The Skeptic
    So many lines to draw.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Many people, arms, and locations are prohibited by Federal, State, or Local governments. What constitutes infringement?

    People: convicted criminals, VA permits in MD, etc.
    Arms: military weapons, scary-looking/sounding firearms, etc.
    Locations: government facilities, rapidly growing list of public places, etc.

    So, perhaps well regulated from some perspectives and poorly regulated from others. Important cases like this one help test the system and establish precedents, but at considerable cost to individuals directly involved and enduring the litigious process. Surely there is a better way...
     

    SWO Daddy

    Active Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,353
    So many lines to draw.

    Many people, arms, and locations are prohibited by Federal, State, or Local governments. What constitutes infringement?

    People: convicted criminals, VA permits in MD, etc.
    Arms: military weapons, scary-looking/sounding firearms, etc.
    Locations: government facilities, rapidly growing list of public places, etc.

    So, perhaps well regulated from some perspectives and poorly regulated from others. Important cases like this one help test the system and establish precedents, but at considerable cost to individuals directly involved and enduring the litigious process. Surely there is a better way...

    You're using the RGB interpretation of regulated.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    31,148
    Your contemporary use of the word “regulated” has essentially zero connection to the Founders’ use and common 18th century meaning of the word.
    A product of liberal education.

    People today would be incredulous if told that a "liberal education" does not mean to be educated to be a liberal.
     

    bjmsam

    The Skeptic
    I used the word "regulated" in its literal sense WRT statute, not militia.

    regulate
    1a : to govern or direct according to rule
    b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
    (2) : to make regulations for or concerning

    infringe
    1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

    well regulated militia
    organized, armed, trained, proficient, and disciplined citizenry
     
    Last edited:

    Occam

    Recovering Lurker
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    16,320
    Montgomery County
    I used the word "regulated" in its literal sense WRT statute, not militia.
    And that’s still a counter-historical use. The usage you imply completely misconstrues the meaning and purpose of the natural right protection enumerated by the 2A in the Bill of Rights.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,884
    Even unconstitutional ones? Just wondering where the line is. There are MANY laws on the books in many states that are 'orphaned'...people don't follow or are remnants of past times. Where should we draw the line?
    Except all but an idiot know carry laws are not orphaned or no longer enforced. This isn’t a law about not carrying an ice cream cone on the streets on a Sunday without a head covering.

    The law needs to change. But SCOTUS just ruled that carry permits are presumed constitutional. They haven’t had a test case on reciprocity. But for now, the law of the land is that you need to follow the carry laws if the state you stand in until ACOTUS says otherwise. Which they have not yet.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    263,054
    Messages
    6,737,099
    Members
    30,852
    Latest member
    Ramac

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom