won't step up to be part of the process.
Just curious, what does this mean? More specifically, define "the process." Thanks.
won't step up to be part of the process.
Maybe, just maybe he could have been truthful. Something like...
"The new head of the MSP has not even been confirmed yet and this is not a topic that we have had a chance to discuss (or whatever the truth is) so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what we may do in the future".
But that's just MY idea.
Make it a tent... I'm bunking in
" if I told you what I was hiding it would sink my nominee. So I will not..but I am not being evasive. "
Truth is the first causualty of politics. That's why we are not Govenor..
And likely never will be.
Just curious, what does this mean? More specifically, define "the process." Thanks.
I agree he didn't answer the question. I would have liked, but didn't expect, him to answer before the confirmation. I understand no sense in igniting opposition. However, he definitely said easier to OWN not carry weapons. That makes me wonder what the hell he is talking about? How is the administration (absent new legislation) going to make it easier to own weapons given the unambiguous purchase statutes and regulations? He has previously said he doesn't intend to challenge SB281, so what was he suggesting? He claims that both he and Rutherford are pro-2A? I'll know in 3 or four months whether he makes that claim on a good foundation, or whether he is going to disappoint.
As another MDS member put it so succinctly, he uses the word "own". Danced right past CCW, and the comments were not optimistic to me. He was busy highlighting excuses.
That's asinine and you know it.Yep. He danced right around the issue. The rich do not want the common man to carry guns. It's ok to have one in your house but you sure as hell better not take it out to the harbor.
I agree he didn't answer the question. I would have liked, but didn't expect, him to answer before the confirmation. I understand no sense in igniting opposition. However, he definitely said easier to OWN not carry weapons. That makes me wonder what the hell he is talking about? How is the administration (absent new legislation) going to make it easier to own weapons given the unambiguous purchase statutes and regulations? He has previously said he doesn't intend to challenge SB281, so what was he suggesting? He claims that both he and Rutherford are pro-2A? I'll know in 3 or four months whether he makes that claim on a good foundation, or whether he is going to disappoint.
That's asinine and you know it.
Last time I checked, the majority of the nation is shall-issue and the powers that be in those states aren't poor.
So I guess you can kiss all those closed door meetings bye bye
So I guess you can kiss all those closed door meetings bye bye
Far more agreeable. The dominos are falling on them though. CCW among the masses being allowed in Chicago? DC being forced to issue permits? That would be blasphemy to even think of less than a decade ago. How long before NYC is next?The lower the States' per capita income, the more shall issue they are.
It is not asinine. Let me add some clarity. There are a lot of shall issue states in the union. These states have very few urban centers and are not liberal. On the east coast, the culture is not conducive to there being a large amount of people (dem or gop) who are for concealed carry. Look at MD, NY, NY (Metor NY City and Long Island), Philly, Mass and Conn. So the culture in the NE is not having firearms. Rich people on the East Coast are not for concealed carry for the masses.
How's that.
Edit: You can add D.C. to that list.
Removing live-fire requirement from HQL comes to mind. That was entirely an administrative move.
Also, getting everyone in the MSP's firearms dept on the same page will definitely help. The confusion they've caused to citizens and dealers is infamous.
Wow. For "pro-2A guys" I hope there is more to their plan than just eliminating the annoyance of the single shot live fire, and getting the MSP to uniformly apply the draconian anti-gun purchase laws already on the books.
What exactly do you think he should do to create an environment of long lasting success regarding 2a and fiscal responsibility? He got elected on the tax issue, so that is going to be #1 on the priority list. Almost all of the questions revolved around fiscal issues, education, environment, rain tax, etc.
Sean did ask the cc question. And what did Hogan say? Remember it's not just us listening to the show. Did he say to the liberal ear "Yes we are going to have the wild west west with blood in the streets"? No to the liberal ear he said " We are going to uphold the law" But he also said to you, if you were listening, "I support 2A and my MSP superintendent does also". Do you think he is confused as to what the 2A says?
This is Maryland, if you think the fight was difficult and delicate before you are crazy. There was no fight, it was not going to happen. The fight was a dream that was only in your head. Now the possibility of change actually exists. Now the fight is really on. But you better have some rope a dope in your plan or you are going to get your ass kicked by a liberal media, populace, legislature, court system, and just about every entrenched bureaucracy in the state. You want to try bullish methods? You are done and have failed before you start. The man and his team got elected in a 3:1 democrat state, he's a lucky freaking genius, let him work.
Don't stress over it.
We're dealing with people across the state who don't know the process, don't want to learn about the process, and won't step up to be part of the process, beyond the occasional rally and internet post.