Like mom is going to sign this.
If it passes both houses, MOM doesn't have to sign it to become law.
Like mom is going to sign this.
Am I missing something? Are some here swooning over this piece of legislation... that STILL CONTAINS GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL?
Am I missing something? Are some here swooning over this piece of legislation... that STILL CONTAINS GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL?
It is possibly an end run around to make MD go Shall Issue. I am suspicious of it though.
Ooops... OK... Thanks. I did miss that. It's bedtime for me so I'm a lil' drowsy...
Am I missing something? Are some here swooning over this piece of legislation... that STILL CONTAINS GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL?
If it passes both houses, MOM doesn't have to sign it to become law.
It does still include G&S, UNLESS you have an HQL which doesn't require G&S. That's why it isn't going anywhere as an end around G&S, and is likely intended to smoke out and label the anti's for what they are - hypocrites.
Maybe we can get a firm definition of G&S. Be interesting to get legislators admitting its about money and not defending your life. Especially with the stringent requirements in place for an HQL.
Suspicious of what if I may ask?
After all of the stuff that has been crammed down our throats, that violate the 2A, I'm suspicious of anything that comes out of Annapolis. This still requires us to get an HQL, in order to apply for/get a CCW. If I am reading it correctly, you have to get your HQL or provide G&S in order to get CCW. IMO that is a way to force compliance to get an HQL to exercise a constitutional right.
It is possible that this can pave the way to eliminate G&S by proving that CCW holders are more lawful than criminals, but I highly doubt that the people in Annapolis will listen to reason and logic like that.
...It would be nice if someone also floated a bill to define G&S if removal of G&S fails...
G&S can be determined administratively, if someone would just make the call.
Of course, getting rid of it completely is better.
What is this year's deadline for bill introduction with a guaranteed hearing date?I see your points and all are valid, thank you for the candid answer DA.
I don't think it is meant as a way to "force compliance to get an HQL" but rather a way to have a pseudo shall issue state.
BTW, there is also a bill to eliminate G&S. It would be nice if someone also floated a bill to define G&S if removal of G&S fails. (more bites at the apple sort of thing).
Correct. It needs to be defined in order for their to be an actual bar to reach.
I'll take..... "We know it when we see it" for one thousand Alex.