Is the HQL Constitutional?

[Brooklyn]

I'm fully aware of the differences factually. Legally, they're not that different. Guns cost money. Should everyone get a free gun because it's in the constitution? My point is that you have to draw a line somewhere. The class is absolutely constitutional and is not prohibitively expensive. There isn't a good argument against that. Fingerprinting is the best argument but still shaky legally speaking. The government is allowed create regulations if they have reasons to do so. Public safety is easy here as they can prove that fingerprints help to identify criminals at crime scenes. They do not have the scientific data to show that concealed carry is a threat to public safety. Much stronger argument for us.

Since the purpose of registration was to prevent blacks from voting,we call that a clue.

On the bold that's just bull. There is no call,yet, to fingerprint everyone in case they commit a crime..if there were would it pass IS under the 4th Amendment? Since you are so found of public Saftey should you need a/licence to purchase alcohol, with DNA sample required in case someday you DWI and injure or kill someone? Would that pass IS?

The current training requirement does not ,by law, contain a performance standard and thus can not ,by definition,enhance public safety in any way,moreover there is no method to waive training based on a proof of prior training,only a set of class waivers based on crass political calculus and no offer of proof what so ever.. this belies the actual intent of the law..to keep marginal groups from excercising their rights...just like voter registration.

Of course today the democrats oppose the need to show proof of citizenship for voting, which is a proper execerise of government regulation, exactly because they intend to subvert the electoral process. And likewise they support regulation of guns,exactly because they used such regulation so effectively to keep blacks from voting..and now wish to keep them docile vitums of the criminal class that actually run the cities they claim to be "governing".

No true student of Macialvelli can miss this gambit.

And useing the work of the court that gave us dread Scott and Plessy as a guide to what is constutitional is to surrender the birthright of every Freeman. Locke supeceedes the Cour

 

[Mr H]

With Hogan inbound, probably the best compromise to hope for in MD is combining HQL with shall-issue CCW. With that one change, complaints would quickly fade. To keep on topic, I'm ignoring other nonsense like 7-day wait, ban list, and handgun roster.

This would have to happen legislatively, and may have to wait to year 2 or 3, after other administrative changes and public pressure soften up the situation.

 

[Mr H]

I love this one, too. I'm sure there has never been a criminal case solved this way. I'm sure that you have access to all of the data showing that a case has never been solved in this fashion as well. No one can even argue about this, but it's far more likely they've solved some cases this way than that they have solved 0 this way.

Ah, thinks we think we think...

Actually??

There is one--ONE--case that may--MAY--have been solved with the casing. But, IIRC, it was from a recovered casing, and not the submitted one. It's simply a situation where the exception was promoted to support the cause.

Now, if you want to dig through the 55g drums to find a particular one, be my guest.

 

[Doctor_M]

The back of my HQL has the following statement "SUBMITTED UNDER PROTEST: A right cannot be licensed". I have no idea how it got there :-) but every dealer who has seen it has given me a big thumbs up.

 

[mvee]

The state is charging an arbitrary fee for HQL that more than covers the expenses of producing the license. The state should not be making money for allowing people to exercise their rights. If that is not infringement, I don't know what is.

 

[Boom Boom]

This would have to happen legislatively, and may have to wait to year 2 or 3, after other administrative changes and public pressure soften up the situation.

Perfect reason for us to start applying pressure next month. The sooner the skids get greased...

 

[RepublicanJD]

On a side note, it seems as though you've never met an anti-gun law you didn't like. You sure you're on the right site? You seem to be quite happy that people have to pay out of pocket to attend a government-approved class and pass a government-approved test, then pay to get themselves fingerprinted like some kind of criminal, then pay for the police to dig into their personal lives, all so they can exercise a right so critical to the core of this country's values that it's spelled out by name in the US Constitution.



What other restrictions do you like? Gun bans? Knife bans? Ammo bans? Standard capacity mag bans? Full cavity searches before you can place your hands on a firearm?

Priceless. Again, my personal opinion is that these laws suck. My well informed legal opinion is that they will hold up in court. The SCOTUS operates on precedent as much as it does reading the plain language of the Constitution. Precedent allows for government regulations. We're not convincing anyone that $200 is prohibitive to buy a handgun. Would be a MUCH better argument if you needed an HQL to buy any gun at all.

AGAIN, I DO NOT LIKE IT. Is that more clear?

I would prefer the focus remain on shall issue which I believe is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[m4strmind]

Now there's an interesting idea. However, I much prefer to use Obamacare as precedent to force everyone to have a gun or pay a penalty (tax) with subsidies built in for those who cannot afford to buy one. My guess is the writers of that law never anticipated that outcome.

This is fantastic.

You win the thread.

 

[bsavoy]

It's not that Maryland's liberal representatives are ignorant that what they're doing is unconstitutional. It's that they, like the current administration, simply don't wish to obey the law. In some cases, they know perfectly well that their political antics only delay the inevitable; but they're going to make it as difficult, costly and time consuming as they possibly can to stave the constitutionalists off and, if they can get courts to uphold even part of their unconstitutional laws and policies, it will be victories that those of like mind in other states can build on.

The two most dreaded words, always used together, that should strike terror into the heart of any patriot, are "common sense." It's the liberal catch phrase that has been used repeatedly to dismantle many of our constitutional rights. It's remarkably ironic, however, that the term is a quality that's completely (not almost, but completely lacking) in their twisted ideology. It's even more dreaded than the meaningless "let's be clear," "to be clear" or "transparency" that they use. These are but catch phrases, highly esoteric in nature, that convey one thing, but which universally, to the wise, mean just the opposite.

How can the term "common sense" be applied to the state's Handgun Qualification License (HQL)? A man who has twenty handguns and eight rifles or shotguns now has to take an expensive, time consuming qualification course? Voting is now esteemed a "right" to all citizens, even though the Constitution doesn't say it, but many of the same supporters of HQL argue vociferously that even making them show a picture I.D. is an infringement (somehow) of their constitutional rights. Meanwhile, strict licensing and waiting periods, a "common sense" requirement of gun ownership, which clearly is a constitutional right, is okay. After all, they say, if a person owns a handgun, they ought to know how to use it, right? Oh, and don't even think about opening a range in Montgomery County, or using a police range. You'll be regulated, taxed and otherwise punished until you forget about the former. And don't bother calling the police to use their range!

These idiots wouldn't know common sense if it fell on top of them. Some voters may feel "intimidated" by having to provide a photo I.D. But what about gun owners who feel intimidated by expensive gun registration and unreasonable licensing requirements?

Is this HQL requirement being challenged by anyone, in or out of state? Can't any emergency injunctions be filed? People who have guns and have taught uncredited gun safety and handling now find themselves having to take accredited courses they could otherwise teach!

Comments??

Whoa!!! That was awesome. I've been asking myself the same question everyday that I wait for these idiots to approve my licence.

 

[gamer_jim]

Didn't the Heller decision leave open the possibility of HQL and other schemes?

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.

 

[navycraig]

The class is absolutely constitutional and is not prohibitively expensive. There isn't a good argument against that.

What is your objective measure of prohibitively expensive and on what do you base that? For me a $200.00 hit in the wallet to get my HQL may not be a big deal, but to someone else (single mother of 3 trying to support her family) it very well could be the deal breaker.

 

[thomfantomas]

waste of time to elaborate on this topic since its been brought up several hundred times on the forum the obvious answer is "no"

 

[Brooklyn]

Didn't the Heller decision leave open the possibility of HQL and other schemes?

No. All this does is limit the scope of the decision. It is deliberately silent on the standard of review. Silence is silence.

It is an error to infer anything from silence..

 

[TheGunnyRet]

What's the Big Deal about Finger Printing, had to have it done when I joined the Corps and to get my clearances, oh and "what" I served 22 years to protect and uphold the constitution...The HQL is thwarting effort, Hell, CA has a "Bullet Button", NY has a funky buttstock, MA God Knows??? I would be more worried about not being able to buy a Big Gulp than paying 200 buck to have a Pistol....

 

[DC-W]

What's the Big Deal about Finger Printing, had to have it done when I joined the Corps and to get my clearances, oh and "what" I served 22 years to protect and uphold the constitution...The HQL is thwarting effort, Hell, CA has a "Bullet Button", NY has a funky buttstock, MA God Knows??? I would be more worried about not being able to buy a Big Gulp than paying 200 buck to have a Pistol....

It's wrong on principle. NO OTHER civil or Constitutionally protected right has such a prerequisite nor should it.

The HQL is no different than a poll tax. $200 to $400 gets added for a first-time purchaser. A lowly $250 Keltec PF9 suddenly costs as much as a Glock. If we're talking about someone with limited means, this is a huge problem. None of the rights protected in the COTUS are exclusive to those with adequate financial means. If I wanted to sell a friend my Glock 26 for $50 out of good will, they'd still have to face the costs included in the HQL. Also, the HQL can only be paid for with a credit/checking card online.
Many people don't have these and don't want them.

Are these things NOT infringements?
Does the HQL do anything for public safety?

The cost of the HQL itself is completely arbitrary, by the way.
I was in the House when they debated its cost.
It went from $100 to $75 to $50 to $25.
The speaker of the House then said, "It's gotta cost something, so back to $50."

That's the entire and only reason it costs $50.
This state wants to dissuade gun ownership as much as possible.

Even after you get the HQL, you still must wait before receiving your handgun and you're still put through the same wringer of paper and redundant background checks.

 

[Brooklyn]

What's the Big Deal about Finger Printing, had to have it done when I joined the Corps and to get my clearances, oh and "what" I served 22 years to protect and uphold the constitution...The HQL is thwarting effort, Hell, CA has a "Bullet Button", NY has a funky buttstock, MA God Knows??? I would be more worried about not being able to buy a Big Gulp than paying 200 buck to have a Pistol....

Once upon a time you could buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer... no big deal..once upon a time you could defend your home..

Once upon a time the 2a had meaning as did the 4a..


Keep backing up...its working fine...

Fingerprints fail IS. They may fail RB. Concede the standard of review and we are done..

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

Registering to vote doesn't cost anything, nor do you have to take a class to do so. Permit to assemble may cost something, but you don't need fingerprinting and training to get them.

You don't even need to be a citizen!

 

[DC-W]

You don't even need to be a citizen!

Uh, yes you do
http://www.elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/index.html
(yes, I know enforcement isn't at all strict)

 

[MrNiceGuy]

What's the Big Deal about Finger Printing, had to have it done when I joined the Corps and to get my clearances, oh and "what" I served 22 years to protect and uphold the constitution...The HQL is thwarting effort, Hell, CA has a "Bullet Button", NY has a funky buttstock, MA God Knows??? I would be more worried about not being able to buy a Big Gulp than paying 200 buck to have a Pistol....

Fine, pay $200 to vote. Pay $200 avoid warrantless searches of your home and vehicle. Pay $200 to practice your religion.

When you have to pay money to do it, you aren't exercising a right; you're asking your government for permission and paying for the privilege. Either we all have a God-given right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves and our loved ones from harm or we have a privilege which our government has granted us and which can be revoked on a moment's notice. Pick one.

 

[RepublicanJD]

Didn't the Heller decision leave open the possibility of HQL and other schemes?

Absolutely.