Maryland: County Might Seek State Law, Issue Permits to Carry

[MDFF2008]

Ah, okay, I see. So CCWing with a valid permit is still legal and still possible to being checked, but will draw less attention by PPD.

CCW has never been illegal in Philly, neither has OC with a permit, but generally its not worth the hassle to OC.

 

[SkunkWerX]

Back to the topic of County based approvals. Way too many things can go wrong, from usurpation of/by local power to entirely screwing it up nationally.

The end goal is 50 state CCW with 50 state reciprocity. Correct?

Do we think this idea in Maryland is also OK in the other states?
Can you imagine a liberal city in an otherwise Shall Issue state dragging their feet? Sending back your form because you didn't cross a "T" or dot an "i"?
Being able to CC in Neveda, except in Reno and Las Vegas?

Imagine leaving it to the County or township level, everywhere? It conjours up nightmares of Sheriff Andy Taylor allowing CCW in his county, but Boss Hogg nixing it in the adjacent county. New York state establishes Shall Issue (dreaming) but Bloomberg puts the fix in NYC, a la a Chicago defacto ban?

Together we win, divided we fail. There are many Pro-2A-ers in PG, HoCo, MoCo, B-more, Annapolis, etc. that would suffer greatly if the preemption law were tampered with. You would erode your support base at both ends... Those in "pro" counties would get their cake, and those in "anti" counties wouldn't be as motivated when another county was going down the tubes.

Keep our eyes on the ball, the BIG Ball. National CCW with 50 State reciprocity.
We won't get there, if we settle for a bit of cake, instead of waiting for the main course.

Let's not get impatient, it's almost here, closer than most of us are willing to admit, but its coming, soon.

 

[mica]

If they want to issue permits in accordance with MD law and guidelines I don't see that affecting preemption. State permit issued locally, happens in many states that way.Depends on how any prospective legislation is worded.

But I don't really see it happening anyway.

 

[KMA]

Bring on the lawyers. I hate this state!!!

 

[KMA]

The answer is national permit, forget the states. But that will never happen. Man i've really got to get out of this nightmare.

 

[Lindsay's Dad]

I personally don't want to see State pre-emption changed. I personally don't see how merely changing who signs off on the permits changes state pre-emption.

The requirements would remain the same. Yes, even "must show cause" the only thing that would change is who interprets what is good cause or not.

Yes Frederick and Washington county folks would stand a better chance of getting permits than folks in PG and Mont. Counties. But my permit would still be a MD permit and that wouldn't change. I can't see how locals would be able to create less or more hoops.

Am I really missing something here but to me I see this as a good thing.

Please no flames.

LD

 

[boricuamaximus]

I personally don't want to see State pre-emption changed. I personally don't see how merely changing who signs off on the permits changes state pre-emption.

The requirements would remain the same. Yes, even "must show cause" the only thing that would change is who interprets what is good cause or not.

Yes Frederick and Washington county folks would stand a better chance of getting permits than folks in PG and Mont. Counties. But my permit would still be a MD permit and that wouldn't change. I can't see how locals would be able to create less or more hoops.

Am I really missing something here but to me I see this as a good thing.

Please no flames.

LD

Hate to say this but as a MoCo resident, I can only imagine what they will make up just to deny people. However, if they allow a MoCo resident to go into any other sherrifs office to get a permit and the money stays in that county the -might- see the light but I doubt it.

 

[Lindsay's Dad]

That's just it Mont. County won't be able to create more hurdles nor would let's say Frederick County be able to remove any. The only thing that would be different is who is saying "personal defense, ok by me. "APPROVED: NO RESTRICTIONS." or "Personal defense, not good enough. "DENIED"

LD

 

[Norton]

That's just it Mont. County won't be able to create more hurdles nor would let's say Frederick County be able to remove any. The only thing that would be different is who is saying "personal defense, ok by me. "APPROVED: NO RESTRICTIONS." or "Personal defense, not good enough. "DENIED"

and therein lies the crux of the problem. Until we have a true shall issue state where it's either "yes" or "no" based on passing the criminal background check and not some subjective perception of what constitutes a "reason" for issuance of the permit, you'd have a de facto duplicity in the application of the law from county to county and it would necessitate weakening of the pre-emption law to accomplish that.

MoCo could make it far more difficult to receive a permit than would Washington County simply based on the current language that requires justification for issuance of a permit. That is not equal protection under the law.

 

[Lindsay's Dad]

But, isn't that the way it is now? I don't understand how spreading the load around would neccesitate weaking of the laws. I must be missing something.

LD

 

[Lindsay's Dad]

Don't get me wrong I can't wait for "Shall Issue" but in the mean time...

LD

 

[jaywade]

and therein lies the crux of the problem. Until we have a true shall issue state where it's either "yes" or "no" based on passing the criminal background check and not some subjective perception of what constitutes a "reason" for issuance of the permit, you'd have a de facto duplicity in the application of the law from county to county and it would necessitate weakening of the pre-emption law to accomplish that.

MoCo could make it far more difficult to receive a permit than would Washington County simply based on the current language that requires justification for issuance of a permit. That is not equal protection under the law.

Norton "equal protection" is a interesting thing ...washington co might get 2 or 3 times the number of people wanting a permit for ccw...maybe more how many people would even apply in MoCo a fraction of the Washington co to be sure .... as a whole Moco baltimore co and PG co don't want this...it isn't important...but if washington co or frederick co can get this it's a step in the right direction, it still sucks for MoCo and Pg folks that also want to carry but if you had lawfull carry in a few MD counties and all went well you could gain a foothold in the other counties, but right now you (and I mean MSI) have no hold in MoCO or PG ...your almost invisible, they might even think your nuts...fight the battle that gives you a chance to win,if you can get carry in washington Co you gain a foothold you can point to lower crime rates you can point lawfull carry as not being dangerous, now you have better talking points....casue now you have nothing, you don't hav enumbers on your side in those districts to be able to make a difference...

again I see Washington co getting the right to carry as good thing, I undertsand it doesn't jive w/ your agenda of getting state wide Shall issue but you might have to do this in pieces and parts... this is one of the most Dem heavy states and honestly I don't see how the state as a whole is any closer and untill you can get MoCo PG and Baltimore CO folks to agree in mass with you I don't see how you expect the state house to change the laws

 

[hvymax]

Allowing one county a different set of rules violates preemption and opens up a whole can of worms that we do not want. There are points either way but we do not want to take 2 steps back for one sideways.

 

[Norton]

But, isn't that the way it is now? I don't understand how spreading the load around would neccesitate weaking of the laws. I must be missing something.

LD

Because, if it is subjective criteria that we are dealing with, we can have one official in one county using one set of criteria and another in a different county using yet another.

 

[Lindsay's Dad]

The "Rules" won't be different as far as I can see it, just the signatures on the permits.

omo
LD

 

[Lindsay's Dad]

Because, if it is subjective criteria that we are dealing with, we can have one official in one county using one set of criteria and another in a different county using yet another.

Ok, I conceed that point. But the written law will still be the same Statewide?

Yes an Objective standard would be ideal, but just cause we can't have the whole Pizza why shouldn't we grab a slice or two where we can?

LD

 

[Norton]

The "Rules" won't be different as far as I can see it, just the signatures on the permits.

omo
LD

Of course there'd be different standards....it's the whole reason they're proposing the bill in the first place.

The candidates in Washington County are proposing legislation (that they know will never pass) in an effort to lead voters to believe that they will issue permits to them while residents in other counties will be stuck dealing with officials who will not issue permits.

 

[Hopalong]

As a Washington County resident who is in favor of generally unrestricted carry, I think this is a horrible idea. I haven't done enough of my homework to know if it's an intentionally bad idea to attack state pre-emption, or just a misguded good idea to get WashCo residents more of their 2A freedoms back, but that doesn't really matter. It's the wrong way to go about it.

And for those who voiced concerns about WashCo residents thinking you're ungrateful for thinking this is a bad idea: I appreciate the concern, but in my book at least there's nothing to worry about. Please keep right on telling us it's a bad idea.

 

[boricuamaximus]

The only way this would work is if any resident from a 2A hostile county could go to a
2A friendly county and get a permit that works statewide. Giving the other counties money that the cash strapped non-2A friendly counties can use.

They do not care about 2A. They do not care about crime. The do not care about personal liberties. They only care about money. The counties that are not 2A friendly are the ones that also need more of gov paycheck. Hence speed cameras, red light cams etc. Higher crime works for them because they can use it as an excuse to levy a tax for "more police" which we all know they wont hire one more cop. They'll get an assistant to the official paper recycler and use the rest to shore up the bleeding aid fund.

And... that wont happen so we need to take it up to the MSP because we will have the "blood on the streets" fictional argument.

 

[Norton]

As a Washington County resident who is in favor of generally unrestricted carry, I think this is a horrible idea. I haven't done enough of my homework to know if it's an intentionally bad idea to attack state pre-emption, or just a misguded good idea to get WashCo residents more of their 2A freedoms back, but that doesn't really matter. It's the wrong way to go about it.

It's not an "attack" and I don't think any believes that there is malevolence involved. I think your second theory is accurate.