Hyper-W
Ultimate Member
gprimr1 said:Attach it to something he can't veteo, like an increase in welfare benefits.
Attach it to outlawing juror nullification
gprimr1 said:Attach it to something he can't veteo, like an increase in welfare benefits.
It has to be something really good.
Remember the DC voting rights bill, that Steny Hoyer wouldn't bring to the floor because the cost was to high when a gun rights amendment was added?
The commissioners opted to move forward on a request for the sheriff to take over the process of issuing right-to-carry gun permits. That process is currently handled by the Maryland State Police, and the county has already heard from state police that they will oppose the proposal.
But Sheriff Chuck Jenkins argued it makes sense for the agency closest to the people to handle permits. His office would use the same background check.
State police receive 40 to 50 annual requests for permits from Frederick County residents and it takes the agency about 90 days to process them, Jenkins said.
"Keep in mind, this only takes four investigative hours, so why does it take 90 days to turn these things around?" Jenkins asked. "So we feel we could expedite that quite significantly."
Only about 4 to 6 percent of requests are denied. Jenkins said he might be able to exercise a little more discretion when it comes to denials because they are a local agency. The cost of processing the applications would be minimal, he said.
threads merged.
And, it's still a bad idea.
Only about 4 to 6 percent of requests are denied. Jenkins said he might be able to exercise a little more discretion when it comes to denials because they are a local agency. The cost of processing the applications would be minimal, he said.
threads merged.
And, it's still a bad idea.
Hugely. And this is why:
Seriously...we are trying to get "discretion" of a government employee off the table. Not spread it even more thin so to make it even harder to challenge and fix. Proposals like this may look nice, be they are anti-2A rights! Just read the words..."discretion". That means some person gets to decide whether you are worthy of your rights!
Do people not pay attention to the work of people who explain this stuff all day? Are we just wasting our time?
Consider MD versus California: here we need to attack ONE decision-making body: the MSP. In California it is a county by county fight because of laws like Frederick is proposing.
WHEN we get substantial cause removed from the code and make MD Shall-Issue, then we can talk about some local processing of permits. But only if that local processing is an option or if it comes with statutory timelines. Otherwise PG/MoCo will just sit on applications forever.
I know people want their permits and are grasping at whatever straw they think will help. But stop and think about the whole picture and realize that adding more players in the process is a bad thing.
Everybody: sit back and take a breath. Shall-Issue is coming as fast as it can.
We do not want to open any opportunity for Annapolis to pass any gun laws this year. Got it? Think of the word "amendment" and decide whether you want guns bills in our liberal GA.
Nothing good can come from our current legislative body. Stop pretending otherwise.
It is probably true that 4 -6 % are denied. It is almost impossible to satisfy the requirements, so very few people try. This is a brilliant way of turning the state's position back against it. With so few denials, the average person would conclude the MSP is just rubber-stamping all of the applications. The state would have to explain, no, we've set the bar so high almost no one clears it. Then, bang, the 2A cases fall right in line.
I don't think it would be good to have people apply with a 99.99999% chance of getting denied.
Not trying to start a argument over it but, Sheriff Jenkins is pro-2A, He's a NRA member, and a member of a local pistol club. But I do see how it becomes a problem as every county does their own thing.
Urban legend. We called both Virginia and Florida and somewhere have it in writing that they do not consider denial of a Maryland permit as cause for denial of either of the respective states' non-resident permit.
That's not their objective. Anti gun politicians have ZERO interest in knowing shall issue reduces crime. They don't lack understanding of that idea at all. Their incentives simply aren't in line with it:The MD legislatures just need to get their heads out of their rear ends and look at actual statistics that prove being a shall issue state will reduce crime.
Not trying to start a argument over it but, Sheriff Jenkins is pro-2A, He's a NRA member, and a member of a local pistol club. But I do see how it becomes a problem as every county does their own thing.
The MD legislatures just need to get their heads out of their rear ends and look at actual statistics that prove being a shall issue state will reduce crime.
Again, discretion. I don't care how pro-2A an individual sheriff may be. He is still an individual.
What we are working towards is a case where you should be able to give your application to Frosh himself and he will have no choice but to give you a permit. No choice.
I do not intend to be argumentative and I understand why you said what you did. But...
You are wrong on three huge counts.
1) There is no evidence that proves Shall Issue reduced crime. None. Nada. Zip. Despite the book by Lott. There is only a statistical correlation that as crime went down, more people started to carry guns. By the way...there is also a statistical correlation between crime going down while more and more people stopped participating in religion. This must "prove" atheism lowers crime, right?
All we can say is that Brady is wrong. They claimed more guns would result in more crime. They were wrong. We can demonstrate it easily. As a result, nobody takes their claims seriously. Don't put gun owners in the same camp as Brady - making spurious claims that more guns means less crime. By that logic, crime will never go up again in the United States, because more people have guns than ever.
Obviously, crime will again rise. Bad economy, new drugs...whatever. It does not matter. No society has ever fixed it. Keep walking around and linking guns and crime and someday that linkage will be used against you.
2) It is not up to the legislature to dole out fundamental rights. They have zero say. Crime does not matter. Nor does the opinion of the general assembly.
3) And your right to bear arms is not dependent upon some statistical analysis performed by an actuary. It is fundamental. The second you fall into this trap, you accept a concept called "interest balancing", where your rights are subject to someone else's analysis of the strength of your right versus the strength of their "interest" in denying it. Guess who has lost that fight for the last 100 years?
Everybody needs to sit back and check their emotions. If some political entity offers you something gun related that looks nice and shiny, you generally should run like hell no matter how much you want it. Civil Rights are not doled out by politicians...they are owned by the people and politicians should respect them by staying away from them. 2A is a new issue but it is rapidly advancing in the courts.
Until these cases are complete, we accept no trinkets from politicians that could do anything to upset our court cases. Even friendly politicians who think they are doing nice things.
Not trying to start a argument over it but, Sheriff Jenkins is pro-2A, He's a NRA member, and a member of a local pistol club. But I do see how it becomes a problem as every county does their own thing.
Good post as always, Patrick. I use pro-2A website to obtain information such as gunfacts.info. Here's a 2 pages I looked at and was referring to:
View attachment 29317
Again, discretion. I don't care how pro-2A an individual sheriff may be. He is still an individual.
What we are working towards is a case where you should be able to give your application to Frosh himself and he will have no choice but to give you a permit. No choice.
I do not intend to be argumentative and I understand why you said what you did. But...
You are wrong on three huge counts.
1) There is no evidence that proves Shall Issue reduced crime. None. Nada. Zip. Despite the book by Lott. There is only a statistical correlation that as crime went down, more people started to carry guns. By the way...there is also a statistical correlation between crime going down while more and more people stopped participating in religion. This must "prove" atheism lowers crime, right?
All we can say is that Brady is wrong. They claimed more guns would result in more crime. They were wrong. We can demonstrate it easily. As a result, nobody takes their claims seriously. Don't put gun owners in the same camp as Brady - making spurious claims that more guns means less crime. By that logic, crime will never go up again in the United States, because more people have guns than ever.
Obviously, crime will again rise. Bad economy, new drugs...whatever. It does not matter. No society has ever fixed it. Keep walking around and linking guns and crime and someday that linkage will be used against you.
2) It is not up to the legislature to dole out fundamental rights. They have zero say. Crime does not matter. Nor does the opinion of the general assembly.
3) And your right to bear arms is not dependent upon some statistical analysis performed by an actuary. It is fundamental. The second you fall into this trap, you accept a concept called "interest balancing", where your rights are subject to someone else's analysis of the strength of your right versus the strength of their "interest" in denying it. Guess who has lost that fight for the last 100 years?
Everybody needs to sit back and check their emotions. If some political entity offers you something gun related that looks nice and shiny, you generally should run like hell no matter how much you want it. Civil Rights are not doled out by politicians...they are owned by the people and politicians should respect them by staying away from them. 2A is a new issue but it is rapidly advancing in the courts.
Until these cases are complete, we accept no trinkets from politicians that could do anything to upset our court cases. Even friendly politicians who think they are doing nice things.