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

[Hyper-W]

Attach it to something he can't veteo, like an increase in welfare benefits.

Attach it to outlawing juror nullification

 

[Patrick]

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?

Great example. It would have gone to the floor had it not been for Holmes-Norton, who asked it to be pulled last-minute. No way the Dem leadership was going to pull it on their own with mid-terms on the approach - too many parallels with 1996 for their liking. If DC hadn't pulled it, you'd be carrying in the capital today. No way the larger Dem party (even Hoyer) would have opposed it on that measure alone.

So yeah, there is opportunity here at the Federal Level. But I do not trust any legislative body to craft any law regarding my rights until we have some lines drawn deeply in concrete that they cannot cross. We need another two years.

Best case is we win a carry case like Palmer in the Supreme Court in 2011 and let the (R) House pass a national carry bill that the (D) Senate will also pass (there is a serious over-weighting of Dems coming up for re-election in 2012 and they are afraid of gun bills). At the same time, Obama would have to veto it right before his reelection. He cannot win without the middle, and the middle mostly likes guns. Of course, if Obama is still tanking at that time (unlikely), he could toss a veto to excite his base. But again, he will almost surely be in better shape with the middle voters in 2012 than he is now, and that works to our advantage.

 

[Adams74Chevy]

Frederick Co Commissioners Proposal

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=113240

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.

It would be awesome for this to happen, but obviously it's not gonna.

 

[bbrown]

Only 4 to 6 percent of requests are denied????? Huh???? Right.

Bryan

 

[Les Gawlik]

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.

 

[Norton]

threads merged.

And, it's still a bad idea.

 

[Patrick]

threads merged.

And, it's still a bad idea.

Hugely. And this is why:

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.

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.

 

[Adams74Chevy]

threads merged.

And, it's still a bad idea.

Going back the begining of the thread and started to read, I see what you mean. Geez, I go awol a few months and I'm behind on everything.

 

[Adams74Chevy]

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.

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.

 

[HardHatMan]

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. This could hinder getting permits from other states. I seem to remember the VA non-resident application asking if you have been denied a carry permit for other states. I can't see answering "Yes" to that question being a good 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.

 

[Norton]

I don't think it would be good to have people apply with a 99.99999% chance of getting denied.

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.

 

[HardHatMan]

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.

That's good and all but he will still need to abide by the laws pertaining to issuing permits. Just because he is pro-2A doesn't mean he is going to issue a permit to someone who has not met MD's ridiculous carry permit standards.

 

[HardHatMan]

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 good to know . I just thought it couldn't be a beneficial factor being denied by another state.

 

[yellowfin]

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.

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:

1. An unarmed populace is totally reliant on police for protection. Hence politicians can use that reliance on protection as an extortion racket: pay higher taxes to fund whatever the PD's want and vote for politicians who support the PD's, or else.

2. A pro gun populace generally doesn't vote for anti-liberty, power grabbing politicians. Anti gun politicians can engineer the vote for themselves by making laws that discourage gun ownership and use and thus gun owners from living there and voting there.

3. If you can't defend yourself from crime, and thus need the police and political complex, and you can't defend yourself from a government that has a monopoly on force, what CAN you REALLY say no to them doing or demanding if they want it?

4. Gun owners make for a minority that can be used as a convenient scapegoat and abuseable entity. Gun owners are treated EXACTLY like African Americans were in politics for the same reason, by use of the same laws, and usually with identical rhetoric. In fact, if you notice it wasn't until the 60's with the Civil Rights movement that it became politically fashionable to be anti gun. I postulate that the anti gun political meme was adopted directly in substitute for racism to fill political need for an issue since the latter was taken off the table. They can blame us for anything and everything and paint us as an outcast to be used as a political prop at will. It has been handled the exact same way for the exact same ends. They employ identity politics, isolating us from those living in cities and use every stereotype about gun owners simply because we're not present in sufficient voice to refute it. Basically, it's racism politics reinvented. And boy it works!

Hence why Maryland's state government and politicians and PD's cling to anti gun laws and May Issue as if their lives depended on it. In many cases their careers do. It's a political mechanism that works to their advantage--they don't give a damn about the issue for any other reason than that. So long as it pays to be anti gun and it doesn't hurt BADLY enough to not be pro-gun, they will continue as they do.

 

[Patrick]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[HardHatMan]

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.

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 page 56-57 gunfacts.info.pdf

 

[jonnyl]

I completely agree with all that have said a fragmented solution is bad.

But I do want to give some kudos to the Sheriff (who is pro shall-issue) for wording his comments so that it sounds like he's saying "Hey, the MSP approves 94-96% of applicants, that seems awfully high and we might be able to keep a closer eye on that since we're local"

Man, those politicians can spin!!!

 

[Squaredout]

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.

If the counties are allowed to issue permits via the sheriff, what happens when Sheriff Jenkins gets defeated by an anti 2A person? What the cases in the court today are trying to do is remove the discretion out of the permit process. So it won’t matter who the Sheriff is.

 

[Patrick]

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

Thank you twice: first for the kind words; and second for not taking me as an asshat trying to pick a fight with you. I know where you were coming from. You are right, the education to the politicians should happen with the rest of the people, if for no other reason than to lower their stress levels a bit when around real people bearing arms.

But they also need to know what you and I know: we aren't asking their permission anymore. We're taking back our right.

 

[AvidRider]

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.

I must have been misled about the Shall Issue and Violent Crime Reduction. I remember reading an article on one of NRA's website that shows direct cause and effect relationships between the enactment of a Shall Issue law and the reduction of violent crimes. I can't find the exact site, but a link below is the closest that I can find right now. If I find the original article, I'll post it.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18

I've always been a believer that shall issue reduces crime rate. Maybe it is in fact a misleading perpective.