MD General Assembly Preparing to Defy SCOTUS

[44man]

Fvckem

Unconstitutional laws are to be ignored because they are not law

 

[Boats]

They are beating the drum of supposed future unlicensed CCW for all to begin to sway public fears to further restrict. There will need to be positive examples shown of lawful CCW even in this restrictive state up to this point demonstrating how much of a non-issue lawful licensees have been. MD CCW holders as a whole while a very small sample size compared to our neighbors seem to be a good example of what a polite armed society can and should be with very few negative incidents documented.

There was a study done a couple years ago that statistically proved that a CCW holder was something like 12 times as likely to NOT break the law as a non-ccw holder.....and six times as likely to not break the law than police officers.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463357

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...vocates-play-the-mainstream-media-for-suckers

 

[rob]

One problem is that positive examples of concealed carry, are by definition, concealed.

Every time I have carried my pistol is a positive example. I was safer, the people I was with were safer, and nobody was aware. I doubt my wife even realizes I am carrying.

Rob.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Uncle Duke]

There was a study done a couple years ago that statistically proved that a CCW holder was something like 12 times as likely to NOT break the law as a non-ccw holder.....and six times as likely to not break the law than police officers.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463357

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...vocates-play-the-mainstream-media-for-suckers

Yep! And they don't care.

 

[Nobody]

One problem is that positive examples of concealed carry, are by definition, concealed.

Every time I have carried my pistol is a positive example. I was safer, the people I was with were safer, and nobody was aware. I doubt my wife even realizes I am carrying.

Rob.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

This.

I have brought up the topic of guns and had people say they are afraid of them though they have one within 2 feet. Like it will jump up and kill them all by itself. I have also been asked, at a funeral if I was carrying as it was going to get ugly. I replied, if it gets ugly get out.

Nobody

 

[Threeband]

Shows how little he understands current laws and the changes the court case would make. Someone with this little understanding of current law and prospective change couldn't write a new law that would last a week without being thrown out by even a MD court.

He doesn't need to know or understand a damn thing. He just needs to vote the way he's told to.

 

[AliasNeo07]

From a legal point of view (and IANAL) I just can't see SCOTUS allowing permitless CCW. If they rule that the right cannot be permitted, it will probably be for open carry. I'd be okay with this because then states will pretty much all go shall-issue CCW to avoid people from exercising their right openly rather than concealed.

The way this right will be restricted will be to limit the amount of places people can carry firearms more than it already is, so as to make it almost impossible to carry throughout your day without running afoul of the law.

 

[MDFF2008]

I find it very unlikely the SCOTUS will eliminate permits for carrying. I expect they will say that states have a compelling interest in establishing who is legally able to carry or not.

I expect they will say that states must use objective criteria to establish who can and cannot receive a permit and that subjective standards such as "good and substantial reason" are not constitutional.

There will probably be additional follow-up cases about objective but burdensome criteria such as a training that costs $1,000 dollars and is only offered once every 4 years in Oakland Maryland and has 3 seats.

 

[Darkemp]

The way this right will be restricted will be to limit the amount of places people can carry firearms more than it already is, so as to make it almost impossible to carry throughout your day without running afoul of the law.

This is the concern that I have- I’m certain MSI will be prepared with challenges. I doubt the MGA will be able to produce many issues with current permit holders as supporting examples. MD’s current system of restricted locations for permit holders is basically fair for the most part as of now and should be upheld.

 

[rbird7282]

They are beating the drum of supposed future unlicensed CCW for all to begin to sway public fears to further restrict. There will need to be positive examples shown of lawful CCW even in this restrictive state up to this point demonstrating how much of a non-issue lawful licensees have been. MD CCW holders as a whole while a very small sample size compared to our neighbors seem to be a good example of what a polite armed society can and should be with very few negative incidents documented.

It doesn’t matter in restrictive states like MD, NY, NJ, and CA. It’s been shown across the country over the last 20 years with much more relaxed carry laws and even with states that are Constitutional carry. There hasn’t been blood in the streets as predicted by the anti-gun crowd.
The other side doesn’t care, it’s that simple. No amount of statistics or facts will ever change that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Biggfoot44]

Permitless carry isn't even being sought by the Plaintiffs .

While MGA * could * address TPM , no such Bill yet introduced .

My prediction is this could come up in 2023 session.