New Hampshire Resident With Carry Permit Wins Court Case In Massachusetts Over Carry Across State Lines

[teratos]

Another issue which could push the courts in that direction is these anti states are making it more and more difficult to get a permit, even with the need requirement gone.
Many charge more for out of state residents (some like CA and NY don’t even issue), and according to Handgunlaw for MA a non resident has to apply in person in Chelsea, which is near Boston. A VT resident would have to drive clear across the state to get the permit.
They can’t have it both ways where they require the permit yet make it as difficult as possible. Scotus may just say screw it at some point and tell these states you had your chance but chose to be obstructionists so your permit schemes are out the window.

You mean like MD increasing the cost and putting self-defense out of reach for low-income citizens who need it most?

 

[press1280]

You mean like MD increasing the cost and putting self-defense out of reach for low-income citizens who need it most?

Exactly, not just through the permit fee, but now through training, which IIRC wasn’t even required pre-2013.
The only thing MD has going is the non-residents pay the same as residents.

 

[teratos]

Exactly, not just through the permit fee, but now through training, which IIRC wasn’t even required pre-2013.
The only thing MD has going is the non-residents pay the same as residents.

One of our “friends” should introduce a bill where MD must subsidize the training and waive the fee if your income is below a certain amount. Force the Ds to show that they discriminate against low-income citizens.

 

[Blacksmith101]

One of our “friends” should introduce a bill where MD must subsidize the training and waive the fee if your income is below a certain amount. Force the Ds to show that they discriminate against low-income citizens.

How else will they keep the blacks and other undesirable minorities unarmed since the Supreme Court doesn't like all those post reconstruction disarmament laws the D's past to do the same thing. The Supreme Court says they can't even use them as analogs although you wouldn't know that from reading the anti gun Amicus briefs in the Rahimi case.

Link to briefs:

Search

Edit:
They are now up to 40 briefs and even the ones that claim to favor neither party are anti gun and full of references to "Jim Crow Laws".

See our favorite long winded YouTube Lawyer:

 

[ras_oscar]

One of our “friends” should introduce a bill where MD must subsidize the training and waive the fee if your income is below a certain amount. Force the Ds to show that they discriminate against low-income citizens.

I prefer a ruling defining what fees are considered abusive. I have no problem paying a reasonable fee to reemburse the state for the costs to process my application. I have real problems with states that declare in public that they intend to turn the fees collected over to gun control lobbying groups. There is no way the actual cost in MD is anywhere near what they are charging. That makes it a tax on a constitutional right. The PA fee is much less.

 

[whistlersmother]

I prefer a ruling defining what fees are considered abusive. I have no problem paying a reasonable fee to reemburse the state for the costs to process my application. I have real problems with states that declare in public that they intend to turn the fees collected over to gun control lobbying groups. There is no way the actual cost in MD is anywhere near what they are charging. That makes it a tax on a constitutional right. The PA fee is much less.

No fee on 1A rights, no fee on asserting 5A rights, so why acceptable fee on 2A?

Any fee on carry permit is abusive.

The solution is no permits needed for carry.

 

[RFBfromDE]

One of our “friends” should introduce a bill where MD must subsidize the training and waive the fee if your income is below a certain amount. Force the Ds to show that they discriminate against low-income citizens.

They came back with just such a plan in DE.

It failed but....

 

[teratos]

I prefer a ruling defining what fees are considered abusive. I have no problem paying a reasonable fee to reemburse the state for the costs to process my application. I have real problems with states that declare in public that they intend to turn the fees collected over to gun control lobbying groups. There is no way the actual cost in MD is anywhere near what they are charging. That makes it a tax on a constitutional right. The PA fee is much less.

I'm not even in favor of permits, there should be no fee or permit needed to exercise a fundamental right. Want training to be mandatory? Make it a class in high school. In the mean time, we should take every opportunity to make them look like the hypocrites they are.

 

[Occam]

Federal courts should never be in the business of settings specific dollar amounts on things like fees - they should be ruling whether or not such fees are even constitutional, and if they are (never mind 2A for the moment), what the basis for such a fee should be. When a court effectively legislates into existence an administrative detail like a specific dollar amount, we are way outside the bounds of the separation of powers the constitution envisions.

 

[TheBert]

Blanket recognition of Con Carry State residents is two leaps down the road . Recognitiongnition of actual Permits is step one .

What do the people in Con Carry states have to do to get their piece of that pie?

 

[JohnnyE]

I think your reading comprehension is excellent.

Better, in fact, than that of some judges in the 4th circuit.

 

[Biggfoot44]

What do the people in Con Carry states have to do to get their piece of that pie?

Unless they live in Vermont , their state offers a Permit .

Added - Looked snarkier actually posted , than in my mind .

Yes , Fundimental Rights .
Yes , Con Carry * ought to be * so
No , paying for Fundimental Rights sucks .

Just being realistic , that Full Faith & Credit is closer to happening than pure Con Carry .