Darkemp
Ultimate Member
We already saw what happened with an influx of only 365 applications .
2012 group or the 2019 group?
We already saw what happened with an influx of only 365 applications .
The statute includes " propensity for violence or instability " . That leaves the door open to interviewing neighbors , co-workers , ex'es , etc .
That'll make for an interesting court case, if a license under supposed "shall issue" gets denied based on hearsay and alleged acts for which the denied person hasn't been charged with, let alone convicted.
It probably will be. Probably back to SCOTUS on that one. Unless SCOTUS makes it crystal clear on exactly what states can do to evaluate for a permit. Unless the answer is everyone except convicted criminals must be allowed a permit, there will be wiggle room and states will exploit it.
That said, you know there will end up being some instances the other direction if states can’t deny based on evidence other than a criminal conviction, that someone has a history of violence or instability and they end up going on to commit violent crimes and “oh but the state HAD to give this future murderous crazy a license to carry guns! All the signs were there, but evil SCOTUS said we had to let them carry around murder weapons in public!”
That said, most school shooters and even many workplace shooters the “signs were there” and no one bothered (and in many cases legally couldn’t) to do anything about it. Though probably for every 100 or 1000 of them are some people who “show some signs” and are never actually murderous.
But as for workload. The state is going to have to do something to streamline the process. I am pretty sure even a Maryland court is not going to look fondly on MSP holding up permits for years because suddenly 50,000 people are applying for permits and they have 40 investigators (no idea the number) who want to spend a dozen hours on each application conducting interviews.
Just a basic application and the regular background check, outside of the current evidence to substantiate cause for a permit plus interviews, I’d imagine is probably at least 15-30 minutes per application to process it (and obviously several hours for all the other stuff done today for the may issue shit).
50,000 * .25hrs is 12,500hrs. 6 people, full time for a year.
So I hope MSP is at least sitting down to figure out different possible business processes depending on what the SCOTUS decision might look like. Granted it’ll likely take a court case against MGLeg or MSP to get them moving after a SCOTUS decision. But they should at least be considering it.
I know they won’t be. Just saying in a rational world they would be.
And we saw how that worked out in 2012 with just 365 applications
Lol. Evidently the very last remaining anti carry permit states (except MD) are preparing for shall issue by doing the whole sensitive places shtick in their state legislature (except MD).
Maybe that's a good thing or not?
https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/p...ision/71-ed960584-7840-40af-b2e9-249e5a038beb“We know our rights are not limitless, but the question is how narrow do the regulations upon my rights have to be in order for them to be constitutional,” Covert said.
He used yelling fire in a crowded theater as one example of limits placed on the First Amendment. The NY SAFE Act would be another example, but for the Second Amendment.
When people say to me "you can not yell fire in a crowded theater" i say yes you absolutely can. At least in two instances.
1, there no fire and the you could be held liable for damages and much like murder, both are illegal.
2, when there is a fire, at which time you would be hailed a hero and much like self defense is legal.
Nobody
Of course the actual quote said "falsely yell fire" and people seem to leave that out when using this in an argument.
Did not know that. Source?
Nobody
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
This is directly from Schenck:
The 'clear and present danger' precedent set here was effectively done away with in 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Here's the assembly bill: https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?d...ttee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y#A08684
4 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
5 (1) possesses any firearm [or]; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior
6 to the effective date of [the] chapter one of the laws of two thousand
7 thirteen [which added this section] subject to the registration require-
8 ments of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and
9 knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision;
10 or (3) knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or
11 firearm in or upon the following locations:
12 (a) Any form of public transportation, including but not limited to
13 railroads, ride sharing services, paratransit services, subways, buses,
14 air travel, taxis or any other public transportation service;
15 (b) Food and drink establishments; or
16 (c) Large gatherings, which for the purposes of this section shall
17 mean a gathering together of fifteen or more persons for amusement,
18 athletic, civic, dining, educational, entertainment, patriotic, poli-
19 tical, recreational, religious, social, or similar purposes.
A bit of a tougher call on the public transportation but B and C make the leap from government controlled locations over to privately controlled locations. Pretty clear this is an end run around what we expect the SCOTUS decision to be. "Large gatherings" doesn't even specify a place.