hairba111
XGMG2
Not to mention that most of those CCW homicides were SELF DEFENSE!
My gut just took me to lunch. ;^)
Solid analysis as always. Thanks. So it seems that once they start issuing permits, their real impetus for wanting a stay disappears.
As much as I hate to speculate about it in a semi-public forum, I really wouldn't put it past the state to somehow "stage" an upswing in gun violence were they forced to issue permits while this case was on appeal. Whether a manipulation of statistics or something more...violent...bleh, I don't wanna think about it....
Just thought I let everyone know that this garbage is still in the current Criminal Law Article as of 2002. Just more liberal smoke and mirrors. They forgot to add the section where this is not caused by those of us that are law abiding and have a clue.
§ 4-202. Legislative findings.
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) the number of violent crimes committed in the State has increased alarmingly in recent years;
(2) a high percentage of violent crimes committed in the State involves the use of handguns;
(3) the result is a substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries largely traceable to the carrying of handguns in public places by criminals;
(4) current law has not been effective in curbing the more frequent use of handguns in committing crime; and
(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.
[An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36B(a); 2002, ch. 26, § 2.]
Follow your gut.
EDIT: If the 4th did not enter a stay and MD wants to keep pushing, they could eventually break out of the 4th. But that takes time and energy, as the first go-round for a stay at the 4th is not necessarily the last. My gut tells me that MD will appeal if the District lifts its stay, but that Gura probably would not. It's just not his style (so far). Also, if the 4th also does not put a stay in place then I think MD would have a hard time being successful in a further push, if for no other reason than the appeal and that last stay appeal would probably come due at the same time. Or in a real funny case, the actual appeal is ruled upon before MD's request for yet another stay.
Reading between the lines above- yes, there may be more than one shot for a stay at the 4th. I think it starts with one judge, then could go to a panel. Or maybe it'll start with a panel...esqappellate would obviously know that process in and out. I am just a reciter of junk I think I know.
No tinfoil required. The state - like anyone - has cherry-picked data that makes their argument look as good as it can. An obvious example is the VPC "Concealed Carry Killers" list.
OMG! 250 CCW Killers in the last five years! OMG!!!
Conveniently left out is that those crimes are spread over 5 years (say, 50 a year) and then again over a largely-accepted population of more than 6 million carriers. I'll let you do the math, but you will be hard-pressed to find a population in the USA that has lower violent crime stats.
It's the state's right to claim claim they want. It's also our right to call them on it.
FWIW, the state has been playing with numbers a long time. They like to claim lots of "illegal guns" are being yanked off the streets, but the actual number of violent offenders who are being stopped is a much, much smaller number. Many of those guns are actually from non-violent people, and also include people who get their guns back or are allowed to transfer them at some point.
In a strange sort of way I am glad we've had this seemingly long wait from the Woollard decision till now. I think we've all learned a lot about our court system that we never would have otherwise. Thanks to those savy members who had the patience to show us the way.
No tinfoil required. The state - like anyone - has cherry-picked data that makes their argument look as good as it can. An obvious example is the VPC "Concealed Carry Killers" list.
OMG! 250 CCW Killers in the last five years! OMG!!!
Conveniently left out is that those crimes are spread over 5 years (say, 50 a year) and then again over a largely-accepted population of more than 6 million carriers. I'll let you do the math, but you will be hard-pressed to find a population in the USA that has lower violent crime stats.
It's the state's right to claim claim they want. It's also our right to call them on it.
FWIW, the state has been playing with numbers a long time. They like to claim lots of "illegal guns" are being yanked off the streets, but the actual number of violent offenders who are being stopped is a much, much smaller number. Many of those guns are actually from non-violent people, and also include people who get their guns back or are allowed to transfer them at some point.
I believe that in some of the statistics they count all homicides committed in constitutional carry states as "CCW killers" as well.
I believe that in some of the statistics they count all homicides committed in constitutional carry states as "CCW killers" as well.
(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.
Just thought I let everyone know that this garbage is still in the current Criminal Law Article as of 2002. Just more liberal smoke and mirrors. They forgot to add the section where this is not caused by those of us that are law abiding and have a clue.
§ 4-202. Legislative findings.
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) the number of violent crimes committed in the State has increased alarmingly in recent years;
(2) a high percentage of violent crimes committed in the State involves the use of handguns;
(3) the result is a substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries largely traceable to the carrying of handguns in public places by criminals;
(4) current law has not been effective in curbing the more frequent use of handguns in committing crime; and
(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.
[An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36B(a); 2002, ch. 26, § 2.]
Department of Redundancy Department.Hmmm, how does one make illegally carrying a firearm any more illegal.
You can increase the penalties, but it is illegal, or it is not.
I know the answer to this is probably "could be... or not", but...
What is the likelihood that Judge Legg is waiting for any number of these things to be filed before making HIS final decision?!