SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

[OLM-Medic]

Why all of the permit license BS? If you can pass the background BS to get a handgun then that should be all you need to carry a gun. That's basically what the states like AZ do. By allowing anyone who can legally have a gun to conceal carry it.

 

[teratos]

Why all of the permit license BS? If you can pass the background BS to get a handgun then that should be all you need to carry a gun. That's basically what the states like AZ do. By allowing anyone who can legally have a gun to conceal carry it.

Right. What is being said is that the effort should not go into identifying who CAN carry, but who CAN'T. There are far fewer people who cannot carry. Looking at the Constitution, one should assume everyone eligible.

 

[Patrick]

Why all of the permit license BS? If you can pass the background BS to get a handgun then that should be all you need to carry a gun. That's basically what the states like AZ do. By allowing anyone who can legally have a gun to conceal carry it.

The issue there is that a NICS check is a single point in time check. Joe could go buy a gun today and then end up in three violent incidents over the next year, end up with a stint in jail for beating his wife...and still have that gun. He should not carry, but if the only check was NICS at time of purchase, he could.

The NICS check is not capable of seeing into the future.

Permits are going to be constitutional. Sorry, no way around that short of the legislature. Right now we're talking about the best way to do it.

 

[Goose Guy]

The issue there is that a NICS check is a single point in time check. Joe could go buy a gun today and then end up in three violent incidents over the next year, end up with a stint in jail for beating his wife...and still have that gun. He should not carry, but if the only check was NICS at time of purchase, he could.

The NICS check is not capable of seeing into the future.

Permits are going to be constitutional. Sorry, no way around that short of the legislature. Right now we're talking about the best way to do it.

So why can't we just copy exactly what pretty much every other state has done? As far as I can tell, it works and doesn't make the states lose money. Sometines even generating revenue. Seems like they are trying to make it out that us here in MD are somehow different than say, VA, PA, DE, etc.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

The issue there is that a NICS check is a single point in time check. Joe could go buy a gun today and then end up in three violent incidents over the next year, end up with a stint in jail for beating his wife...and still have that gun. He should not carry, but if the only check was NICS at time of purchase, he could.

The NICS check is not capable of seeing into the future.

Permits are going to be constitutional. Sorry, no way around that short of the legislature. Right now we're talking about the best way to do it.

Snap shot in time is what we have now for both purchase and permit issuance (in most states). So as I play devil to your advocate, your point about future looking investigations are moot, unless we will have to subject ourselves to psych evals prior to purchase, which is a HUGE infringement.

While as background checks are not necessarily infringements, waiting periods or lengthy permitting processes certainly could be construed as such. It would certainly be nice to add the "scarlet letter" to "prohibited" persons list, but, you still have an implementation process that would still fail to capture EVERY person in the USA. Not everyone has a passport or a driver's license.

It's a great idea, and one that I certainly support (as you need ID to purchase a firearm anyway), but my guess is that it will happen on the 12th of never.

 

[Hyper-W]

Why all of the permit license BS? If you can pass the background BS to get a handgun then that should be all you need to carry a gun. That's basically what the states like AZ do. By allowing anyone who can legally have a gun to conceal carry it.

I actually think this is a bad idea. A patrol officer needs to be able to verify while on-scene that you are elligable to carry. If I purchase a handgun legally and can legally carry it, what is to stop my wife from carrying my handgun?

What about illegally purchased guns? Having a photo ID indicating that you are able to carry may not be what the framers of the consitution had in mind and it is far from perfect but it provides an ounce of proof that the individual is eligible to carry. Weather that indication on photo ID be a separate ID card or an indication on my state issued ID/Drivers License I think is a matter of logistics.

Running each person with a Drivers License or State ID through the background check is going to be a lengthy and expensive process. It could likely only be done upon request. My guess is that the majority of Marylanders would decline the background check and save the money (did you really expect the state to foot the bill??).

 

[jonnyl]

I actually think this is a bad idea. A patrol officer needs to be able to verify while on-scene that you are elligable to carry. If I purchase a handgun legally and can legally carry it, what is to stop my wife from carrying my handgun?

What about illegally purchased guns? Having a photo ID indicating that you are able to carry may not be what the framers of the consitution had in mind and it is far from perfect but it provides an ounce of proof that the individual is eligible to carry. Weather that indication on photo ID be a separate ID card or an indication on my state issued ID/Drivers License I think is a matter of logistics.

Running each person with a Drivers License or State ID through the background check is going to be a lengthy and expensive process. It could likely only be done upon request. My guess is that the majority of Marylanders would decline the background check and save the money (did you really expect the state to foot the bill??).

I used to feel this way because it felt logical to me. Maybe I've spent too much time on MDS, but what swayed me was thinking about the situations that an LEO would need to know or care that a person is eligible to carry. There should be no reason for an LEO to "check up" on someone for the mere fact of being armed. It's a perfectly legal thing. If the person is threatening someone, or committing a crime the officer will need to deal with that issue and in those cases it wouldn't matter whether the person was legit or not. The officer would disarm them and run a check. If the check shows the person shouldn't have been carrying there would be another charge on the list.

I just don't see the behavior of the officer changing in either case. The thing that is interesting about this concept is that it's not just theoretical, but is in practice in 3 states.

Like I mentioned, my thinking on this has changed over the last several months, so I'm just offering food for thought.

BTW - I agree permitting will probably be around for a long time, and don't expect MD to drop it in my lifetime, so I'll be happy with Shall Issue....

 

[Hyper-W]

I used to feel this way because it felt logical to me. Maybe I've spent too much time on MDS, but what swayed me was thinking about the situations that an LEO would need to know or care that a person is eligible to carry. There should be no reason for an LEO to "check up" on someone for the mere fact of being armed. It's a perfectly legal thing. If the person is threatening someone, or committing a crime the officer will need to deal with that issue and in those cases it wouldn't matter whether the person was legit or not. The officer would disarm them and run a check. If the check shows the person shouldn't have been carrying there would be another charge on the list.

I just don't see the behavior of the officer changing in either case. The thing that is interesting about this concept is that it's not just theoretical, but is in practice in 3 states.

Like I mentioned, my thinking on this has changed over the last several months, so I'm just offering food for thought.

BTW - I agree permitting will probably be around for a long time, and don't expect MD to drop it in my lifetime, so I'll be happy with Shall Issue....

Agreed that they should have no reason to check up on you but when I see someone with a gun I'm damn sure wondering if they are carrying legally.

I'm no lawyer (nor police officer) but I would think that folks will want a way (and the ability) to distinguish a law abiding citizen with a right to carry from a criminal carrying an illegal handgun. It is likely a violation of my civil rights (call the ACLU) to be asked if I have a permit but I would gladly hand it over if it enables law enforcement to catch actual bad guys.

Hopefully someone will come up with the ideal solution that allows law abiding citizens to carry as they have a right to while still enabling law enforcement to catch criminals with illegal guns and illegal gun possession. I certainly don't have the solution. Making it legal/illegal isn't enough. We've said again and again that the only people who abide by the rules are law abiding citizens. We need laws crafted in such a way to make it legal while providing a constitutional avenue of enforcement.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I actually think this is a bad idea. A patrol officer needs to be able to verify while on-scene that you are elligable to carry. If I purchase a handgun legally and can legally carry it, what is to stop my wife from carrying my handgun?

What about illegally purchased guns? Having a photo ID indicating that you are able to carry may not be what the framers of the consitution had in mind and it is far from perfect but it provides an ounce of proof that the individual is eligible to carry. Weather that indication on photo ID be a separate ID card or an indication on my state issued ID/Drivers License I think is a matter of logistics.

Running each person with a Drivers License or State ID through the background check is going to be a lengthy and expensive process. It could likely only be done upon request. My guess is that the majority of Marylanders would decline the background check and save the money (did you really expect the state to foot the bill??).

How about presumption of innocence? I shouldn't have to prove garbage to a LEO if I'm minding my own business. Seems a few have already said this, and you yourself agree with it.

Look, rights aren't about catching the bad guy, they are about protecting the innocent (or well, not guilty since legal doctrine insists that no one is innocent). While I don't see permits as an infringement per se (the whole compelling interest arguement) they certainly won't stop a criminal.

Besides a database administered by a state for their permitees acheives nothing different than NICS or NCIC, doesn't it? In reality, those two are probably more up to date than a state's CHP database.

 

[Ethan83]

Maybe we should come up with a permit system for knives. After all, we don't want violent felons in posession of knives, right? How do I know that guy with the knife clipped to his pocket isn't a criminal?

 

[md_rick_o]

Agreed that they should have no reason to check up on you but when I see someone with a gun I'm damn sure wondering if they are carrying legally.

Sorry but the truth is I don't care if you like me carrying or not. Unless I do something illegal it doesn't matter what you think. Not trying to be ignorant or rude but the plain and simple truth is that this country has gotten too into everyone else's business.

 

[teratos]

It should be an easy enough thing to have an instantly accessible database of people who cannot carry. Anyone who is a felon, has a restraining order against them etc. can go right in there. This is deemed a "fundamental right" by the SCOTUS. No permit should be required. No revenue should be generated. Is there another fundamental right that is taxed? If my wife wants to take my Glock because it goes better with her shoes, I say go for it.

 

[hvymax]

Agreed that they should have no reason to check up on you but when I see someone with a gun I'm damn sure wondering if they are carrying legally.

I'm no lawyer (nor police officer) but I would think that folks will want a way (and the ability) to distinguish a law abiding citizen with a right to carry from a criminal carrying an illegal handgun. It is likely a violation of my civil rights (call the ACLU) to be asked if I have a permit but I would gladly hand it over if it enables law enforcement to catch actual bad guys.

Hopefully someone will come up with the ideal solution that allows law abiding citizens to carry as they have a right to while still enabling law enforcement to catch criminals with illegal guns and illegal gun possession. I certainly don't have the solution. Making it legal/illegal isn't enough. We've said again and again that the only people who abide by the rules are law abiding citizens. We need laws crafted in such a way to make it legal while providing a constitutional avenue of enforcement.

Back when the primary function of the LEO was to keep the peace as long as you were peacable you had no ccncern about LEO's. Now it seems the primary function of LEO's is to find anything possible to charge us all with and confiscate our guns first and let the courts sort it out. Then you can sue for the return of your electropenned property.

 

[Hyper-W]

All of these points are why I stated that I do not have the solution. While I do not believe that every cop out there is trying to find something to arrest us for, I know that some are and it is difficult to tell the difference. It is just as difficult for them to see the difference in us trying to defend our rights and someone with something to hide.


Either way, I feel that I've de-railed this thread from it's true topic which is the lawsuit at hand and not all of the options for how the second should be implemented.

 

[jonnyl]

All of these points are why I stated that I do not have the solution. While I do not believe that every cop out there is trying to find something to arrest us for, I know that some are and it is difficult to tell the difference. It is just as difficult for them to see the difference in us trying to defend our rights and someone with something to hide.


Either way, I feel that I've de-railed this thread from it's true topic which is the lawsuit at hand and not all of the options for how the second should be implemented.

I think we're all just excited to think about having the problems of how to implement a solution rather than being stuck with what we have today!!!

 

[rambling_one]

I actually think this is a bad idea. A patrol officer needs to be able to verify while on-scene that you are elligable to carry. If I purchase a handgun legally and can legally carry it, what is to stop my wife from carrying my handgun?

What about illegally purchased guns? Having a photo ID indicating that you are able to carry may not be what the framers of the consitution had in mind and it is far from perfect but it provides an ounce of proof that the individual is eligible to carry. Weather that indication on photo ID be a separate ID card or an indication on my state issued ID/Drivers License I think is a matter of logistics.

Running each person with a Drivers License or State ID through the background check is going to be a lengthy and expensive process. It could likely only be done upon request. My guess is that the majority of Marylanders would decline the background check and save the money (did you really expect the state to foot the bill??).

While in VT some years ago, I had occasion to discuss this very topic both with local police and the state police. Bottom line...officers aren't doing their job IF they approach a car without consideration of a driver being armed.

Once it's concluded that the driver has no outstanding warrants, etc. they're free to be on their way. If Alaska, Arizona and Vermont can make it work so can other states.

The problem, at least here in Maryland and other anti-carry states, is that the emphasis is on officer safety rather than a citizen's liberty. It's not that hard for law enforcement to determine a person's status. Once found to be illegally armed the rest should be easy.

 

[teratos]

People with judgment poor enough to shoot a police officer are likely armed already......so they can shoot a police officer. I am the last guy on the planet any officer needs to worry about.......I'm sure that goes for any MDS member.

 

[md_rick_o]

All of these points are why I stated that I do not have the solution. While I do not believe that every cop out there is trying to find something to arrest us for, I know that some are and it is difficult to tell the difference. It is just as difficult for them to see the difference in us trying to defend our rights and someone with something to hide.

Agreed, thanks for not taking my post as a personal attack. I could have worded it better.

 

[Hyper-W]

Agreed, thanks for not taking my post as a personal attack. I could have worded it better.

I do my best not to get upset. We're all on this forum because we're passionate about our rights and our hobby. When there is that much passion about something, there is bound to be some disagreements. We all approach situations differently and have different opinions on how things should be handled.

We're all adults here. Most of the time we even act that way!

 

[Oreo]

I was always told that LEO should treat every encounter as if the person is armed & dangerous until proven otherwise. Even here in MD, it would be unwise for an LEO to just assume that any given traffic stop will not be an armed encounter because of strict LTC laws. When you consider that this cautious method is standard procedure already, it seems things shouldn't change much from the LEO perspective when MD goes shall issue. So, I fail to see the problem with officer safety, even from the officer's perspective.