AliasNeo07
Ultimate Member
I wonder if going 88 in a 55 could have carried a sentence of more than a year in jail or could preclude me from this somehow.
Maryland can outright ban concealed carry and still be constitutional. I wouldn't put it past them as they stall for creating legislation and a permit process for open carry.
His reply:
Dear Mr.
In applying Maryland's handgun permit law,the Maryland State Police will continue to be guided by the courts' interpretation of the law. The Attorney General's Office is asking the trial judge for clarification of the judge's order and is asking the trial judge to keep the "good and substantial reason" requirement in place during the appeal process. The trial judge has not yet ruled on whether the "good and substantial reason" requirement will remain in effect. If you have any further questions concerning the handgun permit process,you should contact the Licensing Division of the Maryland State Police.
Mark H. Bowen
Assistant Attorney General
Lololol. Copy & Paste. Did you reply back?
That's not true. The second amendment says, "........... shall not be infringed." Technically, they can't ban any type of carry, and call it constitutional.
Constitutionally it IS endless ... what other possible meaning can there be to "shall not be infringed"?
Constitutionally it IS endless ... what other possible meaning can there be to "shall not be infringed"?
Not going to debate semantics. The courts have held that reasonable regulations are constitutional. That's where the law sits. And the courts have the last word on what the Constitution means. That has been so since the beginning of the republic. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). If the People (as a collective body) don't like it, there are constitutional provisions for amending the Constitution. Checks and Balances. It has worked for more than 200 years.
well, yes and no. they are not infallible. If they ruled tomorrow that it was in the state's best interest to make little mexicans legal slaves, would that make it right? Infringing on a right is just as negligent. The court's oath is to protect and defend the Constitution . . . not the state. When the SCOTUS rules that the BOR's is effectively dead, does that make them the last word??? No is doesn't. Sadly, the Constitution lives in me as these rights are not given to me by the gov't. Your attitude is somewhat statist and that is dangerous.
You're being disingenuous and not reading to the end. Article V is the tripwire.
well, yes and no. they are not infallible. If they ruled tomorrow that it was in the state's best interest to make little mexicans legal slaves, would that make it right? Infringing on a right is just as negligent. The court's oath is to protect and defend the Constitution . . . not the state. When the SCOTUS rules that the BOR's is effectively dead, does that make them the last word??? No is doesn't. Sadly, the Constitution lives in me as these rights are not given to me by the gov't. Your attitude is somewhat statist and that is dangerous.
So is everyone on MDS sending in their applications?
You would probably be denied based on your neighbors opinion. YOU choose the reference. If someone you consider close doesn't trust you, the MSP sure has hell won't.
Of course, when MD really goes "Shall-Issue" this is going to have to go away. The MSP doesn't have the manpower to call 3 references and have a face to face interview with every applicant.
No, of course they are not infallible and the SCT's history is full of examples where the Court has reversed itself. That is historically the power of dissents. But somebody has to have the last word in a given case and that is the job of the courts. You certainly would not want the POTUS or the Legislature having the last word, would you? The rights are those of the People, collectively, but the rights are not so easily self-evident or self defining. Life is not so simple. The People can choose to create a new government too. There are ways to do that through elections or constitutional amendments and presidential appts to the SCT. Our history is rich with such changes. The consent of the governed is built into this law. In the meantime, it is not statist to say that there has to be a last word at some point in a given matter. The other choice is anarchy and good luck with your rights there.
point taken. Of the highlighted part, that is exactly what the NDAA does. And it is scary.
I'd like to hear from any out-of-staters that are applying for the MD CCW.