Nope. Alan Gottlieb is the founder of the SAF.
I stand educated, Did not know that.
Nope. Alan Gottlieb is the founder of the SAF.
Actually if you read the law, MD would be shall-issue if the 'good and substantial reason' part (5ii) were cut:
SAF Moneybomb
In an effort to show our continued appreciation of the SAF's fine work in restoring the rights of Maryland citizens, MSI is going to financially support their efforts. To that end, we will be mailing them what will we hope be a big fat check on Monday August 9. How much will that check be? That depends on you!
As has been our longstanding policy, we only ask you for money during the membership renewal period in September and when we have a specific project that we are financially supporting. We know how annoying it is to be bugged constantly for a handout for ill-defined purposes so we don't engage in that sort of business model.
This is one of the times where we must stand up as a community and demonstrate our commitment to supporting those that are supporting us. In this case, we want to support the SAF.
We will announce the amount of the check at the MSI general meeting on August 8th.
What we need you to do: We know many of you have already joined the SAF or sent an independent donation and salute you for your efforts. We want to send a message that Maryland gun owners can unite behind them with one voice. Thus, any donations that we receive between 7/29/10 when the suit was announced and midnight 8/7/10 will be sent in one sum to the SAF in support of their continued efforts. Any amount makes a difference! Even a $5 or $10 donation is amplified many times when we all speak together.
Donations can be made on the website. http://www.marylandshallissue.org/index.php?categoryid=31
It concerns me that we will lose a battle of statistics. Anyone with just a passing knowledge of Maryland procedure recognizes that it is all but impossible for those not politically connected to get a permit. So, no one other than the connected applies. As pointed out in a previous post, the approval rate has to be very high.
I wouldn't be surprised in the plaintiffs invited some of us to sign affidavits to the effect that we 1) are interested in obtaining permits, 2) have knowledge of the process, and 3) have been dissuaded from applying because of our knowledge of the onerous criteria.
It concerns me that we will lose a battle of statistics. Anyone with just a passing knowledge of Maryland procedure recognizes that it is all but impossible for those not politically connected to get a permit. So, no one other than the connected applies. As pointed out in a previous post, the approval rate has to be very high.
I wouldn't be surprised in the plaintiffs invited some of us to sign affidavits to the effect that we 1) are interested in obtaining permits, 2) have knowledge of the process, and 3) have been dissuaded from applying because of our knowledge of the onerous criteria.
I'd gladly sign that statement.It concerns me that we will lose a battle of statistics. Anyone with just a passing knowledge of Maryland procedure recognizes that it is all but impossible for those not politically connected to get a permit. So, no one other than the connected applies. As pointed out in a previous post, the approval rate has to be very high.
I wouldn't be surprised in the plaintiffs invited some of us to sign affidavits to the effect that we 1) are interested in obtaining permits, 2) have knowledge of the process, and 3) have been dissuaded from applying because of our knowledge of the onerous criteria.
TheZman said:I don't doubt this is true. When I moved here from Virginia, I asked about a permit as I had one in VA. As soon as I saw the rules, I knew it was never going to happen.
It concerns me that we will lose a battle of statistics. Anyone with just a passing knowledge of Maryland procedure recognizes that it is all but impossible for those not politically connected to get a permit. So, no one other than the connected applies. As pointed out in a previous post, the approval rate has to be very high.
I wouldn't be surprised in the plaintiffs invited some of us to sign affidavits to the effect that we 1) are interested in obtaining permits, 2) have knowledge of the process, and 3) have been dissuaded from applying because of our knowledge of the onerous criteria.
*Cough* Donna Stiffler *Cough*
*Cough* Todd Schuler *Cough*
*Cough* Eric Bromwell *Cough*
Thread delete in 5...4...3...2...
I wouldn't say it is based on "connections" as much as it is based on "class".
I wouldn't say it is based on "connections" as much as it is based on "class". I could get a CCW according to the rules (limited though it might be), but only because I happen to be a member of a special class of individuals in the state who occasionally move assets. This just screams indifference to the rest of the populace.
Deleted my post for unintentional discimination of info that might get this thread deleted or locked.
This thread will get deleted too. I swear this stuff is intentional.
Obviously, it seems that you and I are on the same page. I do get carried away in my passion for the truth and non-hypocritical statements. It is a shame that politicians act too often as "non" humans in their running of the legislative process, forgetting to often that their decisions sometimes contradict their constituents' wishes.Seriously, there is a point at which you call them like they are. Friends call BS on each other; good friends say "Yeah, my bad. Won't screw up again."
Of course, if politicians want to support us...they need to support us. If they have reason to look the other way when we need it most, they can explain it. There is nothing disrespectful about posting honest questions and requesting they support us. Their choice. But we need to know their answers, good, bad or indifferent.
One of our most cherished rights is to petition our lawful representative for redress of wrongs. There is nothing disrespectful about respectfully letting them know how we feel. I don't like the perceived double-standard set where people here can call Frosh everything short of a baby killer, but we cannot voice concern when a 2A advocate misses an opportunity to really do the right thing on behalf of constituents from who they ask support, philosophically and financially.
Seriously, there is a point at which you call them like they are. Friends call BS on each other; good friends say "Yeah, my bad. Won't screw up again."
I understand the opinions of the posters don't always represent the opinions of the moderators, MSI, or the owners of this site.
I'm excited about the prospects of the SAF suit so much I joined SAF, ponied up to MSI for their money bomb.
That said, I did break protocol in this thread for straying off topic. I didn't want to get a good thread deleted. That's all I'm going to say on this portion of this matter as I felt it necessary to explain my actions.
On that note - Patrick, you may want to go back and edit the post in which you quoted fightinbluhen51. His original post is still visible in the quotes.