Suing Maryland for CCW?

[Yoboney]

I don't think there has been a direct lawsuit for a concealed carry permit. There have been appeals through the courts which have not been heard by a jury so it is still an unknown as to what would happen. But if you look at Heller and the Maryland Constitution then the question should be when you will get your permit. State courts only chagre 90.00 for a lawsuit. fed Courts have gotten ridiculous.

 

[Trapper]

Storm I agree with your frustration, however I read this a little different. (I know I'm opening a can here) I though the constitution was to direct the fed's role in these laws not the states. Right now the federal gov does not prevent you from carrying a firearm except for some very specific conditions. What does restrict you rights is our state law and administration. Our beef should be with our local and state oficials who are trampleing our "self evident" rights.

andy

Andy,
Based on this part of the tenth amendment : "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." I could see the second as prohibiting the states powers to regulate arms.

 

[Ben]

The Supreme Court has been selectively incorporating the protections of Bill of Rights, applying them to the states using the 14th Amendment "due process clause." This is not likely to get Heller applied to the Peoples Republic of MD; however, the 14th also says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... "

I don't think this is an "incorporation" issue, instead it's a matter of our rights, privileges and immunities, as U.S. citizens. In either event the clock is ticking on MD's prohibition on legitimate personal self defense.

 

[prpete]

I applied and finally got mine only because it was for a security job.But they (state police) questioned why I wrote half and half when they reuired my race to be circled, as I am both white, and hispanic.Then later the application asks if I am hispanic, "yes" or "no".The apl. warns that I could be finded, and/or put in jail.I had to explain my odd answer to the police in the preliminary hearing this, even when there was already a section asking me to indicate my race, it (appl.) goes on to circle "yes" or "no", as to whether I'm hispanic, or not.Then later in the application, it allows such people as lawyers and pharmacists to to easily acqiure MD's handgun permit.These are clearly unconstitutional in themselves.There is no yes, or no question if you are slavic, or African, right???In the bill of rights there is what's called equal protection, and application of the law...so why does the red carpet goes out to certain proffesionals when it comes to Maryland's handgun permit.Not to mention the Second amendment's violation Maryland law insures.

 

[andyman]

Trapper and Ben I agree and see your point somewhat. My point is that the whole system is upside down. The bill of rights was to limit Fed's interference in things that were not it's business. This right being one of those. I agree that our state law restricts a right that our founding fathers thought was natural and inalienable, but I don't think the federal constitution fixes that. ie. there is no federal law that prevents me from owning or using the firearms that I own. I can buy guns, transport them in my car, fire them at the range, hunt, protect my family, buy ammo, etc according to federal law. It is the arbitrary laws and enforcement of our state gov that prevents us from exercising these rights. The question is whether that is the Fed's responsibility to fix. Mind you I am just a regular joe who is passionate about my rights. I am not some well studied constitutional scholar so take all of this with a grain of salt.

andy

 

[prpete]

I applied and finally got mine only because it was for a security job.But they (state police) questioned why I wrote half and half when they reuired my race to be circled, as I am both white, and hispanic.Then later the application asks if I am hispanic, "yes" or "no".The apl. warns that I could be finded, and/or put in jail.I had to explain my odd answer to the police in the preliminary hearing this, even when there was already a section asking me to indicate my race, it (appl.) goes on to instruct the applicant to circle "yes" or "no", as to whether I'm hispanic, or not.Then later in the application, it allows such people as lawyers and pharmacists to to easily acqiure MD's handgun permit.These are clearly unconstitutional in themselves.There is no yes, or no question if you are slavic, or African, right???In the bill of rights there is what's called equal protection, and application of the law...so why does the red carpet goes out to certain proffesionals when it comes to Maryland's handgun permit.Not to mention the Second amendment's violation Maryland law insures.

 

[prpete]

What I mean is maybe we can sue MD's permit law on not just on the second amendment's violation, but on the the other laws it's probably in violation.Such as racial descrimination, ei., why does it single out hispanics with "yes" or "no" indicators, while in another section the application already asks for your race.Why is n't there equal application, and protection of the law, ei. the applications looser guidelines for certain professions, like lawyer and pharmacists, business owners who have to carry cash in and out of banks (as if no one else in Maryland does that, lol) qualifiy them to get permits, but others in society do not.We need to really read the wording on the application, it's really effed-up.We need to wittle MD's carry laws away, EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.Not just on second amendment grounds, because, I'm no lawyer either, but this application looks riddled with constitutional violations.

 

[Trapper]

The bill of rights was to limit Fed's interference in things that were not it's business.

Andy,
This is the part we will have to disagree on, I see the BoR as a guarantee of personal freedoms. Especially those that exist even without government. Those "creator given rights" or "inalienable rights" and such. So, using my understanding of these, the 10th guarantees that no-one, not the fed or state has the power to infringe these rights.

 

[andyman]

Andy,
This is the part we will have to disagree on, I see the BoR as a guarantee of personal freedoms. Especially those that exist even without government. Those "creator given rights" or "inalienable rights" and such. So, using my understanding of these, the 10th guarantees that no-one, not the fed or state has the power to infringe these rights.

I see your point, I'm just not sure the fed was ever supposed to have that kind of authority. I agree these rights are inalienable, I'm just not sure the BoR was intended to make the fed the keeper of our rights or just to insure that it kept it's laws off of our rights.

andy

 

[teratos]

I see your point, I'm just not sure the fed was ever supposed to have that kind of authority. I agree these rights are inalienable, I'm just not sure the BoR was intended to make the fed the keeper of our rights or just to insure that it kept it's laws off of our rights.

andy

The Bill of Rights was established to set forth those RIGHTS which neither the feds, nor the States could/would infringe upon. The 10th Amendment clearly says that States cannot pass any laws which go against what is spelled out in the BofR. Clearly (in my mind) the MD CCW laws do just that. I think that is excellent grounds for a challenge of this laws since they violate the 2A and the 10A. If no such case has ever been specifically tried, it should be. If a case has been tried on these grounds and was not taken to SCOTUS, then it should be tried again ASAP before BO gets to stack the SCOTUS with a bunch of legal illiterates who can't see that the 2A does not guarantee the Right to Bear Arms to the standing army.

 

[andyman]

The Bill of Rights was established to set forth those RIGHTS which neither the feds, nor the States could/would infringe upon. The 10th Amendment clearly says that States cannot pass any laws which go against what is spelled out in the BofR. Clearly (in my mind) the MD CCW laws do just that. I think that is excellent grounds for a challenge of this laws since they violate the 2A and the 10A. If no such case has ever been specifically tried, it should be. If a case has been tried on these grounds and was not taken to SCOTUS, then it should be tried again ASAP before BO gets to stack the SCOTUS with a bunch of legal illiterates who can't see that the 2A does not guarantee the Right to Bear Arms to the standing army.

Agreed however my question is whether the fed was ever supposed to have that much power over the states, or whether the BoR was just supposed to limit federal action.

andy

 

[teratos]

Agreed however my question is whether the fed was ever supposed to have that much power over the states, or whether the BoR was just supposed to limit federal action.

andy

The BofR listed areas which neither the States nor the Feds were supposed to infringe upon. the 10A says just this.


So far many of the 2A cases have focuesd on "keep" but not "bear". It was touched upon in Majority decision in Heller, but that is not what the case was about.

 

[Llyrin]

What I mean is maybe we can sue MD's permit law on not just on the second amendment's violation, but on the the other laws it's probably in violation.Such as racial descrimination, ei., why does it single out hispanics with "yes" or "no" indicators, while in another section the application already asks for your race.Why is n't there equal application, and protection of the law, ei. the applications looser guidelines for certain professions, like lawyer and pharmacists, business owners who have to carry cash in and out of banks (as if no one else in Maryland does that, lol) qualifiy them to get permits, but others in society do not.We need to really read the wording on the application, it's really effed-up.We need to wittle MD's carry laws away, EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.Not just on second amendment grounds, because, I'm no lawyer either, but this application looks riddled with constitutional violations.

Pushing back on racial issues will just get the form changed. It won't get the laws changed.

 

[andyman]

The BofR listed areas which neither the States nor the Feds were supposed to infringe upon. the 10A says just this.


So far many of the 2A cases have focused on "keep" but not "bear". It was touched upon in Majority decision in Heller, but that is not what the case was about.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States, The powers prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the people.

OK so if you reorganize the 10A it seems to make more sense the way you mean. So now all I need is to understand where the authority comes from for the 2A to apply to the states and not just the fed. Any takers??

andy

 

[X-Factor]

Comes from the Fed IMO. It is crystal clear to me. The Fed puts it in writing, and says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".... I think referring both to Feds and States.

 

[andyman]

Comes from the Fed IMO. It is crystal clear to me. The Fed puts it in writing, and says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".... I think referring both to Feds and States.

OK but my impression was that the authority of the fed was passed to it by the states. The states being the creators of the contract that created the fed, so I guess I don't see specific wording giving that job to the fed, just that the organization we are creating with this document should not infringe

andy

 

[Llyrin]

That's the whole argument for (and against) incorporation in a nutshell. What DID the framers do? Did they create a document that only spells out the limited powers of FEDERAL government, or all government?

My gut has always told me it applies to all government. With resepct to the 2A, I don't see how anyone can argue this:

"the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

If it only applied to the Feds, why didn't they say "the right of the STATES" shall not be infringed? There is a clear separation between what constitutes "people" and what constitutes "states." When they said people, they meant individuals.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

That's the whole argument for (and against) incorporation in a nutshell. What DID the framers do? Did they create a document that only spells out the limited powers of FEDERAL government, or all government?

My gut has always told me it applies to all government. With resepct to the 2A, I don't see how anyone can argue this:

"the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

If it only applied to the Feds, why didn't they say "the right of the STATES" shall not be infringed? There is a clear separation between what constitutes "people" and what constitutes "states." When they said people, they meant individuals.

Well, we have the 14th Amendment too, and that's pretty clear, even though jurisprudence doesn't go along with that thought on the 2nd Amendment right now (Slaughterhouse case, correct?).

Point being, there was vague meaning of the 10th Amendment post Civil War and Civil Rights, ect, so someone genius in Congress actually used the Constitutional amendment process in the correct way to correct that problem and the courts still judicially activated and dropped the ball.

Man is only as good as his mind, and when his mind stops working, then he is subject to the whims of those who seek power to control him.

 

[zombiehunter]

Talk about value for your money. Who wants to be the next newest member of the organization that is the best defender of your gun rights in this state? It's only $10! We're talking less than two packs of cigarettes, about three beers at the bar, or a few cups of overpriced coffee. Let's get 'er done.

shoot...what bar are you drinking at?

 

[one-star]

That's the whole argument for (and against) incorporation in a nutshell. What DID the framers do? Did they create a document that only spells out the limited powers of FEDERAL government, or all government?

My gut has always told me it applies to all government. With resepct to the 2A, I don't see how anyone can argue this:

"the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

If it only applied to the Feds, why didn't they say "the right of the STATES" shall not be infringed? There is a clear separation between what constitutes "people" and what constitutes "states." When they said people, they meant individuals.

Basically Andyman the logic is laid out un Barron v. Baltimore 23 U.S. 243--that the Constitution is a contract if you will between all the citizens of the US and the Federal authorities and covers their respective rights and responsiblities. The State constitutions are a contract between the citizens of that state and their government, and the intent of the Framers was to not impinge on local control/laws. So while the Feds cant interfere with your gun rights a State constituion can hold differently. This problem became very apparent in the 1860's and 70's when the Southern state post-reconstruction constituions started essentially re-imposing slavery and the North got very annoyed about it....giving us the 14th amendment that creates the gateway to incorporation.

Now incorporation is a double edged sword yes, it gives us federal rights, but it also opens the door to, for instance, forcing us all to comply with what California thinks is acceptable restrictions.

This is also what I am concerned with the Thune amendment doing---if you let the Feds pre-empt state law on CCW, you start giving them the right to determine who gets a CCW....