THE STAY IS LIFTED! effective in 14 days

[Gray Peterson]

That is NOT absolute! There are STILL processes involved prior to permit issuance! Whether or not Maryland enforces these proceseses or not, they still exist and can deny you your fundamental rights subject to a beauracratic discionary process. I can't make it more evident.

Well, i don't think I am wrong, and here's why.
Good and Substantial has been removed, per se.
However, discretionary descision have not. A beauracratic body is still making descisions on whether or not you can be entitled your rights beyond prior felony actions or convictions!. They are making judgement on heresay evidence or other unsubstatiated "evidence". Giulty until proven innocent!.
it's pretty clear on that. Those that think an interview process or reference check or whatever else is going on is fine, they are not seeing the underlying discretionary decision making process that is going on. While MAryland may choose not to deny you on such basis, the fact that the basis exists, itself, is unconstitutional. That's my point.

Applying for a job and giving references is one thing, enjoying your constitutional rights unencumbered is another. So, the governement has to check with my neighbors whether or not I can enjoy my constitutional rights as a citizen?
I don't care to form that as protocol.
Folks that can't see this as "shall not be infringed" need to realize they are being "had".

You really have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

 

[Dogabutila]

You are providing them with the references. Unless you are a shitty person period, you should have people willing to vouch for you. There is no discretionary decisions being made. If you exhibit a propensity to violence then you will be denied. If you beat your wife you will be denied. If you are an alcoholic or druggie you will be denied. That is it. If your references are inferring that you are one of those then you either need to shape up your life or get better friends.

 

[MDresident]

My focus here is on constitutionality.
If they give out permits left and right, right now, it doesn't mean that they wont deny or revoke down the road at their whim!
There is no precendent set that applies to their discretionary process that still "legally" exists.

 

[Gray Peterson]

My focus here is on constitutionality.
If they give out permits left and right, right now, it doesn't mean that they wont deny or revoke down the road at their whim!
There is no precendent set that applies to their discretionary process that still "legally" exists.

I'm going to throw a penalty on the play here. You don't understand anything about 1st amendment prior restraint constitutional principles (which would apply here in this circumstances), do you?

If you're that worried about it, perhaps you should be aware of another case involving carry in California, called Richards v. Prieto, which challenges "good moral character". That also has potential to reach SCOTUS as well.

 

[Titans77]

Brand new here, but I would like know if anybody has any idea if we can also open carry weapons with a CC Permit? I would rather not have to change my wardrobe and holster to conceal a weapon when I could just open carry.

Any information would be appreciated! Thanks.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Brand new here, but I would like know if anybody has any idea if we can also open carry weapons with a CC Permit? I would rather not have to change my wardrobe and holster to conceal a weapon when I could just open carry.

Any information would be appreciated! Thanks.

The license is officially called a Permit to Wear a Handgun. Before 1972, concealed carry required a Permit to Wear a Concealed Handgun. The Maryland Legislature in 1972 decided to fold open carry into the license by extending the concealed carry prohibition to all carry.

I would not recommend open carry at this time. We believe that the Legislature may attempt to ban the practice if it is actually excercised en mass like it did in California, which resulted in AB144 there passing, banning what was called "UOC" or unloaded open carry.

Persons in wheelchairs and other physical ailments may need open carry due to issues with being able to conceal while sitting down. Please do not screw this up for them. If you want to open carry, due so in Virginia or Pennsylvania or West Virginia where it would not result in your fellow Marylanders being screwed over by a very hostile Legislature, thanks.

 

[Titans77]

The license is officially called a Permit to Wear a Handgun. Before 1972, concealed carry required a Permit to Wear a Concealed Handgun. The Maryland Legislature in 1972 decided to fold open carry into the license by extending the concealed carry prohibition to all carry.

I would not recommend open carry at this time. We believe that the Legislature may attempt to ban the practice if it is actually excercised en mass like it did in California, which resulted in AB144 there passing, banning what was called "UOC" or unloaded open carry.

Persons in wheelchairs and other physical ailments may need open carry due to issues with being able to conceal while sitting down. Please do not screw this up for them. If you want to open carry, due so in Virginia or Pennsylvania or West Virginia where it would not result in your fellow Marylanders being screwed over by a very hostile Legislature, thanks.

So, what you are saying is that when this takes effect soon I should conceal carry until the State sees it fit to have people open carry?

What makes open carry so dangerous? If anything, it should be more effective than conceal carry. Or maybe i'm talking out of my ass since I have little to no gun background/knowledge. I'm trying to learn as much as possible to avoid getting myself or others in trouble.

 

[Gray Peterson]

So, what you are saying is that when this takes effect soon I should conceal carry until the State sees it fit to have people open carry?

What makes open carry so dangerous? If anything, it should be more effective than conceal carry. Or maybe i'm talking out of my ass since I have little to no gun background/knowledge. I'm trying to learn as much as possible to avoid getting myself or others in trouble.

There's nothing unlawful about open carry if you have a permit to wear.

The dangerous nature of OC has nothing to do with potential attackers (though there are folks who say otherwise), it's that the exercise of open carry in a teetering anti-gun state like Maryland will cause unintended consequences by Legislative reaction. See California, which experienced a UOC movement for three years which resulted in the practice being prohibited.

 

[Createdeemcee]

Thank You lord, and god bless MD!

 

[Yoboney]

You are providing them with the references. Unless you are a shitty person period, you should have people willing to vouch for you. There is no discretionary decisions being made. If you exhibit a propensity to violence then you will be denied. If you beat your wife you will be denied. If you are an alcoholic or druggie you will be denied. That is it. If your references are inferring that you are one of those then you either need to shape up your life or get better friends.

I don't agree with that about people being "shifty". Lots of people don't go out and become social butterflies. Just because they don't have people to 'vouch" for them does not make them less trustworthy.


In Maryland it is hard to fine like minded folks in liberal areas.

 

[pop-gunner]

So, what you are saying is that when this takes effect soon I should conceal carry until the State sees it fit to have people open carry?

What makes open carry so dangerous? If anything, it should be more effective than conceal carry. Or maybe i'm talking out of my ass since I have little to no gun background/knowledge. I'm trying to learn as much as possible to avoid getting myself or others in trouble.

How about....
Open carry paints a bullseye on you.
Only one slight step better is a "shoot me first vest".
keep it quiet and be safe.

 

[Gray Peterson]

I don't agree with that about people being "shifty". Lots of people don't go out and become social butterflies. Just because they don't have people to 'vouch" for them does not make them less trustworthy.


In Maryland it is hard to fine like minded folks in liberal areas.

Word is the application is being revised to eliminate references (IIRC the posts right).

I already have references ready, though.

 

[fatboyloball]

That is NOT absolute! There are STILL processes involved prior to permit issuance! Whether or not Maryland enforces these proceseses or not, they still exist and can deny you your fundamental rights subject to a beauracratic discionary process. I can't make it more evident.

Well, i don't think I am wrong, and here's why.
Good and Substantial has been removed, per se.
However, discretionary descision have not. A beauracratic body is still making descisions on whether or not you can be entitled your rights beyond prior felony actions or convictions!. They are making judgement on heresay evidence or other unsubstatiated "evidence". Giulty until proven innocent!.
it's pretty clear on that. Those that think an interview process or reference check or whatever else is going on is fine, they are not seeing the underlying discretionary decision making process that is going on. While MAryland may choose not to deny you on such basis, the fact that the basis exists, itself, is unconstitutional. That's my point.

Applying for a job and giving references is one thing, enjoying your constitutional rights unencumbered is another. So, the governement has to check with my neighbors whether or not I can enjoy my constitutional rights as a citizen?
I don't care to form that as protocol.
Folks that can't see this as "shall not be infringed" need to realize they are being "had".

I completely agree with you! For instance, propensity for violence is a very strong accusation without basis. If someone got into a heated argument, did not escalate to physical, but the police were called are you violant? MSP is labeling you this without having you see a mental health professional. This is discretionary denial without basis. If they deny you a permit because of this they can carry it further by saying you can't even posess a gun now.

 

[Dogabutila]

^ What?

If you regularly engage in heated arguments when the police have to be called maybe you should get some self control.

Many people get into arguments. Some people even get into heated arguments. If your arguments are serious enough that the police have to be called then there is something literally wrong. If this happens multiple times I'd say it is the exact indicator of what they don't want to happen with you and a firearm. It's not discretionary if it's based on reality. The reality in which your own references submit to the police that you get into heated arguments in which the police are called.....

 

[CypherPunk]

I'd like to see new voters pass a background investigation before being allowed to vote, and "reporters" have some required training before being allowed to exercise their first amendment rights.

The misuse of both these rights can have very serious consequences.

 

[swinokur]

Anyone remember the Poll Tax? Bad idea all around.

 

[Inigoes]

7 days and a wake-up before MD has to start issuing permits

 

[fatboyloball]

Duplicate

 

[fatboyloball]

^ What?

If you regularly engage in heated arguments when the police have to be called maybe you should get some self control.

Many people get into arguments. Some people even get into heated arguments. If your arguments are serious enough that the police have to be called then there is something literally wrong. If this happens multiple times I'd say it is the exact indicator of what they don't want to happen with you and a firearm. It's not discretionary if it's based on reality. The reality in which your own references submit to the police that you get into heated arguments in which the police are called.....

I didn't say regularly. I said you get into a heated argument, the police are called, didn't escalate to physical violence, do you have a propensity for violence?

 

[2nd=Good+Substantial]

I'd like to see new voters pass a background investigation before being allowed to vote, and "reporters" have some required training before being allowed to exercise their first amendment rights.

The misuse of both these rights can have very serious consequences.

I like these analogies.