Yes, I hate the HQL, but do it to support MD Gun dealers

[Brooklyn]

What are these acronyms in this context: SS and IS?

Strict Scrutiny

Intermediate Scrutiny

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

You will never win the argument that the HQL is licensing a right to bear arms--you can still buy shotguns and rifles.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong.

Thats not how SS works. and its not how IS works.. We don't need to to make the case against it. They need to make the case for the restriction.

We have to stop losing before we even get to the fight.

Strict Scrutiny

Intermediate Scrutiny

Mighta fit in better with a "court watcher" thread

WE only lose when WE lose support, not for diverse thinking.

Its not wrong... Look back at Gansler's argument for G&S and "shall issue". It worked. Nearly same argument. May not pass muster in your book, but apparently the "flawed" court bought it.

 

[Brooklyn]

Mighta fit in better with a "court watcher" thread

WE only lose when WE lose support, not for diverse thinking.

Its not wrong... Look back at Gansler's argument for G&S and "shall issue". It worked. Nearly same argument. May not pass muster in your book, but apparently the "flawed" court bought it.

The court applied rational basis and called it IS. Can't fix the court unless we are wiling to call a spade a spade. The court is wrong too. We get to say that.

 

[Chris]

Well my HQL showed up in the mail today-now it's off to the gun store to buy that Sig P-227 I had on my wish. Chris

 

[Biggfoot44]

Thanks to Oct 1 , I have supported Md dealers more than would have otherwise been in total , simply compressed into a 6 month period.

If I do ever recover to again purchasing while still in Md , then my tastes can adapt to mid '60s S&W , and 3Screw Blackhawks.

 

[ewarfare]

I will still buy rifles and shotguns...that's how I'll continue to support my local dealer. Make the HQL a license for concealed carry and I'm in.

 

[sonicnofadz]

I will still buy rifles and shotguns...that's how I'll continue to support my local dealer. Make the HQL a license for concealed carry and I'm in.

+1 I'm just too busy buying long guns (that are still legal) to worry about buying another hand gun. Long guns are more likely to be banned (as we already know) than a pistol, however I do have my eyes set on a glock 21 and walther ppq in the not too distant future so I will eventually get around to it.

 

[RedWolf762]

I still have a list of long guns that I'm going to purchase in the near future to help support dealers but I'll join the ranks of those who tell Maryland politicians where they can stick their HQL.

 

[FMD]

I will still buy rifles and shotguns...that's how I'll continue to support my local dealer. Make the HQL a license for concealed carry and I'm in.

+1

 

[Dave.B]

I'll support the dealers in Maryland that acknowledge my C&R license to make long gun purchases. Those that don't can suck it.

 

[asdaven]

But at least with handguns, anyones who not a felon, underaged, mentally ill can still buy a handgun after they get a HQL, just harder and more money to do so. The Assault Weapons Ban is what I feel is truly the most unconstitutional part of this bill and the BIG thing that's going to hurt dealers. And its a ban not just tighter regulations on who and how hard it is to buy firearms. Makes it impossible to aquire any of those weapons legally even out of state where it might be legal to do so.

I think more people would be for a HQL if it would replace the need for the paperwork and the waiting period everytime you buy a handgun. If the person becomes disqualified from buying a firearm for any reason, then the State would void the license just like your Drivers License and then the person wouldn't be able to buy. This would streamline the whole process. And would be an legitimate arguing point for a HQL. And maybe a cheaper 1 day course to show you can shoot and handle a handgun safely instead of the expensive 7 day class you have to do now. Licensing plus a regulated background check/waiting period and registration is just more work than it has to be to accomplish the samething.

It could even be optional. Require a 1 day handgun safety certification class, something more than the stupid website course they had up. Then give the option of either registering for the license or not get the license and register/do regulated paperwork for every handgun you buy. An HQL would bypass the regulated paperwork, no waiting periods or limits, just a simple background check/standard ATF paperwork for each purchase, as the HQL would not be an FFL.

 

[fishertodd]

It occurred to me that without the HQL, I can continue to own handguns forever in Maryland under current law without doing anything more. However, if I were to obtain the HQL, every five years I would be required to renew the license in perpetuity. By purchasing just one more handgun with an HQL, I would be subjecting my entire collection to this requirement.

 

[Mooseman]

It occurred to me that without the HQL, I can continue to own handguns forever in Maryland under current law without doing anything more. However, if I were to obtain the HQL, every five years I would be required to renew the license in perpetuity. By purchasing just one more handgun with an HQL, I would be subjecting my entire collection to this requirement.

No. First, the HQL is good for ten years. Secondly, the HQL is only needed to purchase. You can own them without the HQL, even if you bought them with HQL.

 

[fishertodd]

No. First, the HQL is good for ten years. Secondly, the HQL is only needed to purchase. You can own them without the HQL, even if you bought them with HQL.

Thanks Mooseman for setting me straight.

 

[Mooseman]

Thanks Mooseman for setting me straight.

No problem. That is what we are here for.

 

[Alphabrew]

I concur with the OP, although my long term plan is to get the eff out of Marylandistan. Gonna ride the gravy train at is my job and see my nephews get a little older before I completely blow this hellhole.

 

[ninjaroll]

I think our biggest problem is the division between us as to how much infringment we chose to accept. On one hand we have people who say that by birthright under god we have an inalienable right to bear arms which can not be infringed. The right is absolute and without restriction. Then we have those that say that as long as you are qualified, IE, not a felon or drunkard, or other current restrictions, you have the right to keep and bear arms. This same group is yelling at the world that an HQL infringes on the 2A and this is not to be tolerated. This same group agrees with the other restrictions such as felonies and any other disqualifyer.

It is my belief that the 2A has no such restrictions and should be taken to mean what it says. The only problem with my belief is that my opinion doesn't matter, the Supreme Court's opinion is what we go by. The SC has said that states can place reasonable restrictions on rights, regardless of what the constitution says. Basically, the state erred when it labeled the HQL a " License ". They could/ should have called it a credential. No matter which camp you believe in the state has latitude to make this credential as long as it is in the name of " Public Safety ". This is according to the SC and is why SB281 was listed as Public Safety.

The AWB is debatable in that the SC has said that you can't ban a firearm which is in common use. There are more. " assault " firearms that meet this definition then there are not. We have a fighting chance on this one .

In closing, I think we need to close the divide in our 2A right beliefs and decide which camp is closer to the intent of the Constitution. As for me, I am in the first camp but believe if you commit a felony using a firearm you get a mandatory 5 year sentence tacked onto you other crimes. Maybe after that you will stop being a felon. Remember, a felon is still a living, breathing human being.

 

[Brooklyn]

I think our biggest problem is the division between us as to how much infringment we chose to accept. On one hand we have people who say that by birthright under god we have an inalienable right to bear arms which can not be infringed. The right is absolute and without restriction. Then we have those that say that as long as you are qualified, IE, not a felon or drunkard, or other current restrictions, you have the right to keep and bear arms. This same group is yelling at the world that an HQL infringes on the 2A and this is not to be tolerated. This same group agrees with the other restrictions such as felonies and any other disqualifyer.

It is my belief that the 2A has no such restrictions and should be taken to mean what it says. The only problem with my belief is that my opinion doesn't matter, the Supreme Court's opinion is what we go by. The SC has said that states can place reasonable restrictions on rights, regardless of what the constitution says. Basically, the state erred when it labeled the HQL a " License ". They could/ should have called it a credential. No matter which camp you believe in the state has latitude to make this credential as long as it is in the name of " Public Safety ". This is according to the SC and is why SB281 was listed as Public Safety.

The AWB is debatable in that the SC has said that you can't ban a firearm which is in common use. There are more. " assault " firearms that meet this definition then there are not. We have a fighting chance on this one .

In closing, I think we need to close the divide in our 2A right beliefs and decide which camp is closer to the intent of the Constitution. As for me, I am in the first camp but believe if you commit a felony using a firearm you get a mandatory 5 year sentence tacked onto you other crimes. Maybe after that you will stop being a felon. Remember, a felon is still a living, breathing human being.

Do not confuse a discussion of about methods and tactics with one of philosophical brief.

I imagine not one person here is actually willing to accept the, HQL , the ban or the notion that person can be denied a fundamental right without substantive due process And I bet not one here thinks it will have any effect on crime.


The debate is entirely about how to do the least damage to the gun culture given the facts on the ground..

 

[ninjaroll]

Do not confuse a discussion of about methods and tactics with one of philosophical brief.

I imagine not one person here is actually willing to accept the, HQL , the ban or the notion that person can be denied a fundamental right without substantive due process And I bet not one here thinks it will have any effect on crime.


The debate is entirely about how to do the least damage to the gun culture given the facts on the ground..

I've read through and I've seen a few different views, but the views that stand out the most are these. One view is the right is absolute, no infringements whatsoever. The constitution does not say shall not be infringed unles....

The second group says as long as you remain a non prohibited citizen then the right shall not be infringed. The discussion then continues with no, I will not contribute to any infringment whatsoever. The retort is but we can't let Maryland infringe on our right or stop me from buying. In addition, we must support our local dealers. What I am saying is as long as there are people who accept " reasonable " restrictions then the fight is divided and ineffective.

I am a firearm owner and as clean a citizen as there ever was, but ask yourself this question. Does a convicted felon lose 1A,3A,4A,5A to name a few. Does a convicted felon lose 14thA rights? Let's close the gap on what restrictions are accepted on the constitution as a whole.

 

[Brooklyn]

I've read through and I've seen a few different views, but the views that stand out the most are these. One view is the right is absolute, no infringements whatsoever. The constitution does not say shall not be infringed unles....

The second group says as long as you remain a non prohibited citizen then the right shall not be infringed. The discussion then continues with no, I will not contribute to any infringment whatsoever. The retort is but we can't let Maryland infringe on our right or stop me from buying. In addition, we must support our local dealers. What I am saying is as long as there are people who accept " reasonable " restrictions then the fight is divided and ineffective.

I am a firearm owner and as clean a citizen as there ever was, but ask yourself this question. Does a convicted felon lose 1A,3A,4A,5A to name a few. Does a convicted felon lose 14thA rights? Let's close the gap on what restrictions are accepted on the constitution as a whole.

Properly understood -- the language of rights makes the question self contradictory.

A right does not come from government and thus can not be taken by government -- period. This is by definition. Furthermore there is no such thing as constitutional rights-- the Bill of rights properly read especially against the concept of limited government and the concept of reserved rights ( for the people _ and reserved powers ( for the states ) is just a restatement in inverse form of a limitation on government.

No government can take rights only infringe them. That is not a view it is tautology. Now the question could read " what amount of infringement will the court bless and what will we do about it ?

This breaks down to this -- do you believe in limited government and thus the constitution as envisioned or not.

Liberals are not conflicted ---they do not believe in the the constitution as written and they do not believe in limited government. Conservatives are conflicted -- they believe when the results do not scare them to much --- they are scared of felons with guns for example whereas Liberals tend to be sacred of anyone with guns..


There can not be any compromise on this --- if you let government restrict one right they can restrict them all -- any they will. Make no mistake--- liberals consider this a feature not a bug.

We will hash this out again at the next, and likely final, Constitutional Convention.. The claim that rights are collective and that the majority is always right is in fact the definition of an unamerician idea.


Should that new america ever arise I will not owe it any allegiance whatsoever. I am a constitutionalist I can do nothing else.