ffemtreed
Ultimate Member
just consider it attacking all angles.
MD HB-45 - Handgun Permits - Qualifications - Presumption and Burden of Proof
- Thread starter ezliving
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
just consider it attacking all angles.
Even a win in court is only half the battle; without public by in, life for those who carry will be hell. If we don't educate the public; they will push for laws that do everything but ban carry. Like how Chicago and DC and NYC try to skirt around not actually banning guns; but making it hell to get them. They would make it hell to carry.
We need to get our message out to everyone. A court/legislative win + Increased public sentiment is what we need.
deesly1
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2011
- 412
I have always been confused about this? Did the SCOTUS rule that the right to bear arms was an individual right? (if not explain the clause to "bear" arms). If the SCOTUS has determined that fact why cant the people of this State sue at the federal level for the violation of such rights. As crazy as it sounds but if a state law is unconstitutional is it not a valid law?!(correct?) So why hasn't there been a good legal challege to what the MSP are doing by subjectively denying the law abiding citizens the full exercise of the 2nd amendment. With out disclosing a clear cut criteria for approval, in essence makes decisions on CCW secretive, bias, and discrimitory. I dont understand how a processes can be discrimitory...in devaluing a constitutional right? I would like some clearification from any lawyer on the forum.
Based on the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, Mr Wollard sued the State of MD in federal court over their system.
He is waiting for a judge to rule. You can check out the "SAF Sues in Maryland" thread for 180+ pages of info.
There is a 7 year wait between moves. you must apply to MSP and provide a G & S reason why you want to leave
ffemtreed
Ultimate Member
Its because the SCOTUS has no BALLS and they only take cases they can find a way to skirt around the question without having to answer it.
EVOIXGSR
Straight Baller Status
Why would it matter if Woollard becomes irrelevant if this is passed and ratified?
Boondock Saint
Ultimate Member
To me; it's the principal. If your for the 2A; introduce good, solid bills. Maybe you don't have to hit the ball out of the park; but introduce good bills.
That is a bad bill; because it does not define what burden is necessarily.
That would be a good bill.
Or just
That would be a good bill too. You still have the objective denials; but not the subjective.
I'd rather not change the subjective system from system A to system b.
Yeah it prob wouldn't pass; but who knows. Maryland could dodge a bullet by passing this bill, approving Wollard, and then start denying again.
mrjam2jab
Active Member
From the outside looking in....
While the changes to the G&S in this bill are awkward to say the least...they should just eliminate it...my reading is that (a)(2),(3),(4) and (5) are the grounds for denial. The applicant has the reason, the MSP must find under one of the above for the applicant to be denied.
I thought that Wollard was about the validity of the Good and Substantial requirement itself, not just whether his situation fit their definition of G&S. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
They could also pass a good bill - a true shall issue bill - then change it at the next legislative session. Or just ignore it. Any of the shall issue states could change their law back to may or no issue at any time. The only thing that will settle the issue will be a SCOTUS ruling on 2A. In the meantime I think that we should keep taking the baby steps when they present themselves and look past the BGOS.
I don't believe that would settle it. I believe MD, CA and MA would go on as if any such ruling did not occur ... challenging DC to enforce it and locking up people wholesale who dared challenge the supremacy of the state
The MD legislature, governors and state police have already proven their disrespect for the Constitution and SC, what would make them change in the future?
This is my only tinfoil hat fear
Mr H
Unincited Co-Conservative
As I understand it...
What was previously G & S for Wollard was, on his renewal, suddenly not "G" or "S" ENOUGH for the board. They capriciously moved the goalpost on him.
It comes back to the way the lawsuit is set up. Wollard; if his permit was approved under this law; would loose standing to file his lawsuit, because he has his permit.
Baby steps is a good way to go; but this bill is nothing more than switching the subjective element from the person to the state.
I thought the gist of this bill was that someone applying for their permit was "assumed" to have a good and substantial reason. It took out the part of having to prove your G&S reason.
So if we get legislative relief we'll get screwed.
If we get judicial relief we'll get screwed.
If we get no relief we are still screwed.
Tell me why am I driving 4 hours to stand on the mall for an hour on Monday again?
2 hours
Seriously though; I think your being a bit legalistic.
This bill is a bad bill; but not all bills are bad. Dan Riley submitted a solid CCW bill; Mike has submitted solid reciprocity bills; you can write a good shall issue bill and push for it.
We just have to demand good bills from our friends and overpower those who oppose us.
