I've been following the case and am of the same mind. I don't need the training requirement however how long are the live scan prints good for?
Though this is just the sort of thing that a MDGA with their noses bent about this would change out of spite. They might see a forced "shall issue" condition as a playground for permits (with higher fees - ah, more sweet, sweet tax revenue!) that are only good for one year, always require the same or even more classroom time every year, require liability insurance, or who knows what. The state's general assembly has some history of considering literally spite-based vengeance legislation, and the Bloombots will be going full throttle convincing state legislators that it's Blood In The Streets! time, etc.
Don't get me wrong: I'm hopeful that we get a shall issue state, and am thinking of asking the missus to consider a class soon - a definite gamble that the same training will suffice (you KNOW they're not going to lower the requirement), and that a revised system will still honor that training for long enough for the MSP to deal with the inevitable tidal wave of applications.
The OP is asking a solid, sensible question ... I'm just not optimistic that this is going to be anything like throwing a light switch.
Those are the next lawsuits. Onerous training for a fundamental right? Licensing and high fees for said license, again for a fundamental right? Nope. May not even need to get to the higher courts.I don't see it. after the SC issues a ruling, which presumably would also involve a remand for several other cases including the NJ magazine ban, I don't see them changing the training (for the worse). MD is already sixteen hours, among the longest. The sixteen itself is on thin ice. Most jurisdictions its 4 hours (or less and your hunting license counts) and MD will have a hard time justifying the 16. Right over the border in Northern Virginia, the training requirement is far less than MD. Nor do they require interviews. Now maybe they increase the fees on the theory they need to pay for officers or some shit. that I could see.
Those are the next lawsuits. Onerous training for a fundamental right? Licensing and high fees for said license, again for a fundamental right? Nope. May not even need to get to the higher courts.
The fight will be there, but once carry outside the home is found to be a right, a lot of their tactics become null and void. The more they fight, the more court cases will be found in our favor.
After NYSRPA, it would be foolish for jurisdictions to play chicken with the Supreme Court.
Referring to the case that got mooted and got us nowhere?
I would absolutely expect MD to try that same sort of needle-threading. We'll see!
Well, carry outside the home hadn’t been decided yet!! Be optimistic, my friend!!
Nobody who's ever met me would think I'm the optimist I actually am. But if anything has ever come close to robbing me of that trait, it's been me tearing back the curtain over the last several years and watching Maryland's treatment of the Second Amendment, up close and in all its gruesome, juvenile, sleazy detail.
My optimism prevails, so far! Just bracing for the usual headwinds. But I like how you think.
Referring to the case that got mooted and got us nowhere?
I would absolutely expect MD to try that same sort of needle-threading. We'll see!
Referring to the case that got mooted and got us nowhere?
I would absolutely expect MD to try that same sort of needle-threading. We'll see!
By the experience of other Shall Issue States , permit holders can reach 10% or more of overall population ..
Those are the next lawsuits. ... The more they fight, the more court cases will be found in our favor.
Difference between SD and Maryland, is that Maryland has a timeframe codifid in State Statute, California does not.
If they have to abide by the time frame, hard to see how the interview process stays.
I don't see what the point of the interview process will be anyway. The entire purpose of it is to intimidate the applicant and look for a reason to deny the permit. If things go our way the process will be entirely objective, no need for extra added ********.
That's how it ought to be , and * maybe * so explicitly stated in SCOTUS decision . Leaving a window for " propensity for violence " or " good character " , could still present possibility of investigation beyond just Criminal Background check .