HQL Follies... good chuckle for a Saturday evening.

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!
  • daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    Correct...

    But let's assume that a worst-case scenario occurs, and someone gets hold of an HQL that the picture looks "just enough" like them, and can fudge "just enough" information.

    Like I said... it might not be likely, but it could be possible.

    It doesn't even need to look like them. My AMEX, with my picture on it, was stolen and used at a nearby BB once. Surveillance cameras showed that it was used by a bald black guy. I am neither.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    I didn't think that this was the case? I could be wrong, though.

    What i am saying is that it would serve as a false id to impersonate someone with a clean record and thus by pass an effective background check....

    I was being coy....

    It will make straw purchases very easy if such documents could be obtained... of course it much easier to do the black market....

    ;)

    There are not 2 functional neutrons in the entire democratic party...
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    You mean like the mayor in a Maryland town, where the SWAT team showed up at his door, shot his dogs, and all for the drugs that were mailed to his residence that he was completely clueless about?

    :sad20: This threat, just ensures I will not be applying for anything unconstitutional. OpSec is more important than a number to "overwhelm" them. Sorry.

    Actually until you apply and receive your hql you are at risk of a spoof attack..

    I will not give the scenario here... But I just got a good reason to get mine sooner rather than later....
    We are going to need to get this into court.... there is much more risk than the msp releasing our data....
    In fact the 2 together create a very real problem....
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    Actually until you apply and receive your hql you are at risk of a spoof attack..

    I will not give the scenario here... But I just got a good reason to get mine sooner rather than later....
    We are going to need to get this into court.... there is much more risk than the msp releasing our data....
    In fact the 2 together create a very real problem....
    Clean out your mailbox.
     

    awptickes

    Member
    Jun 26, 2011
    1,516
    N. Of Perryville
    Actually until you apply and receive your hql you are at risk of a spoof attack..

    I will not give the scenario here... But I just got a good reason to get mine sooner rather than later....
    We are going to need to get this into court.... there is much more risk than the msp releasing our data....
    In fact the 2 together create a very real problem....

    Precisely why everyone should sign up for an account.

    If you go further, that's on you, but at least sign up using your SSN.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Precisely why everyone should sign up for an account.

    If you go further, that's on you, but at least sign up using your SSN.

    Unless your fingerprints on on file elsewhere It will not prevent the attack just slow it down...



    Mom has really borked it this time.
    The data from the first breach ( if someone has it ) should be sufficient to make this happen-- but it will not be that easy.. stealing guns is still easier..

    with your prints on file elsewhere it should be possible to prove that its moms fault not yours...



    This attack is not trivial -- but I bet the web is so insecure they could make some interesting tweeks to the database wonder if there are manual checks ...
     

    Viper21773

    Active Member
    Jan 17, 2009
    172
    Hagerstown
    This is not one of those ways.

    We need to think clearly... this helps us not them..

    Can't wait till an hql goes out with the wrong photo.,;)

    Well you don't have to wait any longer.
    I received my HQL today and it not only has the wrong photo, but I know her as well.
    Don't know how they mixed up the photo's, I have a full beard and dark hair!
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    Well you don't have to wait any longer.
    I received my HQL today and it not only has the wrong photo, but I know her as well.
    Don't know how they mixed up the photo's, I have a full beard and dark hair!

    Lol. Now I can admit the real reason I don't want an HQL. Am afraid they'll use my MVA photo. :D

    If I could be certain they would use someone else's I might consider it...

    GET THIS TO MSI

    I could be very useful in court///

    You are MSI for heaven's sakes. Geez.
     

    jaycee2004

    Active Member
    Apr 17, 2009
    572
    Cambridge
    Well you don't have to wait any longer.
    I received my HQL today and it not only has the wrong photo, but I know her as well.
    Don't know how they mixed up the photo's, I have a full beard and dark hair!

    This is too good! I was wondering when this train wreck would occur
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,167
    Well you don't have to wait any longer.
    I received my HQL today and it not only has the wrong photo, but I know her as well.
    Don't know how they mixed up the photo's, I have a full beard and dark hair!

    Mom's way of letting you know you have been scheduled for a sex change operation under Obamacare!
    :lol:
     

    UNcommon Arms

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 16, 2011
    332
    Howard County
    So I begrudgingly applied for my HQL in the event that if (when?) I want to purchase a new handgun, I'll have it at the ready. I got fingerprinted, applied online with MSP, got my active status on 11/11 and began the wait for the card.

    Fast forward to today. I get a call from a fellow in Columbia who received an envelope from MSP addressed to him. Inside the envelope is a letter addressed to me and an enclosed HQL card belonging to a third person who is apparently from Towson! :sad20: The guy from Columbia's last name is close to mine but the name on the HQL card he received is not close at all except for the first letter. I'm guessing whoever was charged at MSP with matching up letters, HQL cards and mailing envelopes is a USPS reject! :lol2: I received nothing in the mail from MSP today.

    How funny (and sad at the same time!) is this?! Luckily, I'm not in the process of purchasing anything but the fellow in Columbia is. We don't know the status of the guy from Towson because we haven't been able to contact him.

    Your Maryland state taxes hard at work for you, providing quality services at all levels! :rolleyes:
    Licensing your rights {2nd Amendment} is unconstitutional.

    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) – Licensing a RIGHT is Unconstitutional
    Murdock V PA - was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.
    Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.
    The petitioners used the distribution of pamphlets and brochures as a form of missionary activity with an evangelical purpose. Not all behavior could be allowed by claiming that it was a religious activity. The only hold that spreading one's religious beliefs or preaching the Gospel through distribution of religious literature and through personal visitations is an age-old type of evangelism with as high a claim to constitutional protection as the more orthodox types. If the activity were done in order to raise money, it would be commercial and could be taxed. However, in this case, although donations were sought, the activity served a religious function. Religions are not entirely free from facing financial burdens from the government. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. If the exercise can be taxed then the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could only be done by the wealthy. The state claimed that this argument was unimportant because the tax was not expensive in practice. It is a license tax-a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The fact that the ordinance was imposed indiscriminately does not save it from being unconstitutional.
    This case also established the preferred position doctrine, which states that "[f]reedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position," indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative.
    Page [319 U.S. 105, 113] reads... The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution. viz., The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people.
    A three-judge federal appeals court panel gave the green light on July 9 to a law permitting New York City to charge hundreds of dollars for a gun licensing fee that costs $3 to $10 elsewhere in the state, the Associated Press and Danbury News Times reported.
    New York
    The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the $340 handgun fee for a three-year license was legal for the same reasons that fees imposed on those seeking to stage a rally or a parade are constitutional.
    “Imposing fees on the exercise of constitutional rights is permissible when the fees are designed to defray (and do not exceed) the administrative costs of regulating the protected activity,” the appeals court said.
    The city had told the court that revenue generated by licensing fees before the fee was increased in 2004 covered just over half of the related administrative expenses. The ruling rejected a lawsuit brought in 2011 by individual and organizational guns rights advocates including the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs had challenged the law permitting New York City and neighboring Nassau County on Long Island to charge more than the $3 to $10 required for a handgun license elsewhere in the state.
    Attorney David Jensen in the case captioned Kwong et al v. Bloomberg et al said the plaintiffs were considering an appeal, which could be for an en banc hearing of the same court or for certiorari from the US Supreme Court.
    “We are disappointed with the court’s decision and are contemplating how to proceed,” he said.
    In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge John M. Walker wrote that the case presented complicated questions in an area of law in which the Supreme Court had provided limited guidance.
    Tags: Bloomberg, David Jensen, fees, Gun Laws, Guns, Judge John M. Walker, Kwong v. Bloomberg, New York, NYC, Pistol, Supreme Court, US Supreme Court
    Residential Handgun Fees Are Constitutional, 2nd Cir Affirms
    By Gabriella Khorasanee on July 17, 2013 2:58 PM
    With all the power the gun lobby holds, it’s a rare instance when a gun law gets challenged and upheld. Last week, in Kwong v. Bloomberg, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals defied the odds and held that two New York laws regulating residential handgun licensing fees were constitutional.
    Here’s why.
    N.Y. Admin. Code § 10-131(a)(2) is Constitutional
    The N.Y. Admin. Code § 10-131(a)(2) imposes a $340 licensing fee to keep a handgun in one's residence and the license is good for three years, after which it would need to be renewed. Plaintiffs argued that § 10-131(a)(2) violated their Second Amendment rights, but the Second Circuit did not agree.
    The Second Circuit relied on First Amendment fee jurisprudence which holds that fees are constitutional when they are "designed to defray (and do not exceed) the administrative costs of regulated the protected activity." Since the fee was explicitly increased "to recover costs" the court of appeals found that it was a constitutionally permissible fee.
    Next, the court determined that § 10-131(a)(2) was not an impermissible burden on the plaintiffs' exercise of their Second Amendment rights. The court discussed, but did not decide what level of scrutiny to apply because the law passed would survive a heightened level of scrutiny anyway. Since New York has "substantial, indeed compelling, government interests in public safety and crime prevention," and the fee was limited to recovering costs, the court found the fee constitutional.
    N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(14) is Constitutional
    The second law challenged by the plaintiffs was N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(14), which permits Nassau County and the City of New York, to set fees outside the $3-$10 range set for the rest of the state of New York. Plaintiffs argued that the disparity in fees violated their 14th Amendment rights under the Equal Protection clause, but the court did not agree.
    The court found that plaintiffs were not part of a protected class because "geographic classification is not suspect", and because the law itself did not burden Second Amendment rights. Deciding that rational review was the correct level of scrutiny, the Second Circuit found that New York had a legitimate interest in making sure "that New York City's licensing scheme is adequately funded, thereby allowing it to function properly."
    In Kwong v. Bloomberg, the main aspect of the laws that enabled them to survive scrutiny was that they were not outright bans on the ability to have handguns in one's residence. Rather, the challenged laws merely set out to regulate and enforce that ability to have a handgun and only charged fees to recover costs.
    Related Resources:
    •Concealed Carry Permits Not Protected By 2nd Amendment (FindLaw's Decided)
    •Dist. of Columbia v. Heller (FindLaw's CaseLaw)
    •2 for 2: 2nd Amendment for Felons; Catch-22 Fire Insurance Question (FindLaw's U.S. Second Circuit Blog)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,945
    Messages
    7,259,794
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom