Concealed Carry

[MJD438]

I don't recall a training requirement in the 2A. LE training should consist of understanding the Constitution and the BOR

Why is no training required for the well connected now but if MD goes Shall Issue the rest of us are not consideredd competent?

 

[cyberfrance]

I wish there was a 16 hour gun training course that was required to get a cc permit. One where you learned how to operate a gun, store it, clean it properly, aim and shoot it. I wish there was first aid information, resuscitation class, target information, special equipment presented and a full discussion on safes. After completing this course, the permit would be issued. Simple as that. If you weren't committed enough to take the class, you would be denied UNLESS you already had a cc permit from Maryland or another state. If you did, a simple written test, multiple choice, could be administered to be certain that you were aware of the laws in Maryland. Think of it along the lines of a learner's permit followed by a test and finally a license. I think that is reasonable.

 

[Dogabutila]

Thing is, when you get into a situation where you need to draw your situational awareness needs to be there. You're already making sure nobody runs into your line of fire and that you have an okay backstop. You should be able to keep your ears open for commands and prompts too.

Then its just a matter of not turning towards the cop when you are holding a gun.

 

[MJD438]

I wish there was a 16 hour gun training course that was required to get a cc permit. One where you learned how to operate a gun, store it, clean it properly, aim and shoot it. I wish there was first aid information, resuscitation class, target information, special equipment presented and a full discussion on safes. After completing this course, the permit would be issued. Simple as that. If you weren't committed enough to take the class, you would be denied UNLESS you already had a cc permit from Maryland or another state. If you did, a simple written test, multiple choice, could be administered to be certain that you were aware of the laws in Maryland. Think of it along the lines of a learner's permit followed by a test and finally a license. I think that is reasonable.

I see a problem with this analogy - you are equating a privilege (driving) with a right (firearms). Personally, I agree that anyone that wants to carry (OC or CC) on a regular basis should receive appropriate training. However, allowing the government to regulate a right to that extent is not a can of worms we want to continue opening, IMO.

 

[Darkemp]

I wish there was a 16 hour gun training course that was required to get a cc permit. One where you learned how to operate a gun, store it, clean it properly, aim and shoot it. I wish there was first aid information, resuscitation class, target information, special equipment presented and a full discussion on safes. After completing this course, the permit would be issued. Simple as that. If you weren't committed enough to take the class, you would be denied UNLESS you already had a cc permit from Maryland or another state. If you did, a simple written test, multiple choice, could be administered to be certain that you were aware of the laws in Maryland. Think of it along the lines of a learner's permit followed by a test and finally a license. I think that is reasonable.

Driving a car is not a constitutional right, guns are. Personal responsibility is what is needed, if someone fails in that respect then there should be consequences, but by mandating training they are creating a de facto method of back door disqualification and denial.

 

[Forager]

The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, as is the right to travel (interpreted under the 9th and 10th). However, CCW may well be a privilege subject to regulation and permitting under that right, and subject to qualifications, Full Faith & Credit, and interstate compacts, as driving a motor vehicle is. That is yet to be determined.

 

[victorshiflett]

The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, as is the right to travel (interpreted under the 9th and 10th). However, CCW may well be a privilege subject to regulation and permitting under that right, and subject to qualifications, Full Faith & Credit, and interstate compacts, as driving a motor vehicle is. That is yet to be determined.

The state does noy have the right to deny any person who falls within the guidelines to carry a gun period. The word permit means to allow or license. This is why the state needs to recognize the 2nd amendment right to bear arms means open carry or concealed carry without the need for a permit. The state cannot charge me a fee to excersize my rights. You have the right to travel, You can travel by bus, by plane, by boat or walk. You don't have the right to drive. Driving is a privilege that can be taken away which is why state can require training and charge a fee to maintain that privilege.

Woolard v Sheridan is a good start at challenging Maryland to recognize the 2nd amendment as it pertains to all qualified citizens under the constitution. Qualified means not prohibited by law to posess a firearm.

 

[victorshiflett]

I'm interested to see if the House Bill 45 and others like it will be voted on and passed on Feb 21 in Annapolis. If it doesn't pass I want to ask the delegates why I have the right to conceal carry another man's penis between my A$$ cheeks, but not the right to carry concealed or openly a gun. That penis could be just as deadly when it fires.

 

[Ruger556]

Myself and cohorts....for the most part are for CC.

 

[Forager]

The state does noy have the right to deny any person who falls within the guidelines to carry a gun period. The word permit means to allow or license. This is why the state needs to recognize the 2nd amendment right to bear arms means open carry or concealed carry without the need for a permit. The state cannot charge me a fee to excersize my rights. You have the right to travel, You can travel by bus, by plane, by boat or walk. You don't have the right to drive. Driving is a privilege that can be taken away which is why state can require training and charge a fee to maintain that privilege.

Woolard v Sheridan is a good start at challenging Maryland to recognize the 2nd amendment as it pertains to all qualified citizens under the constitution. Qualified means not prohibited by law to posess a firearm.

All debatable points as to whether CCW is a permitted and permissible privilege within the RTKBA, or whether it is a part-and-parcel of the RTKBA.

 

[victorshiflett]

All debatable points as to whether CCW is a permitted and permissible privilege within the RTKBA, or whether it is a part-and-parcel of the RTKBA.

The constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms. It has been decided by the supreme court that bear arms means you may carry a gun inside or outside the confines of the home. This is a right, not a permissable or permitted privilege. The state of maryland permitts those who it deems permissable to carry a concealed weapon by issuing a permit. The state of maryland is violating the 14th amendment by chosing who has the right to protect themselves. They are also violating the 2nd amendment by denying others who want to carry a gun whether open or concealed. I wouldn't want to be the one who thinks there is a debate on behalf of Maryland as to why the constitution doesn't apply.

 

[Forager]

The constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms. It has been decided by the supreme court that bear arms means you may carry a gun inside or outside the confines of the home.

Incorrect. The cases to date have only dealt with the RTKBA at home. There has not yet been a case that expanded the protection outside the home.

This is a right, not a permissable or permitted privilege.

The RTKBA is a right. Yes. As is the right to marry, or the right to travel. Yet, there are marriage "licenses" (permits) and driver's licenses (permits) for the recognition of marriage under the protection and advantages of the state and federal laws, and the operation of a motor vehicle on highways. The RTKBA offers avenues to keep and bear arms other than CCW; open carry of long-arms in sporting pursuits, the use of weapons in competition and hobby, the keeping of arms in the home for defense. CCW may well be defined as an activity under the right that can and will be regulated by permit. That is yet to be argued and decided.

The state of maryland permitts those who it deems permissable to carry a concealed weapon by issuing a permit. The state of maryland is violating the 14th amendment by chosing who has the right to protect themselves. They are also violating the 2nd amendment by denying others who want to carry a gun whether open or concealed. I wouldn't want to be the one who thinks there is a debate on behalf of Maryland as to why the constitution doesn't apply.

Maryland's restrictions may very well be judged unconstitutional on the 'may issue' restrictions, on who and how they allow permits, or on the entire system as it stands. Again, those are yet to be decided and argued. You're jumping to conclusions without the support of legal precedent. Now, whether I agree or disagree with your position is irrelevant; it's not legally accurate at this point.

 

[e40bib]

What a person or cop would do depends on their experience and training. I need to be vague regarding what I do and tactics so it's tough to explain.

Cop training is now a secret?

 

[Name Taken]

Cop training is now a secret?

Why yes some of it and needs to be.

There is also a level of liability for the department and the officer if they come on a website spouting off what they'd do in X situation.

 

[Forager]

Y'all quit making sense.

 

[MDFF2008]

I wish there was a 16 hour gun training course that was required to get a cc permit. One where you learned how to operate a gun, store it, clean it properly, aim and shoot it. I wish there was first aid information, resuscitation class, target information, special equipment presented and a full discussion on safes. After completing this course, the permit would be issued. Simple as that. If you weren't committed enough to take the class, you would be denied UNLESS you already had a cc permit from Maryland or another state. If you did, a simple written test, multiple choice, could be administered to be certain that you were aware of the laws in Maryland. Think of it along the lines of a learner's permit followed by a test and finally a license. I think that is reasonable.

You'll find that training is one of the most hot button issues here.

I think the key with training is to make sure if it's required, it's not used to discriminate. Training will be a way anti-gun politicians skirt court rulings and try to maintain public approval.

Chicago and DC have created training requirements that discriminate against residents. Requiring training, yet making sure there are no places to train in the city is discrimination. It's so incredibly racist that they intentionally make sure the only places that can train are only accessible by car or taxi. Of course no one calls them out on this. High prices for training are discrimination, and might constitute a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

Now if training was offered for free (with an exception if you need to rent a gun and ammo) and was easily available, I wouldn't really object to a training requirement.

I might even tolerate copying how PA does motorcycle licensing. The class, including the bike is free; but it costs an extra 5 dollars to renew your license each time you have to.

The root of the issue is that it is a constitutional right, unlike driving, but everyone here believes that you should carry responsibly and to most here, training would be something you do instinctively.

 

[victorshiflett]

Incorrect. The cases to date have only dealt with the RTKBA at home. There has not yet been a case that expanded the protection outside the home.



The RTKBA is a right. Yes. As is the right to marry, or the right to travel. Yet, there are marriage "licenses" (permits) and driver's licenses (permits) for the recognition of marriage under the protection and advantages of the state and federal laws, and the operation of a motor vehicle on highways. The RTKBA offers avenues to keep and bear arms other than CCW; open carry of long-arms in sporting pursuits, the use of weapons in competition and hobby, the keeping of arms in the home for defense. CCW may well be defined as an activity under the right that can and will be regulated by permit. That is yet to be argued and decided.

Maryland's restrictions may very well be judged unconstitutional on the 'may issue' restrictions, on who and how they allow permits, or on the entire system as it stands. Again, those are yet to be decided and argued. You're jumping to conclusions without the support of legal precedent. Now, whether I agree or disagree with your position is irrelevant; it's not legally accurate at this point.

Go to saf.org and look up the legal action section. From there go to the case of Woolard v Sheriden. In this case multiple briefs were filed in an one brief it is noted that the supreme court defined what bear arms means. There are a few cases where the fourth circuit court refused to define the term. I read the entire 77 page transcript of Woolard and all the motions and briefs. As for use of long arms for self defense saf.org addresses this issue in Woolard and it was said and sited that long arms are not an appropriate end all for self defense. Read the case it will open your eyes. Or don't read it and let the states infringe on all your rights.

 

[Forager]

I'm more than familiar with SAF and with the Wollard case, thank you, as well as quite a few of the other cases. You're asserting things at issue in multiple cases as settled law, when in fact they are not.

As for the "open my eyes", well, let's just presume that I have more than a clue.

The arguments made by SAF and in Woolard deal with what you assert is already a given. It's not. It's at issue and being argued.

As for letting the state infringe on all my rights, again, I've got more than a clue. You're welcome to learn, or to assume yourself right and continue to be rather off-base.

As yet, I've not made any remark that could be construed as insulting or as an attack. I've stated what is proven law and fact, stated what the issues are in many cases and what has already been settled as well as what is still at issue.

Now, if you'd like to take this to a personal level, well, that says more about you than me. I'll continue to stand on what is proven and what is yet to be settled. YMMV, but I'd suggest that fact trumps feeling every day.

 

[PJDiesel]

I'm interested to see if the House Bill 45 and others like it will be voted on and passed on Feb 21 in Annapolis. If it doesn't pass I want to ask the delegates why I have the right to conceal carry another man's penis between my A$$ cheeks, but not the right to carry concealed or openly a gun. That penis could be just as deadly when it fires.

WTF??? Lol, I've heard some shit in my day, that ranks right up there!

 

[victorshiflett]

I'm more than familiar with SAF and with the Wollard case, thank you, as well as quite a few of the other cases. You're asserting things at issue in multiple cases as settled law, when in fact they are not.

As for the "open my eyes", well, let's just presume that I have more than a clue.

The arguments made by SAF and in Woolard deal with what you assert is already a given. It's not. It's at issue and being argued.

As for letting the state infringe on all my rights, again, I've got more than a clue. You're welcome to learn, or to assume yourself right and continue to be rather off-base.

As yet, I've not made any remark that could be construed as insulting or as an attack. I've stated what is proven law and fact, stated what the issues are in many cases and what has already been settled as well as what is still at issue.

Now, if you'd like to take this to a personal level, well, that says more about you than me. I'll continue to stand on what is proven and what is yet to be settled. YMMV, but I'd suggest that fact trumps feeling every day.

Not personal, but a good discussion. I was wrong about the Supreme Court it was the Fourth Circuit Court in United States v Chester. The Supreme Court is still stuck on the definition limiting to home.