Looks like you do.
NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- 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:
AKbythebay
Ultimate Member
What an absolute piece of human excrement. How about comparing the violent crime rate in good old Maryland to ALL the states that border us an ALL have less. He's just a blatant liar. I know that's nothing new but...
So I should strap one on to go to Safeway?
When DC lost they put in place IMO the most rigorous shall issue permit requirements to make it time consuming, difficult, and expensive, but not impossible.
Apd09
Active Member
Looks like that single desk in the basement used by an officer 3 weeks away from retirement is about to become a corner office.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Frosh and his minions have armed guards. What does he care if one of us is a crime victim?
Dave MP
Retired USA
Really wish he would stop.
- May 29, 2017
- 7,801
What's a great day for us 2A lovers! On a sad note, did you know that we are only catching up with criminals who have been carrying all along? lol. F Y Demorats!
Not if you have a DD214
On sensitive places.
"Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554 U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244– 247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Amicus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible"
Still reading, but sure sounds like the court is saying Courts, polling places and legislative assemblies can have carry banned, and things "like them" it could be. So not "anywhere a legislative body wants to call sensitive"
"Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554 U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244– 247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Amicus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible"
Still reading, but sure sounds like the court is saying Courts, polling places and legislative assemblies can have carry banned, and things "like them" it could be. So not "anywhere a legislative body wants to call sensitive"
Thomas goes into this fairly early on. Sensitive places must be very narrowly tailored. 1 step test.
AliasNeo07
Ultimate Member
I think I liked Alito's concurrence more than the opinion of the court. It's funny, and I encourage you all to read it.
"Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28. Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment —————— 3 If we put together the dissent in this case and JUSTICE BREYER’s Heller dissent, States and local governments would essentially be free to ban the possession of all handguns, and it is unclear whether its approach would impose any significant restrictions on laws regulating long guns. The dissent would extend a very large measure of deference to legislation implicating Second Amendment rights, but it does not claim that such deference is appropriate when any other constitutional right is at issue. Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 9 ALITO, J., concurring codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection. Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so."
Gun's are bad....mmkaay?
"Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28. Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment —————— 3 If we put together the dissent in this case and JUSTICE BREYER’s Heller dissent, States and local governments would essentially be free to ban the possession of all handguns, and it is unclear whether its approach would impose any significant restrictions on laws regulating long guns. The dissent would extend a very large measure of deference to legislation implicating Second Amendment rights, but it does not claim that such deference is appropriate when any other constitutional right is at issue. Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 9 ALITO, J., concurring codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection. Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so."
Gun's are bad....mmkaay?
So the Frosh Press Release says" ... If the norm is that people can carry firearms..." does that mean he's saying that we can?
Since I’m old and can’t remember sh*t, can you apply for a permit and then do the training? I remember there being a proposed law about it but don’t remember if it was passed.
Or do you need the training class prior to application?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or do you need the training class prior to application?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My renewal is on hold. I don't think I'll worry about it now. I'm Carrying!
I think I'm going to apply today. I've got DD214 in hand, as well as an active Military ID Card, (left active duty, had a couple of breaks in service, and am currently serving) and it would be good to finally have a CCW permit.
Curious - what does this do to the fingerprint requirement of the Maryland CCW permit process. Also, they have my prints on file due to my HQL - do they need them again?
They do need your prints again. For renewals, I believe prints aren’t needed.
