Still requiring references?

[traveller]

If background checks are considered legitimate, I don't think it is unreasonable that a state issuing a license to carry also searches its own records, not just NICS. But to me, that is the rub. A license to carry with a "deep background check" should also be a license to purchase. You show your license, the seller checks with the state that your license is legit and hasn't been revoked, here is your firearm, have a nice day and enjoy!

That's how it works in a number of states. If you have a LTC, there is no NICS check. Handguns are cash&carry and that was really bad. And with 'really bad' I mean bad for my wallet. My LGS knew that and there was always something 'he had just got in....'.

 

[lx1x]

Just thinking out loud..
The fingerscan includes a full background check.. state and fed.

If you pass that.. I agree the reference is overreach.

 

[pbharvey]

Literally what good is a reference supplied by the applicant?
What is the State Police supposed to learn from whatever this person says? If the reference says the applicant is a weirdo what will they do about it? On what grounds can they deny a permit based on a phone interview with a person who is not under oath and may, or may not, be the actual person listed on the application?

 

[teratos]

Literally what good is a reference supplied by the applicant?
What is the State Police supposed to learn from whatever this person says? If the reference says the applicant is a weirdo what will they do about it? On what grounds can they deny a permit based on a phone interview with a person who is not under oath and may, or may not, be the actual person listed on the application?

Today they asked how long I knew my friend, if I knew of histories of violence, substance abuse. Would I trust him with a firearm in public, and in my home. That’s it.

 

[pbharvey]

Today they asked how long I knew my friend, if I knew of histories of violence, substance abuse. Would I trust him with a firearm in public, and in my home. That’s it.

If you would've said no, then what? Your opinion is greater than that of the founding fathers?
Its like a mini-red flag law embedded in the process. The problem I have is that your or my opinion really have no right over the guy. Who am I to say if someone is a threat to society? If I say the guy is destined to be a school shooter what will happen? Suppose three out of three references say the guy is nuts? Will they actually go and try to EP the guy or will they just say, sorry Mr. Applicant, no soup for you? Is there due process and an obligation for the police to investigate to ensure public safety or is it just pointless?
It's as bad as Hunter Biden's handgun application where he is allowed to lie on himself about drug dependency.

 

[camo556]

Today they asked how long I knew my friend, if I knew of histories of violence, substance abuse. Would I trust him with a firearm in public, and in my home. That’s it.

Today?

When did your friend apply?

I am interested in gauging how far behind they are.

 

[teratos]

If you would've said no, then what? Your opinion is greater than that of the founding fathers?
Its like a mini-red flag law embedded in the process. The problem I have is that your or my opinion really have no right over the guy. Who am I to say if someone is a threat to society? If I say the guy is destined to be a school shooter what will happen? Suppose three out of three references say the guy is nuts? Will they actually go and try to EP the guy or will they just say, sorry Mr. Applicant, no soup for you? Is there due process and an obligation for the police to investigate to ensure public safety or is it just pointless?
It's as bad as Hunter Biden's handgun application where he is allowed to lie on himself about drug dependency.

Oh, I agree with everything you said. I have a feeling we are going to find out soon enough. Someone with a clean background will be denied because he gabbed his reference’s wife’s **** too hard at a swingers party and says the guy is an abusive drunk. Clarence Thomas don’t care, Clarence Thomas don’t give a sh!t.

 

[jrumann59]

Oh, I agree with everything you said. I have a feeling we are going to find out soon enough. Someone with a clean background will be denied because he gabbed his reference’s wife’s **** too hard at a swingers party and says the guy is an abusive drunk. Clarence Thomas don’t care, Clarence Thomas don’t give a sh!t.

Damn now I have to find 2 other references....

 

[swinokur]

That doesn't require references. It could mean anything. Maybe they simply check for charges that were dismissed. Maybe they check for things like DUI. who knows. Objective criteria.

Yup the investigation should be nothing more than a criminal background check. Everything else is superfluous

If you can’t cross examine a reference that’s not due process

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Speed3]

I"ve seen multiple replies in other threads that YES you can you Non-MD refs but NO relatives

Jesus well im screwed then. Idk if I have 3...

 

[whistlersmother]

Jesus well im screwed then. Idk if I have 3...

Starting to sound like enough of us to start a class action against MSP.

 

[RepublicanJD]

Nobody hates people more than I do (especially myself), but if you don't know three people who would be okay to use as a reference, I feel sorry for you.

And it seems people have had success with just a reference name and phone number, no employment info.

I know more than 3 people, though I'm not from Maryland and moved here as an adult, so more difficult for me, but almost all of them are anti-gun. Finding 3 people that I know won't mess around with my rights and are completely reputable citizens isn't super easy.

 

[babalou]

That's how it works in a number of states. If you have a LTC, there is no NICS check. Handguns are cash&carry and that was really bad. And with 'really bad' I mean bad for my wallet. My LGS knew that and there was always something 'he had just got in....'.

lol laughing with you not at you.

 

[babalou]

If you would've said no, then what? Your opinion is greater than that of the founding fathers?
Its like a mini-red flag law embedded in the process. The problem I have is that your or my opinion really have no right over the guy. Who am I to say if someone is a threat to society? If I say the guy is destined to be a school shooter what will happen? Suppose three out of three references say the guy is nuts? Will they actually go and try to EP the guy or will they just say, sorry Mr. Applicant, no soup for you? Is there due process and an obligation for the police to investigate to ensure public safety or is it just pointless?
It's as bad as Hunter Biden's handgun application where he is allowed to lie on himself about drug dependency.

or you say the guy is fine and then the guy does something...

 

[steveh326]

I see a new business opportunity for me. for $10 each, I will provide 3 references via 3 burner phones, all in different voices.

JUST KIDDING ATF

 

[Bertfish]

Today?

When did your friend apply?

I am interested in gauging how far behind they are.

I too am interested

 

[PO2012]

If you would've said no, then what? Your opinion is greater than that of the founding fathers?
Its like a mini-red flag law embedded in the process. The problem I have is that your or my opinion really have no right over the guy. Who am I to say if someone is a threat to society? If I say the guy is destined to be a school shooter what will happen? Suppose three out of three references say the guy is nuts? Will they actually go and try to EP the guy or will they just say, sorry Mr. Applicant, no soup for you? Is there due process and an obligation for the police to investigate to ensure public safety or is it just pointless?
It's as bad as Hunter Biden's handgun application where he is allowed to lie on himself about drug dependency.

There's no way that SCOTUS, as it's currently made up, will find references to be Constitutional under the standard set forth in Bruen. References allow your friends, neighbors and associates to veto your exercise of a Constitutional right.

This then brings us to the issue of red flag laws. They aren't Constitutional and they have to go. The right to keep and bear arms is equal to every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Imagine a law that allows Police to get an order temporarily enjoining someone from exercising their right to remain silent based on a showing that the person is supposedly a danger to the community. The Police serve the order and then demand that the person answer all their questions and when they refuse they get charged criminally for violating the order and face, let's say, 3 years in prison. This is the stuff of tyranny and dystopian nightmares.

I expect that SCOTUS will strike down the "good moral character" statutes and clearly articulate what is or is not a "sensitive" place. I am not as hopeful when it comes to red flag laws. Most of these issues could have been avoided if SCOTUS had declared the requirement to get a license to carry unconstitutional in Bruen.

 

[camo556]

Today they asked how long I knew my friend, if I knew of histories of violence, substance abuse. Would I trust him with a firearm in public, and in my home. That’s it.

when did they apply? trying to gauge how backed up they are.

I too am interested

me too... still.

 

[teratos]

when did they apply? trying to gauge how backed up they are.



me too... still.

Day after the decision, I believe.

 

[camo556]

Day after the decision, I believe.

wow!!

gives us all hope.