Hey Maryland Law Makers! Think you can take a hint?

Restless

New Member
I agree with what you are saying, but this is still Maryland and the liberals are still powerful, especially in the cities so....
 

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
It's high time for Maryland to get it right. Bad enough that Maryland's largest city, Baltimore, has the 6th highest murder rate in the U.S., and we still have to jump through hoop after hoop just to purchase a handgun. And getting a CCW; may as well forget it.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...aled-carry-changes-kentucky-gun-laws/9489289/

We might as well resign ourselves to being victims/targets who call law enforcement after something has happened.
 

tommyjo

New Member
It's high time for Maryland to get it right. Bad enough that Maryland's largest city, Baltimore, has the 6th highest murder rate in the U.S., and we still have to jump through hoop after hoop just to purchase a handgun. And getting a CCW; may as well forget it.


http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...aled-carry-changes-kentucky-gun-laws/9489289/

What does the murder rate in Balt have to do with you--a Southern MD residient--needing a CCW?

Drug dealers are killing each other in Balt. So the answer to that is to put more guns on the street? Yeah...that makes sense.

In what universe does it make sense to allow people to have loaded guns in the center console of their vehicle a good idea? (from the link)
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
In what universe does it make sense to allow people to have loaded guns in the center console of their vehicle a good idea? (from the link)

Next best thing to having it in a quick-draw under the steering column. Duh.
 

Pushrod

Patriot
What does the murder rate in Balt have to do with you--a Southern MD residient--needing a CCW?

Drug dealers are killing each other in Balt. So the answer to that is to put more guns on the street? Yeah...that makes sense.

In what universe does it make sense to allow people to have loaded guns in the center console of their vehicle a good idea? (from the link)

Why don't you use that noodle of yours and show us the stats in the other 40+ states that have shall-issue CCW where gun crimes have gone through the roof because of "more guns on the street"? Yeah, that is what I thought, can't find anything to uphold your position. In other words you are just talking out your @ss because your a hoplophobe.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
What does the murder rate in Balt have to do with you--a Southern MD residient--needing a CCW?

Drug dealers are killing each other in Balt. So the answer to that is to put more guns on the street? Yeah...that makes sense.

In what universe does it make sense to allow people to have loaded guns in the center console of their vehicle a good idea? (from the link)

Exactly, why should law abiding citizens in other parts of the state have their constitutional rights abridged because of the cesspool that is Baltimore?
Because those engaged in criminal activity with illegally acquired weapons are shooting up the city, we have to apply for permits to purchase a gun, to have our purchases of ammunition restricted and a permit to carry said weapon put in limbo. I see that link. I see the link to law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights to criminal activity. I guess the next step is the first amendment (aka the Bill of Rights) - oh wait, that's called political correctness.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Why is there a need for law makers to do anything else? With Hogan coming in as Governor couldn't he direct his appointed Secretary of the State Police to define a “good and substantial reason” for issuing a permit as the following; "as an otherwise law abiding citizen, people in Maryland have a Constitutional right to arm and protect themselves and as Maryland holds the Constitution of the United States, including the Second Amendment, as the supreme law of the land, you as Secretary "shall" issue carry permits to all that meet the other requirements set forth in our laws."
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Why is there a need for law makers to do anything else? With Hogan coming in as Governor couldn't he direct his appointed Secretary of the State Police to define a “good and substantial reason” for issuing a permit as the following; "as an otherwise law abiding citizen, people in Maryland have a Constitutional right to arm and protect themselves and as Maryland holds the Constitution of the United States, including the Second Amendment, as the supreme law of the land, you as Secretary "shall" issue carry permits to all that meet the other requirements set forth in our laws."

I think that is one option, but I think the MSP has said they simply don't have the money to fund the positions to process the paper work. I believe the legislation was very clever in placing the authority with an official that did not have the bandwidth to process the applications.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I think that is one option, but I think the MSP has said they simply don't have the money to fund the positions to process the paper work. I believe the legislation was very clever in placing the authority with an official that did not have the bandwidth to process the applications.

At $75 for an initial two-year permit and $50 for a three-year renewal one would think that it could be a lucrative endeavor to process such applications. And as to the MSP making such a statement it seems that the Governor, as the chief executive, is the deciding official as to what the MSP will or won't do. If such a Governor was in favor of citizens exercising their personal protection/safety rights said Governor could make it happen and still be within the scope of the laws of the state.
 

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
At $75 for an initial two-year permit and $50 for a three-year renewal one would think that it could be a lucrative endeavor to process such applications. And as to the MSP making such a statement it seems that the Governor, as the chief executive, is the deciding official as to what the MSP will or won't do. If such a Governor was in favor of citizens exercising their personal protection/safety rights said Governor could make it happen and still be within the scope of the laws of the state.

Maryland just wants/forces us to have to depend on law enforcement for "protection" wether it's at home or in the grocery store parking lot.
The term 'Protection' in and of itself does not mean call the cops after a robbery (at home or even out in town) or after a break-in; not in my dictionary. IMO, "Protection" means, 'If you try anything; if you break into my house or try robbing or carjacking me while I'm running errands, I'm going to shoot you.'

To your point of the fees being 'a lucrative endeavor,' yes it would be, but dollars to doughnuts, if those fees were implemented, the money would go to some pet project, like a new softball stadium or something likely useless. JMHO
 

GW8345

Not White House Approved
At $75 for an initial two-year permit and $50 for a three-year renewal one would think that it could be a lucrative endeavor to process such applications. And as to the MSP making such a statement it seems that the Governor, as the chief executive, is the deciding official as to what the MSP will or won't do. If such a Governor was in favor of citizens exercising their personal protection/safety rights said Governor could make it happen and still be within the scope of the laws of the state.

Why should a citizen have to pay to exercise a constitutional right?

Every law abiding citizen should be able to ccw without needing a permit, if the law catches someone who is not supposed to have a weapon, then confiscate the weapon and impose a two thousand dollar fine for the first offense, five thousand for each offense afterwards and 90 days in jail.
 

bilbur

New Member
Why should a citizen have to pay to exercise a constitutional right?

Every law abiding citizen should be able to ccw without needing a permit, if the law catches someone who is not supposed to have a weapon, then confiscate the weapon and impose a two thousand dollar fine for the first offense, five thousand for each offense afterwards and 90 days in jail.

Without some sort of check in the beginning than how would they know who is and who isn't allowed to carry. I am all for ccw's but a simple background check and a small fee to cover the cost of that check is not too much to ask. Too many people are trying to make it sound like it is no big deal to let every law abiding citizen carry a gun but it is a big deal and a big responsibility. The holder has to make sure the gun is safely carried, not in a place where it could get stolen easily, know the proper situation to pull it, know the proper situation to fire it, etc... I know I am going to have some people who disagree with my next statement but I would be in favor of making the ones carrying have to take a short training class that would get them a lifetime CCW unless they get a felony or something. Otherwise it would be a little scary to think about the 100's of untrained people that are walking around with a lethal weapon.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Why should a citizen have to pay to exercise a constitutional right?
What constitutional right is there to carry a concealed firearm? There is an enumerated right to keep and bear arms but nothing is mentioned about the carrying of a concealed weapon. As such wouldn't the right to regulate that fall to the states?

Every law abiding citizen should be able to ccw without needing a permit, if the law catches someone who is not supposed to have a weapon, then confiscate the weapon and impose a two thousand dollar fine for the first offense, five thousand for each offense afterwards and 90 days in jail.
While I might agree that every law abiding citizen should be able to keep and bear arms I think concealed carry is a properly regulated state function as such permits and fees seem appropriate. Open carry on the other hand should be allowed for all unless one is prohibited because of disqualifying behavior.

As to if someone is found to be in possession of a weapon after being disqualified to Hell with fines, lock them up, a minimum of 5 years should be adequate to get the point across.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I would be in favor of making the ones carrying have to take a short training class that would get them a lifetime CCW unless they get a felony or something. Otherwise it would be a little scary to think about the 100's of untrained people that are walking around with a lethal weapon.


I don't have any problems with that. As long as the training is easily accessible and reasonably priced. Similar to getting a driver's license for the first time..
 

GW8345

Not White House Approved
Without some sort of check in the beginning than how would they know who is and who isn't allowed to carry. I am all for ccw's but a simple background check and a small fee to cover the cost of that check is not too much to ask. Too many people are trying to make it sound like it is no big deal to let every law abiding citizen carry a gun but it is a big deal and a big responsibility. The holder has to make sure the gun is safely carried, not in a place where it could get stolen easily, know the proper situation to pull it, know the proper situation to fire it, etc... I know I am going to have some people who disagree with my next statement but I would be in favor of making the ones carrying have to take a short training class that would get them a lifetime CCW unless they get a felony or something. Otherwise it would be a little scary to think about the 100's of untrained people that are walking around with a lethal weapon.
How will the police know you are carrying when you aren't supposed to, the same way they know you are driving without a license, you have to do something to make them stop and question you. As for the training, that is the person's responsibility, the government should not have to ensure you are trained, it's call personal responsibility. As for people walking around with a lethal weapon, what training does someone get when they buy a knife, that's a lethal weapon and can be carried around without a permit.

Also, there is a background check when the weapon is purchased, no need for an additional one, if you are allowed to purchase a weapon, then you should be allowed to carry it. As for the fee, add small fee at the time of purchase to cover the cost of the initial background check, say 1% of the purchase prices of the weapon.

What constitutional right is there to carry a concealed firearm? There is an enumerated right to keep and bear arms but nothing is mentioned about the carrying of a concealed weapon. As such wouldn't the right to regulate that fall to the states?

While I might agree that every law abiding citizen should be able to keep and bear arms I think concealed carry is a properly regulated state function as such permits and fees seem appropriate. Open carry on the other hand should be allowed for all unless one is prohibited because of disqualifying behavior.

As to if someone is found to be in possession of a weapon after being disqualified to Hell with fines, lock them up, a minimum of 5 years should be adequate to get the point across.
To me, the right to bear arms includes ccw, and it's not a state issue it's a federal issue since it's in the Constitution.

If you want to go with open carry, then there should be no restrictions on what type of firearm can be opened carried.

As for locking someone up, I'm all for that but the bleeding hearts will say that there are already too many people in jail for "petty" crimes, hence the fines.

I don't have any problems with that. As long as the training is easily accessible and reasonably priced. Similar to getting a driver's license for the first time..

Who's to provide the training, the police (who most couldn't hit the ground if they aimed for it)? It's the person's responsibility to ensure they are properly trained, you don't get training when you purchase a knife, baseball bat, saw, staple gun, ax, shovel, etc, and all could be considered lethal weapons.

If you want training, exempt anyone who has served in the military and LE, since they have already been trained on the proper handling of a firearm.
 

vince77

Active Member
How will the police know you are carrying when you aren't supposed to, the same way they know you are driving without a license, you have to do something to make them stop and question you. As for the training, that is the person's responsibility, the government should not have to ensure you are trained, it's call personal responsibility. As for people walking around with a lethal weapon, what training does someone get when they buy a knife, that's a lethal weapon and can be carried around without a permit.

Also, there is a background check when the weapon is purchased, no need for an additional one, if you are allowed to purchase a weapon, then you should be allowed to carry it. As for the fee, add small fee at the time of purchase to cover the cost of the initial background check, say 1% of the purchase prices of the weapon.


To me, the right to bear arms includes ccw, and it's not a state issue it's a federal issue since it's in the Constitution.

If you want to go with open carry, then there should be no restrictions on what type of firearm can be opened carried.

As for locking someone up, I'm all for that but the bleeding hearts will say that there are already too many people in jail for "petty" crimes, hence the fines.



Who's to provide the training, the police (who most couldn't hit the ground if they aimed for it)? It's the person's responsibility to ensure they are properly trained, you don't get training when you purchase a knife, baseball bat, saw, staple gun, ax, shovel, etc, and all could be considered lethal weapons.

If you want training, exempt anyone who has served in the military and LE, since they have already been trained on the proper handling of a firearm.

Retired cops have to requailify at their expense every year as part of LEOSA standards to carry. What is the purpose of carrying around a concealed firearm?
 
Last edited:

GW8345

Not White House Approved
Retired cops have to requailify every year as part of LEOSA standards. What is the purpose of carrying around a concealed firearm?

For personal protection, look at what is going on around the country, the riots and protests, you never know when someone is going to threaten you and what would you rather be reaching for, a cellphone or a pistol?

If you think the police can protect you look at Ferguson MO.

the only person who can protect you is yourself, too bad the government thinks you can't do it and has put your life in someone else's hands.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
To me, the right to bear arms includes ccw, and it's not a state issue it's a federal issue since it's in the Constitution.

For you it might but for many, including just about every court I can think, it isn't. As we all know (or should I say most of us) rights are not absolute or there would be no Federal prohibitions against anyone "keeping or bearing arms", including felons. And as CCW is not specifically enumerated within the Constitution as an individual right it cannot be a right and would fall within the state's right to establish restrictions, permits, fees or not.
 

GW8345

Not White House Approved
For you it might but for many, including just about every court I can think, it isn't. As we all know (or should I say most of us) rights are not absolute or there would be no Federal prohibitions against anyone "keeping or bearing arms", including felons. And as CCW is not specifically enumerated within the Constitution as an individual right it cannot be a right and would fall within the state's right to establish restrictions, permits, fees or not.

Most of the crap the government dictates isn't in the Constitution. I didn't see anything in the Constitution that specified what type of arms I could and could not "bear" nor did I see anything that specified where I could bear arms.
 
Top