Right to keep and bear arms for Maryland

[2ndAmendment]

The Maryland Constitution does not contain a right to keep and bear arms.

There is a new bill in the House of Delegates to amend the MD Constitution and add that right. It is HR 529, Declaration of Rights - Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/hb0529.htm

Call and ask your delegate to sign on as a sponsor or at least support it.

You can find your delegate starting here -> http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/07leg/html/gaco.html

 

[Bruzilla]

I won't hold my breath awaiting Satan to call and ask about appropriate attire for cold weather existence. I figure I've got better odds of becoming a chinese jet pilot than that ammendment getting passed in Maryland.

 

[Kerad]

I maybe missing the point here, but the US Constitution is above all in this Country, why do we need to copy what it says into the Maryland one?

Because Charlton Heston wants it...that's why!

"You damned dirty Maryland ape!"

 

[2ndAmendment]

I maybe missing the point here, but the US Constitution is above all in this Country, why do we need to copy what it says into the Maryland one?

Because the majority of the Maryland government including its judiciary does not recognize that right.

As to the cold day in hell, that is probably true this time around. This is more to see who stands where. There used to be a Maryland politician named Casper Taylor that opposed the law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms in Maryland. We law abiding citizens concentrated our efforts and now wear "Remember Cas (who?)" buttons to political events. Cas is no longer a Maryland legislator or much of a mover and shaker in Maryland politics either. The political parties tend to drop you like a hot potato if you can't win in your district. Another has been in Maryland politics due to the efforts of law abiding citizens is Timothy Ferguson.

Their political demise is part of The Heads on Pikes campaign. We'll keep knocking them down one or two at a time until the tide turns.

 

[ylexot]

Because Charlton Heston wants it...that's why!

"You damned dirty Maryland ape!"

First, Charlton Heston is not president of the NRA any more. Second, the NRA has pretty much given up on MD and pretty much just sits there and points out the stupidity. Third, I had no idea how far MD had gone in restricting gun rights until I went to buy a gun so that I could go to the range with my friends and not have to borrow their guns. I'm guessing you know nothing about the MD guns laws...

 

[Ken King]

2A,

Maybe what is needed is a serious judicial challenge versus a specific enumeration in the Maryland Declaration of Rights as Article 2 of those rights states:

The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Pushrod]

2A,

Maybe what is needed is a serious judicial challenge versus a specific enumeration in the Maryland Declaration of Rights as Article 2 of those rights states:

The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

But that is only when The People control the government. Right now the government is trying to control the people and they can't do that if the populance is armed.

 

[Vince]

Because Charlton Heston wants it...that's why!

"You damned dirty Maryland ape!"

Maybe it's to protect the rights of gun owners since the current Maryland gun laws do nothing for those rights. Maryland gun laws aren't doing a damn thing for the crime and murder rate in Maryland either. We are 5th in the nation for murders. (statistics up to the year 2000). Guess all the politians need something in the state to be proud of and now they can. We are number 5 for murders in the US. So with all their fancy gun laws, and not allowing concealed carry, they've really done alot to curtail crime in Maryland.

 

[willie]

I had no idea how far MD had gone in restricting gun rights until I went to buy a gun so that I could go to the range with my friends and not have to borrow their guns. I'm guessing you know nothing about the MD guns laws...

What problems did you have buying a gun? Getting a CCW in Maryland is a problem but not a gun.

 

[Kerad]

Some of you guys have no sense of humor whatsoever.

 

[Dutch6]

Some of you guys have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Some people try humor in the wrong places.

 

[willie]

Some of you guys have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Your humor reminds me of Tom Toles.

 

[DD214]

I maybe missing the point here, but the US Constitution is above all in this Country, why do we need to copy what it says into the Maryland one?

If only the "Free" State could see it that way. Here is what MD has to say about the subject:

Article 27 SEC. 36B This section is constitutional as a reasonable exercise of the State's police power. And it does not violate the Second Amendment because that Amendment is not applicable to the States. Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 44 Md. App. 132, 407 A.2d 763 (1979)

In other words, the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution affords you, as a citizen of MD, no rights. I'd really like to see this one challenged in a higher court.

 

[Bruzilla]

2A,

Maybe what is needed is a serious judicial challenge versus a specific enumeration in the Maryland Declaration of Rights as Article 2 of those rights states:

The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nice idea Ken, but issue of even the US Constitution allowing individuals to keep and bear arms is still in question. Linkage to the US Constitution will be meaningless until some case forces that issue to be decided.

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A,

Maybe what is needed is a serious judicial challenge versus a specific enumeration in the Maryland Declaration of Rights as Article 2 of those rights states:

The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

I am aware of Article 2 as is the Maryland Right to Keep and Bear Arms and all the co-sponsors of the bill. The problem is the as stated; most of the people in Maryland government incorrectly interpret the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to mean the National Guard has the right. A totally incorrect interpretation, but no one can convince them otherwise. So, the drive for a Maryland Constitutional amendment specifically granting that right to citizens of Maryland is born.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

...can you enlighten me, as a Floridian knowledgeable about guns and the law, what is my boy Shawn Taylor gonna actually get?

I understand correctly he's facing MANDATORY time for brandishing and I don't see how he gets out of mandatory.

 

[Ken King]

Nice idea Ken, but issue of even the US Constitution allowing individuals to keep and bear arms is still in question. Linkage to the US Constitution will be meaningless until some case forces that issue to be decided.

Which is exactly why a judicial challenge is needed. We don't need more words of ambiguity that neither mean a thing nor are enforced. What needs decided is what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." actually means and what if any limitations can be placed upon that right.

 

[Bruzilla]

What problems did you have buying a gun? Getting a CCW in Maryland is a problem but not a gun.

Let's see... in 1993 or so I was able to walk into a gun store near San Succi Plaza, pick out a pistol, pay for it, and wait three days (as I recall) to take it home. I could also go in and buy an AR-15 rifle and walk right out with it.

By 1995 that gun store had been put out of business (along with two others in the Southern Maryland area) and I now either had to pay top dollar prices at The Tackle Box or from that guy in Leonardtown, and deal with very limited selections; or I could drive for an hour or more and go to a gun show. In either case I now had to wait ten days to pick up my pistol. I also could no longer buy an AR-15 or any other "assault weapon" as I used to and now had to wait 10 days to pick it up... if I could find one as most gun dealers quit selling them due to the hassles imposed by the state.

By the time I moved to Florida in 2004 I could no longer sell a gun, if I wanted to use that money to buy one, to a private individual without spending a morning at the MSP barrack doing paperwork and getting scutinized. I could trade the pistol for about half of what it was worth... what a great deal. And if I purchased a gun from out of state I had to drive 40 miles to the nearest FFL dealer on Cobb Island to get it transferred, and still had to deal with a ten day waiting period even though after finding the gun, negotiating a price, sending the money, and awaiting delivery more than ten days had usually passed before the gun got to the FFL holder. And if I went to a show and found two pistols I wanted, I could only buy one a month. Also, I now had limits on what guns I could even buy, or couldn't buy if they weren't on the Approved Firearms list.

Problems... problems... problems...

After moving to Florida I was able to go to the Clay Country Sheriff's Office and get a fingerprint card made (cost $5), get a copy of my DD214 discharge papers (cost .15), and complete one form and send it along with a $79 fee to Charles Bronson (no kidding), our Secretary of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and less than a month later I had my CCP. I can now go into any gun store, pawn shop, or gun show, show them my CCP, and walk right out the door with any pistol, assault weapon, shotgun, etc., that I want after I've paid for it. No waiting periods, federal or state. Plus I have seven dedicated gun stores (including one Class III dealer) within 30 miles of me, and about 40 pawn shops that also sell firearms. There are also no gun lists that ban firearms model by model.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Which is exactly why a judicial challenge is needed. We don't need more words of ambiguity that neither mean a thing nor are enforced. What needs decided is what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." actually means and what if any limitations can be placed upon that right.

I agree, but the NRA does not want to go there because of a liberal court and the possibility of loosing all citizens' gun rights at once. The liberals don't want to go there, because they are afraid every gun law passed by every city, county, state, and the United States would be overturned in one fell swoop. Not only that, there is enough of a "from my cold dead fingers" attitude howdy that if all citizen gun rights were lost, it might result in another civil war. Neither side wants that. Hence, it is not going to happen. We are stuck with skirmishes over the issue.

Much like the Cold War where both sides knew it was an all or nothing or maybe nothing for anyone if the two major participants actually went head to head, so there were skirmishes between proxies, some cold and some hot for many years.

 

[Bruzilla]

I agree, but the NRA does not want to go there because of a liberal court and the possibility of loosing all citizens' gun rights at once. The liberals don't want to go there, because they are afraid every gun law passed by every city, county, state, and the United States would be overturned in one fell swoop. Not only that, there is enough of a "from my cold dead fingers" attitude howdy that if all citizen gun rights were lost, it might result in another civil war. Neither side wants that. Hence, it is not going to happen. We are stuck with skirmishes over the issue.

Much like the Cold War where both sides knew it was an all or nothing or maybe nothing for anyone if the two major participants actually went head to head, so there were skirmishes between proxies, some cold and some hot for many years.