Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And while I find that to be wrong, people have a right to self defense, is it not what the Voters there want, if they didn't they could change who is running their government.
This is true, however, the rights of the minority are not supposed to be subject to the whims of the majority. What you describe is considered a true democracy, and is why our forefathers elected not to go that route, and instead formed a Constitutional Republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
Well here is the thing, people scream about
States Rights until the State does something they do not like then they scream
it is a Federal issue.
Look Casper, the Constitution is pretty clear cut when it comes to States Rights. The tenth amendment says that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
As far as 2A Rights are concerned, the Constitution has prohibited the states from interfering with those rights..... The Supreme Court has affirmed that the 2A enumerates an individual Right. That means the Right belongs to each of us individually, not state by state. So no, gun Rights are not subject to be trumped by state laws.
Don't hold your breath. We are talking about Maryland, one of the bluest states. Democrats gerrymandered the voting districts around so badly there are only liberal POV these days.
A liberal's defense would be along the lines of "The police will take care of you".
It should be noted that when someone, of the very few in this State, receive their carry permits the phrasing used is "Not Denied" not "Permitted".
A small thing admittedly, but full of meaning.
We are about to elect an avowed firearm confiscator, Brian Frosh, as Attorney General and another confiscator, Anthony Brown, as Governor.
Expect more gun "control" news over the last few years.
People I know who are Legislators expect the next push will be to ban common, traditional looking long guns such as the Browning Auto 5s and Silvers, Remington 1100 series, etc. using the justification that they are semi-automatics.
Frosh has also floated the idea, as a Legislator, of a $1/round tax on ammunition.
I was not making the argument I was pointing out some love to scream States Rights until they do not like the laws. Sorry but local governments can and do regulate gun ownership and make rules about how, where and when people can carry arms, even here in Texas, it has been fought many times and they always lose. You can carry a long rifle openly, you cannot wear a handgun openly in most towns and cities, and you have to have a permit to carry concealed. Try and fight those laws all you wish, but our right to own guns does not include any rights about being able to carry them on our person, especially concealed.
No it does not mean more than you can bear and the "and" means to keep AND bear, meaning one must do both, hold/carry and keep, no it does not include your car or covered wagon. You have no right to carry a concealed gun,
the 2nd A does not address it so it is open to the local government to determine that part. I do not think it is clear as you want it to be.
You are jumping this amendment -
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 2A is complete unto itself. It is not open to interpretation by the states. The above amendment just informed you of such. If these cases were heard by an impartial SCOTUS - who lived up to their oaths of office - they would make this clear as glass.
Some Americans never really paid attention nor would they do so to correct their fallacies.
ah but MD allows you to fire a warning shot without fear of being charrged with a felony.....didn't hear that on FOX news, came directly from that favorite son of Maryland and VPOTUS joe biden.
How/when did hairplugs become a favorite son of MD? He lives in DE when not on the grounds of the Naval Observatory on Mass Ave in DC.
And while I find that to be wrong, people have a right to self defense, is it not what the Voters there want, if they didn't they could change who is running their government.
"And while I find that to be wrong" I thought you were better then this
And what is your experience with Maryland?
Do you live there?
Have you ever lived there?
I lived there for 60 years.
I have friends who have tried to no avail to get a CCP. And no, they do NOT have any criminal record of any kind.
I have a friend who owned 3 gas stations and carried large sums of money and had a CCP for 15 years. When it came time to re-new AGAIN he was denied for no reason. he hired a lawyer and finally got it renewed.
MD is a totally dem controlled state and one of the most liberal in the country.
So, again, why would NOT believe what someone says who has personal experience in the state?
Explain why someone would have to go to court to get a CCP.
"The United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently ruled that Maryland's requirement that applicants for a concealed carry permit show "good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun" is unconstitutional. According to the court, the existence of the right to bear arms "is all the reason [an applicant] needs." The court accordingly ordered the State promptly to process plaintiff Raymond Wollard's permit application without consideration of the "good and substantial" requirement."
"Many have since rejoiced that Maryland is now effectively a "shall-issue" state for concealed carry permits. Do you know the diffidence between a "may" issue and a "shall" issue state?
This is true, however, the rights of the minority are not supposed to be subject to the whims of the majority. What you describe is considered a true democracy, and is why our forefathers elected not to go that route, and instead formed a Constitutional Republic.
Look Casper, the Constitution is pretty clear cut when it comes to States Rights. The tenth amendment says that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
As far as 2A Rights are concerned, the Constitution has prohibited the states from interfering with those rights..... The Supreme Court has affirmed that the 2A enumerates an individual Right. That means the Right belongs to each of us individually, not state by state. So no, gun Rights are not subject to be trumped by state laws.
Correct, and being such the Government makes the final call based on the Constitution and if their law is not within those parameters then we have a Supreme Court that is supposed to right the ship.
I did not say that the State has the right, I simply pointed out how people go back and forth between States and Federal rights. I agree that guns cannot be banned, but local communities can under the rules of public safety make laws that prohibit someone having the gun on their person within the city limits or require permits to do so, that has been fought over many times and the SC has always stood on the side of the communities being able to enact such laws and rules. Do not get me wrong, I am all for 2nd A rights and do not agree with bans, registration or even laws which make it near impossible for a person to get a carry permit. Heck I have no issue with someone owning full auto weapons, if they can show they are capable of operating and owning one, it is silly to refuse to allow someone to own a weapon that they for years used as part of their job, people do not all of a sudden become untrustworthy or incapable because they leave a job, simply not logical. That said, I have no issue with screening people when they go to buy a gun so that a convicted Felon or someone with major mental illness from buying one legally, both are in the interest of public safety. Will it stop someone that is determined to get a gun, no, but it will stop some of them and give law enforcement a tool to arrest someone that is in possession of a gun they cannot legally own. Rational Guns laws, which means pretty much what is in place in most places, and enforcement of those laws and background checks, which take minutes to pass, my last one was done before I had picked out some ammo and accessories for the gun.
"And while I find that to be wrong" I thought you were better then this
And what is your experience with Maryland?
Do you live there?
Have you ever lived there?
I lived there for 60 years.
I have friends who have tried to no avail to get a CCP. And no, they do NOT have any criminal record of any kind.
I have a friend who owned 3 gas stations and carried large sums of money and had a CCP for 15 years. When it came time to re-new AGAIN he was denied for no reason. he hired a lawyer and finally got it renewed.
MD is a totally dem controlled state and one of the most liberal in the country.
So, again, why would NOT believe what someone says who has personal experience in the state?
Explain why someone would have to go to court to get a CCP.
"The United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently ruled that Maryland's requirement that applicants for a concealed carry permit show "good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun" is unconstitutional. According to the court, the existence of the right to bear arms "is all the reason [an applicant] needs." The court accordingly ordered the State promptly to process plaintiff Raymond Wollard's permit application without consideration of the "good and substantial" requirement."
"Many have since rejoiced that Maryland is now effectively a "shall-issue" state for concealed carry permits. Do you know the diffidence between a "may" issue and a "shall" issue state?
See, MD did not WANT to give Wollard a permit even though he is a citizen in good standing.
Maybe you should read all my posts here I said it is not my issue and that it is an issue for the people of Maryland. Good Grief read what I post or save your breath.
1.Owner or employee of a business. You must submit photocopies of the Trader's, Business or Narcotics License or Articles of Incorporation to support Business ownership or as an authorized employee. You must also submit photocopies of six random deposit slips or deposits within a year for the business or a letter from the bank attesting that you have a business account. If you are an employee, you must submit a letter from your employer on the business letter head, verifying your employment and detailing the requirement or desire from the owner that you be armed. 2. Correctional Officers. Must submit verification of employment and documentation of threats and/or assaults (ie., police reports, facility incident reports, and intelligence reports). 3. Former Police Officers. If you have resigned or have retired, you must provide a photocopy of your retired I.D. card (front and back) and produce a letter from your former agency advising that you resigned/retired in good standing, your official resignation/retirement date and how many years of service. NOTE: Permits are issued based on the "immediacy" of the application and years of service. 4. Private Detective/Security Guard/Special Police/Armored Car Guards. All applicants (unless exempt from training) who are employed as Private Detectives, Security Guards, Special Police Officers and Armored Car Guards must submit firearms qualification score sheet obtained from a Maryland State Police Certified Handgun Instructor on the State Police form. A letter from the employing agency which verifies employment and position, the ownership of the weapon, and location where the weapon will be stored when off duty is also required. Click here for a sample letter 5. Personal Protection. There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.
Since she hadn't been assaulted or murdered yet, she had no right to protect herself in the People's Stae of Maryland. Guess she should make a campaign donation to the local police chief.
These policies work well. Look at how safe Baltimore is.
Since she hadn't been assaulted or murdered yet, she had no right to protect herself in the People's Stae of Maryland. Guess she should make a campaign donation to the local police chief.
These policies work well. Look at how safe Baltimore is.
Or Maybe she should get her issue documented and provide that documentation when she applies again for her permit. Has she done that, I saw nothing that says she submitted the required information and police reports when she applied. Now if she has and they still turned her down she has a case and if she hasn't then she is complaining about her own failure to comply with the law. So has she?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
