Hogan orders suspension of “good and substantial reason” for gun permits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you be concerned about CCPs? There is no correlation between CCP access and violent crime rates.

A state can have rules regarding the process for obtaining a permit, but no one should be required to show "good and substantial reason" to exercise a right. It's a pointless requirement that serves no purpose.

Yes there is. And officer-involved shootings will increase too.

[Anonymous]

Hogan seems pretty intent on handing the Governors mansion back to the Democrats with this move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he doing this? We are complying with the constitution? I thought SCOTUS wanted states to decide these issues. How can Hogan do this unilaterally? I am already so scared about gun violence in this area.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-gun-laws-md-state-police-governor-larry-hogan-permit-wear-carry-weapon-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-law-provisions-standards-handgun

I don’t know who “we” is, but the State of Maryland was not complying with the Constitution. Hogan merely saved the State the costs of civil rights actions that were already being drafted.

“Gun violence” is a fake buzzword. Guns are inanimate. They have no will of their own. They are not self-locomoting. We don’t hear about “baseball bat” or “kitchen scissors” or “deliberate motor vehicle crash” or “toilet tank cover” violence.

Call it what it is: criminal violence and punish the criminals instead of decent people.

Let’s call this what it is: an argument that is made purely in bad faith and ignores reality completely. There’s no point in debating with you when you are so far gone, and I hope no one engages with this for the 30 millionth time.

We’re past this now. People are getting mowed down in churches, malls, schools, Fourth of July parades. Rich, poor, this is everybody’s problem and we don’t have time to engage with nonsense like the above. Enough, let’s move on.

Yes. Let’s move on. Your fear of inanimate objects lost. Buh bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Democrats have been given the chance of a lifetime to engage centrists who want reasonable, not murderous, abortion laws, and who want reasonable, not murderous, gun laws.

PLEASE USE IT. We need to keep the house and senate!!!

The governor of the state has asked the state to comply with the SCOTUS ruling.

What would you have him do??

Take a stand and sue as a state.

Sue who? The Supreme Court? Are you high?

Or comply and in a press conference, excoriate the ruling and say he's opposed to it and only doing it under duress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Democrats have been given the chance of a lifetime to engage centrists who want reasonable, not murderous, abortion laws, and who want reasonable, not murderous, gun laws.

PLEASE USE IT. We need to keep the house and senate!!!

The governor of the state has asked the state to comply with the SCOTUS ruling.

What would you have him do??

Take a stand and sue as a state.

Or comply and in a press conference, excoriate the ruling and say he's opposed to it and only doing it under duress.

+1000

He really was not compelled to do this. It's all posturing for his preferred replacement. That's ok...she's not getting in.

Let me explain this for you as simply as possible. The highest tribunal in the country decided that the Second Amendhebt means what it said. Bearing arms outside the home is a Constitutionally protected civil right. Denial of that right would be among other things cause for an action under the Civil Rights Act, with all the problems that poses for contumaceous officials. Hogan took an Ostia to uphold the law. Like it or not, the law is determined, and he had no choice but to do what he did.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a little tidbit…MD’s AG…who is no supporter of the Second Amendment, opined on 30 June that the reason requirement was now unconstitutional. The Governor had to implement it though.

[Anonymous]

You have a better way to align the state with the court outcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a little tidbit…MD’s AG…who is no supporter of the Second Amendment, opined on 30 June that the reason requirement was now unconstitutional. The Governor had to implement it though.

But DCUM told me it’s because Hogan is a bad evil Republican who wants Marylanders to die, how is it possible that Democratic AG Frosh agreed with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he doing this? We are complying with the constitution? I thought SCOTUS wanted states to decide these issues. How can Hogan do this unilaterally? I am already so scared about gun violence in this area.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-gun-laws-md-state-police-governor-larry-hogan-permit-wear-carry-weapon-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-law-provisions-standards-handgun

I don’t know who “we” is, but the State of Maryland was not complying with the Constitution. Hogan merely saved the State the costs of civil rights actions that were already being drafted.

“Gun violence” is a fake buzzword. Guns are inanimate. They have no will of their own. They are not self-locomoting. We don’t hear about “baseball bat” or “kitchen scissors” or “deliberate motor vehicle crash” or “toilet tank cover” violence.

Call it what it is: criminal violence and punish the criminals instead of decent people.

Let’s call this what it is: an argument that is made purely in bad faith and ignores reality completely. There’s no point in debating with you when you are so far gone, and I hope no one engages with this for the 30 millionth time.

We’re past this now. People are getting mowed down in churches, malls, schools, Fourth of July parades. Rich, poor, this is everybody’s problem and we don’t have time to engage with nonsense like the above. Enough, let’s move on.

Yes. Let’s move on. Your fear of inanimate objects lost. Buh bye.

HA! As if! This is like saying “let’s move on, your side lost” after the Dred Scott decision. Not that I expect you to even know what that means.

The Supreme Court doesn’t determine right and wrong, and it’s interpretation of the second amendment is obviously stupid. That you are on the side of lethal stupidity does not make you some sort of winner. History will see you and this SCOTUS for what it is, and you will lose in the end anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he doing this? We are complying with the constitution? I thought SCOTUS wanted states to decide these issues. How can Hogan do this unilaterally? I am already so scared about gun violence in this area.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-gun-laws-md-state-police-governor-larry-hogan-permit-wear-carry-weapon-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-law-provisions-standards-handgun

I don’t know who “we” is, but the State of Maryland was not complying with the Constitution. Hogan merely saved the State the costs of civil rights actions that were already being drafted.

“Gun violence” is a fake buzzword. Guns are inanimate. They have no will of their own. They are not self-locomoting. We don’t hear about “baseball bat” or “kitchen scissors” or “deliberate motor vehicle crash” or “toilet tank cover” violence.

Call it what it is: criminal violence and punish the criminals instead of decent people.

Let’s call this what it is: an argument that is made purely in bad faith and ignores reality completely. There’s no point in debating with you when you are so far gone, and I hope no one engages with this for the 30 millionth time.

We’re past this now. People are getting mowed down in churches, malls, schools, Fourth of July parades. Rich, poor, this is everybody’s problem and we don’t have time to engage with nonsense like the above. Enough, let’s move on.

Yes. Let’s move on. Your fear of inanimate objects lost. Buh bye.

HA! As if! This is like saying “let’s move on, your side lost” after the Dred Scott decision. Not that I expect you to even know what that means.

The Supreme Court doesn’t determine right and wrong, and it’s interpretation of the second amendment is obviously stupid. That you are on the side of lethal stupidity does not make you some sort of winner. History will see you and this SCOTUS for what it is, and you will lose in the end anyway.

Its interpretation of 2A is not obviously stupid. It’s actually obviously correct. The problem is that the founders were radicals who wanted to give people the right to be armed to the teeth sufficient to overthrow the government. A correct 2A interpretation would probably correctly give citizens a right to surface to air missiles. To the extent that is morally wrong and practically absurd, the Constitution should be amended. But it hasn’t been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he doing this? We are complying with the constitution? I thought SCOTUS wanted states to decide these issues. How can Hogan do this unilaterally? I am already so scared about gun violence in this area.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-gun-laws-md-state-police-governor-larry-hogan-permit-wear-carry-weapon-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-law-provisions-standards-handgun

I don’t know who “we” is, but the State of Maryland was not complying with the Constitution. Hogan merely saved the State the costs of civil rights actions that were already being drafted.

“Gun violence” is a fake buzzword. Guns are inanimate. They have no will of their own. They are not self-locomoting. We don’t hear about “baseball bat” or “kitchen scissors” or “deliberate motor vehicle crash” or “toilet tank cover” violence.

Call it what it is: criminal violence and punish the criminals instead of decent people.

Let’s call this what it is: an argument that is made purely in bad faith and ignores reality completely. There’s no point in debating with you when you are so far gone, and I hope no one engages with this for the 30 millionth time.

We’re past this now. People are getting mowed down in churches, malls, schools, Fourth of July parades. Rich, poor, this is everybody’s problem and we don’t have time to engage with nonsense like the above. Enough, let’s move on.

Yes. Let’s move on. Your fear of inanimate objects lost. Buh bye.

HA! As if! This is like saying “let’s move on, your side lost” after the Dred Scott decision. Not that I expect you to even know what that means.

The Supreme Court doesn’t determine right and wrong, and it’s interpretation of the second amendment is obviously stupid. That you are on the side of lethal stupidity does not make you some sort of winner. History will see you and this SCOTUS for what it is, and you will lose in the end anyway.

Its interpretation of 2A is not obviously stupid. It’s actually obviously correct. The problem is that the founders were radicals who wanted to give people the right to be armed to the teeth sufficient to overthrow the government. A correct 2A interpretation would probably correctly give citizens a right to surface to air missiles. To the extent that is morally wrong and practically absurd, the Constitution should be amended. But it hasn’t been.

We clearly disagree on what “obviously stupid” means because to me originalism, and trying to interpret laws written today based on one’s view of the above while ignoring an otherwise reasonable interpretation of said words, seems *obviously stupid.*

[Anonymous]

Good. I am in VA and will be applying for a MD CCW permit. I’m getting tired of not being able to carry whenever I drive across the river.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he doing this? We are complying with the constitution? I thought SCOTUS wanted states to decide these issues. How can Hogan do this unilaterally? I am already so scared about gun violence in this area.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-gun-laws-md-state-police-governor-larry-hogan-permit-wear-carry-weapon-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-law-provisions-standards-handgun

I don’t know who “we” is, but the State of Maryland was not complying with the Constitution. Hogan merely saved the State the costs of civil rights actions that were already being drafted.

“Gun violence” is a fake buzzword. Guns are inanimate. They have no will of their own. They are not self-locomoting. We don’t hear about “baseball bat” or “kitchen scissors” or “deliberate motor vehicle crash” or “toilet tank cover” violence.

Call it what it is: criminal violence and punish the criminals instead of decent people.

Let’s call this what it is: an argument that is made purely in bad faith and ignores reality completely. There’s no point in debating with you when you are so far gone, and I hope no one engages with this for the 30 millionth time.

We’re past this now. People are getting mowed down in churches, malls, schools, Fourth of July parades. Rich, poor, this is everybody’s problem and we don’t have time to engage with nonsense like the above. Enough, let’s move on.

Yes. Let’s move on. Your fear of inanimate objects lost. Buh bye.

HA! As if! This is like saying “let’s move on, your side lost” after the Dred Scott decision. Not that I expect you to even know what that means.

The Supreme Court doesn’t determine right and wrong, and it’s interpretation of the second amendment is obviously stupid. That you are on the side of lethal stupidity does not make you some sort of winner. History will see you and this SCOTUS for what it is, and you will lose in the end anyway.

Its interpretation of 2A is not obviously stupid. It’s actually obviously correct. The problem is that the founders were radicals who wanted to give people the right to be armed to the teeth sufficient to overthrow the government. A correct 2A interpretation would probably correctly give citizens a right to surface to air missiles. To the extent that is morally wrong and practically absurd, the Constitution should be amended. But it hasn’t been.

We clearly disagree on what “obviously stupid” means because to me originalism, and trying to interpret laws written today based on one’s view of the above while ignoring an otherwise reasonable interpretation of said words, seems *obviously stupid.*

So who should decide what is reasonable and why is that answer not Congress? It seems “obviously stupid” to me to tell courts “look at these words but don’t try to interpret what the authors meant, find some other reasonable meaning, thx”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is he doing this? We are complying with the constitution? I thought SCOTUS wanted states to decide these issues. How can Hogan do this unilaterally? I am already so scared about gun violence in this area.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-gun-laws-md-state-police-governor-larry-hogan-permit-wear-carry-weapon-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-law-provisions-standards-handgun

I don’t know who “we” is, but the State of Maryland was not complying with the Constitution. Hogan merely saved the State the costs of civil rights actions that were already being drafted.

“Gun violence” is a fake buzzword. Guns are inanimate. They have no will of their own. They are not self-locomoting. We don’t hear about “baseball bat” or “kitchen scissors” or “deliberate motor vehicle crash” or “toilet tank cover” violence.

Call it what it is: criminal violence and punish the criminals instead of decent people.

Let’s call this what it is: an argument that is made purely in bad faith and ignores reality completely. There’s no point in debating with you when you are so far gone, and I hope no one engages with this for the 30 millionth time.

We’re past this now. People are getting mowed down in churches, malls, schools, Fourth of July parades. Rich, poor, this is everybody’s problem and we don’t have time to engage with nonsense like the above. Enough, let’s move on.

Yes. Let’s move on. Your fear of inanimate objects lost. Buh bye.

HA! As if! This is like saying “let’s move on, your side lost” after the Dred Scott decision. Not that I expect you to even know what that means.

The Supreme Court doesn’t determine right and wrong, and it’s interpretation of the second amendment is obviously stupid. That you are on the side of lethal stupidity does not make you some sort of winner. History will see you and this SCOTUS for what it is, and you will lose in the end anyway.

Its interpretation of 2A is not obviously stupid. It’s actually obviously correct. The problem is that the founders were radicals who wanted to give people the right to be armed to the teeth sufficient to overthrow the government. A correct 2A interpretation would probably correctly give citizens a right to surface to air missiles. To the extent that is morally wrong and practically absurd, the Constitution should be amended. But it hasn’t been.

We clearly disagree on what “obviously stupid” means because to me originalism, and trying to interpret laws written today based on one’s view of the above while ignoring an otherwise reasonable interpretation of said words, seems *obviously stupid.*

So who should decide what is reasonable and why is that answer not Congress? It seems “obviously stupid” to me to tell courts “look at these words but don’t try to interpret what the authors meant, find some other reasonable meaning, thx”

Interpreting what the authors meant is different from following YOUR INTERPRETATION so zealously that you throw out context, 300+ years of history, common sense, and your own brain. So that is a bit of a straw man on your part. We clearly disagree on what is obviously stupid. This reminds me of “but the Bible!!” Christians who have sort of missed the larger takeaways of the Bible. Some people worship ancient documents and figures, some look at that and say “nope, can’t work.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Democrats have been given the chance of a lifetime to engage centrists who want reasonable, not murderous, abortion laws, and who want reasonable, not murderous, gun laws.

PLEASE USE IT. We need to keep the house and senate!!!

The governor of the state has asked the state to comply with the SCOTUS ruling.

What would you have him do??

Take a stand and sue as a state.

Or comply and in a press conference, excoriate the ruling and say he's opposed to it and only doing it under duress.

+1000

He really was not compelled to do this. It's all posturing for his preferred replacement. That's ok...she's not getting in.

Let me explain this for you as simply as possible. The highest tribunal in the country decided that the Second Amendhebt means what it said. Bearing arms outside the home is a Constitutionally protected civil right. Denial of that right would be among other things cause for an action under the Civil Rights Act, with all the problems that poses for contumaceous officials. Hogan took an Ostia to uphold the law. Like it or not, the law is determined, and he had no choice but to do what he did.

Let me explain this to you, dear, instead. SCOTUS decision came from a packed court from the previous administration's legislative Republucan lock and the denial of Garland in the one before that- all from the same people. So there's a big issue right there. And it should be dealt with in the federal legislature. There are no term limits, no ethics guidelines, no reason to have only 9 members on that court. All this has to change.

Secondly- dear, the SCOTUS doesn't legislate. It was about the reversal of a precedent. Look up the word. Not the same as law.

Md wasn't EVER obligated to also join. No state is obligated. This was NY, not Md. Let's let the cumbersome paperwork that people may want to file do the job of a looong delay until it fails. Let a better governor handle this.

Third, your idea of 2nd amendment rights has NOTHING to do with walking around with guns. Nothing. Or automatic weapons, or most of the issues arising EACH WEEK because of guns. This lives erroneously in your pin sized brain. You don't understand the 2nd amendment at all, and probably have not ever read the Constitution. It is clear here that you are clueless.

The NRA seems to be in charge here, not our govt. This has nothing to do with the Constitution.