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

[Anonymous]

So dumb. Easier concealed carry is associated with both more officer-involved shootings and more injured/killed police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this an overall gun control debate, this is pretty simple.

The attorney general, a lifetime moco loberal- advised the MD state police that they had to comply with the scotus ruling. So did the governor. Thats pretty much it.

Anyone who wanted them to do something other than that, is living in a dream world.

His actual statement vs your imagined statement

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence.

“We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders.”

And we will continue to fight. There are so many peoole ready to fight and have prevailed before.

Get involved with gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and others. We aren't done here.

Governor (no friend of gun owners) Hogan, the rabidly anti-gun Attorney General of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to disagree. You are, in fact, done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. Easier concealed carry is associated with both more officer-involved shootings and more injured/killed police.

With licensed guns? Can you provide a citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. Easier concealed carry is associated with both more officer-involved shootings and more injured/killed police.

With licensed guns? Can you provide a citation?

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/323312

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-link-between-dropping-permit-requirement-for-carrying-concealed-weapons-and-increase-in-officer-involved-shootings-with-civilian-victims

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/firearm-mortality.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this an overall gun control debate, this is pretty simple.

The attorney general, a lifetime moco loberal- advised the MD state police that they had to comply with the scotus ruling. So did the governor. Thats pretty much it.

Anyone who wanted them to do something other than that, is living in a dream world.

His actual statement vs your imagined statement

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence.

“We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders.”

And we will continue to fight. There are so many peoole ready to fight and have prevailed before.

Get involved with gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and others. We aren't done here.

Governor (no friend of gun owners) Hogan, the rabidly anti-gun Attorney General of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to disagree. You are, in fact, done.

The AG does not agree. The SC also doesnt think blacks and women are equal because it was not originally in the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this an overall gun control debate, this is pretty simple.

The attorney general, a lifetime moco loberal- advised the MD state police that they had to comply with the scotus ruling. So did the governor. Thats pretty much it.

Anyone who wanted them to do something other than that, is living in a dream world.

His actual statement vs your imagined statement

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence.

“We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders.”

And we will continue to fight. There are so many peoole ready to fight and have prevailed before.

Get involved with gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and others. We aren't done here.

Governor (no friend of gun owners) Hogan, the rabidly anti-gun Attorney General of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to disagree. You are, in fact, done.

The AG does not agree. The SC also doesnt think blacks and women are equal because it was not originally in the constitution.

If you read the AG opinion, he doesn’t like it, but is compelled to admit the defunct “good and substantial” requirement is unenforceable in light of Bruen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this an overall gun control debate, this is pretty simple.

The attorney general, a lifetime moco loberal- advised the MD state police that they had to comply with the scotus ruling. So did the governor. Thats pretty much it.

Anyone who wanted them to do something other than that, is living in a dream world.

His actual statement vs your imagined statement

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence.

“We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders.”

And we will continue to fight. There are so many peoole ready to fight and have prevailed before.

Get involved with gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and others. We aren't done here.

Governor (no friend of gun owners) Hogan, the rabidly anti-gun Attorney General of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to disagree. You are, in fact, done.

The AG does not agree. The SC also doesnt think blacks and women are equal because it was not originally in the constitution.

If you read the AG opinion, he doesn’t like it, but is compelled to admit the defunct “good and substantial” requirement is unenforceable in light of Bruen.

So, tgat doesn’t mean he must suspend it. It also doesn’t mean he can’t put other laws in place to protect MD citizens. He was ordered to do so by Higsn so he can shed his Tino label. He’s a turncoat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this an overall gun control debate, this is pretty simple.

The attorney general, a lifetime moco loberal- advised the MD state police that they had to comply with the scotus ruling. So did the governor. Thats pretty much it.

Anyone who wanted them to do something other than that, is living in a dream world.

His actual statement vs your imagined statement

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence.

“We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders.”

And we will continue to fight. There are so many peoole ready to fight and have prevailed before.

Get involved with gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and others. We aren't done here.

Governor (no friend of gun owners) Hogan, the rabidly anti-gun Attorney General of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to disagree. You are, in fact, done.

The AG does not agree. The SC also doesnt think blacks and women are equal because it was not originally in the constitution.

If you read the AG opinion, he doesn’t like it, but is compelled to admit the defunct “good and substantial” requirement is unenforceable in light of Bruen.

So, that doesn’t mean he must suspend it. It also doesn’t mean he can’t put other laws in place to protect MD citizens. He was ordered to do so by Hogan so he can shed his RINO label. He’s a turncoat.

Ugh typos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. Easier concealed carry is associated with both more officer-involved shootings and more injured/killed police.

With licensed guns? Can you provide a citation?

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/323312

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-link-between-dropping-permit-requirement-for-carrying-concealed-weapons-and-increase-in-officer-involved-shootings-with-civilian-victims

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/firearm-mortality.html

You might want to drop that first citation. The U. Chicago article appears to say that “shall issue” laws lowered police deaths rather than increasing them.

“States that allowed law‐abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right‐to‐carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this an overall gun control debate, this is pretty simple.

The attorney general, a lifetime moco loberal- advised the MD state police that they had to comply with the scotus ruling. So did the governor. Thats pretty much it.

Anyone who wanted them to do something other than that, is living in a dream world.

His actual statement vs your imagined statement

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence.

“We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders.”

And we will continue to fight. There are so many peoole ready to fight and have prevailed before.

Get involved with gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and others. We aren't done here.

Governor (no friend of gun owners) Hogan, the rabidly anti-gun Attorney General of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to disagree. You are, in fact, done.

The AG does not agree. The SC also doesnt think blacks and women are equal because it was not originally in the constitution.

If you read the AG opinion, he doesn’t like it, but is compelled to admit the defunct “good and substantial” requirement is unenforceable in light of Bruen.

So, tgat doesn’t mean he must suspend it. It also doesn’t mean he can’t put other laws in place to protect MD citizens. He was ordered to do so by Higsn so he can shed his Tino label. He’s a turncoat.

Too many pronouns and some confusion about who’s responsible for what.

The AG’s office (despite the AG’s personal animus) confirmed that as a result of Bruen, any attempt to enforce the “good and substantial” requirement would violate the Constitution and subject the State and its agents to liability under the Civil Rights Act.

The Governor, consistent with this conclusion and the plain language of the Bruen opinion, directed the State Police to stop violating people’s civil rights.

The Secretary of the Maryland State Police properly followed the advice of the AG and obeyed the Governor’s order, as he was obliged to do.

There are plenty of laws in place to protect Maryland citizens, although a lot of them don’t seem to work very well because they’re not enforced. Wear and carry permits still require detailed background checks, freedom from disqualifying factors such as criminal history, and extensive (and expensive) fingerprint checks and training repeated at regular intervals, not to mention purchase licensing, long lists of forbidden firearms, magazine capacity restrictions, and so on. Crimes involving the misuse of firearms are still serious crimes with serious penalties (although those seem rarely imposed).

[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.

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? This case is in the league of Brown v Board of Education, not Dredd Scott. (And I’ll match my knowledge of Con Law with yours any time.)

As for the Supreme Court not determining right and wrong, that sure wasn’t the position of a lot of people who were saying precisely the opposite until just a few days ago.

Should Hogan have stood in a doorway shouting “good and substantial yesterday, good and substantial today, good and substantial forever” a la George Wallace?

“Lethal stupidity” is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Like blaming inanimate objects for the consummate evil of murderers and depriving victims of the right to self defense.

The bolded is when I learn that debate with this person is a huge and stupid waste of time, because they left the realm of reality long, long ago. See the other 30,000,000 threads about guns if you want to preview this entire discussion, including numerous discussions of “con law.” I’m not interested in blatant and particularly American stupidity.

Don’t like America? No law holding you here.

It’s good that you recognize that it is a huge and stupid waste of time to argue against the truth.

Well, I guess that's your collective plan. A nation of white Christians succeeding by having thess guns to begin with. Oh- and that's how it began, too.

Sorry- it's people like you that we will recover from. It's worth the endeavor, no matter how large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. Easier concealed carry is associated with both more officer-involved shootings and more injured/killed police.

With licensed guns? Can you provide a citation?

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/323312

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-link-between-dropping-permit-requirement-for-carrying-concealed-weapons-and-increase-in-officer-involved-shootings-with-civilian-victims

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/firearm-mortality.html

You might want to drop that first citation. The U. Chicago article appears to say that “shall issue” laws lowered police deaths rather than increasing them.

“States that allowed law‐abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right‐to‐carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths.”

You want 1 sided responses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this an overall gun control debate, this is pretty simple.

The attorney general, a lifetime moco loberal- advised the MD state police that they had to comply with the scotus ruling. So did the governor. Thats pretty much it.

Anyone who wanted them to do something other than that, is living in a dream world.

His actual statement vs your imagined statement

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence.

“We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders.”

And we will continue to fight. There are so many peoole ready to fight and have prevailed before.

Get involved with gun control groups like Moms Demand Action and others. We aren't done here.

Governor (no friend of gun owners) Hogan, the rabidly anti-gun Attorney General of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to disagree. You are, in fact, done.

How naive.

[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.

I love how you keep trying to "explain this" to people, but then ramble on with an amazing amount of spelling errors, word usage issues, rhetorical fallacies, and unsubstantiated arguments. You aren't even literate.

You can't explain anything to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good thing everyone in this thread is so much better at conlaw than AG Frosh!

That’s not a very high bar to clear