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

[Anonymous]

I’m willing to tax every resident of Maryland thousands of dollars each year, every year, to pay for the waves of lawsuit settlements resulting from Maryland staying the course on keeping “good and substantial reasons” as a reason to deny permits.

If keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding nonviolent people is this important to Marylanders, then they should be willing to part with thousands of dollars every year to pay for it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, the spelling is typos. Whoopsie. As for the rest of the ad hominem nonsense, it evades the issue. And I’d just love to have a list of “word usage issues”. Edify me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you read the prior posts, the request was for citations that supported a particular proposition. The cited article supports the opposite. The others, more or less, rely on at best post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m willing to tax every resident of Maryland thousands of dollars each year, every year, to pay for the waves of lawsuit settlements resulting from Maryland staying the course on keeping “good and substantial reasons” as a reason to deny permits.

If keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding nonviolent people is this important to Marylanders, then they should be willing to part with thousands of dollars every year to pay for it!

I would be fine with that. If I wanted to live in a state where everyone was armed I could move to Georgia or Texas.

After the first preventable Maryland mass shooting of kids, more people will probably be willing too.

[Anonymous]

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 he can make all the statements he likes. He's retiring.

The only thing that matters is he told the MSP that it must comply with the SCOTUS ruling.

Anything else is just words and your personal wishcasting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, the spelling is typos. Whoopsie. As for the rest of the ad hominem nonsense, it evades the issue. And I’d just love to have a list of “word usage issues”. Edify me.

We know this is only one of your word salad posts, most of which condescendingly start with " Let me explain..." while you obviously cannot.

Did you look up "edify?"
And no one's evading the issue. Your constant commenting, poorly, about everyone not understanding the Constitution, how Hogan was required to do x,y,z, and your 2nd amendment nonsense identifies your literacy level( or lack of it) and politics. Your comments are copied from any number of Twitter comments, various right wing podcasts, but they aren't accurate.

[Anonymous]

Yay for NJ. Elect a Dem this November, and we can get back on track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m willing to tax every resident of Maryland thousands of dollars each year, every year, to pay for the waves of lawsuit settlements resulting from Maryland staying the course on keeping “good and substantial reasons” as a reason to deny permits.

If keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding nonviolent people is this important to Marylanders, then they should be willing to part with thousands of dollars every year to pay for it!

I would be fine with that. If I wanted to live in a state where everyone was armed I could move to Georgia or Texas.

After the first preventable Maryland mass shooting of kids, more people will probably be willing too.

+1000

[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.

Most rational folks realize the second amendment was written truly for states rights - not individual liberty. A well regulated militia means it would not be illegal to join your state militia should federal power become draconian. It was never meant to be a personal right to bear arms as this radical court basically created a personal right to please a political party and boost sales for NRA.

You can and should exercise this right simply by joining the Maryland Guard - if you so wish, have them train you on an M-16 to defend Maryland from Feds (if need be). You going out and buying an AR-15 for your personal arsenal is a ‘right’ created from whole cloth by a radical court hell bent on delivering to their benefactors and getting to live on Foxhall Road.

[Anonymous]

That’s why liberals should talk more about what comes next - the Third Amendment - it’s about it being illegal for soldiers to bivouac in your house. These are paired amendments to deal with specific problems the Founders feared would happen with too much Federal power.

[Anonymous]

The Constitution is not set in stone. If you don't like the second amendment, get your friends and family and the rest of the country to support you and repeal it.

If the people of the US do not want the people to have the right to keep and bear arms, there is a well documented process to change it. 2 actually -- if you don't think you can get a repeal in place, then push for a Constitutional Convention. Can't manage either? Then the will of the people remains on the side of the second amendment, try again another time.

Women know that people give lip service to things they don't actually believe all the time, which is why there's no Equal Rights amendment. But maybe people care more about guns.

I just went through the MD Wear and Carry class because I was curious about what it required, and am of the opinion that it presents a fairly high barrier for a Constitutional right. It was $400, 2 full days (16 hours) , and then actually applying for the permit requires additional fees and paperwork - including multiple not-related references, fingerprints, and an extensive background check. I'm told MD typically uses the full 90 days they have to grant the permit, if granted. My class had a decent mix of races, although few women, lest one think this is just a bunch of white dudes trying to compensate for something. There is a shooting portion of the class where you must make a minimum score in order to pass. In many ways, it reminded me of the "this is everything that can go wrong and how you're going to die" drivers ed training I had in the 1980s. Then assuming you're going to carry, you have to purchase and license a handgun. And you have to maintain your Wear and Carry permit, which is every 2 years (3 after the first renewal) requiring an additional $200 fee and full day (8 hour) class, including the shooting test, and gives the state another opportunity to revoke your permit if in the past 2/3 years you have done something to indicate you are not a safe and sober person. This is not a one time thing, it requires consistent effort and expense. SCOTUS only struck down requiring a "good and substantial reason" (because in MD, self-defense was insufficient. You needed to provide multiple police records, if you weren't a well-connected, wealthy white dude who could find someone connected to back your permit application).

I do not own a gun and have no intention of carrying, or even purchasing my own weapon. I'm fine renting from the range when I want to go target shooting. I do enjoy target shooting, typically with .22 rifles, so making guns entirely illegal is something I probably wouldn't support, but I can see myself being persuaded that even England's restrictive laws are reasonable. But for where the law of the land is today, MD's Wear and Carry requirements, without the good and substantial reason requirement, seem reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Constitution is not set in stone. If you don't like the second amendment, get your friends and family and the rest of the country to support you and repeal it.

If the people of the US do not want the people to have the right to keep and bear arms, there is a well documented process to change it. 2 actually -- if you don't think you can get a repeal in place, then push for a Constitutional Convention. Can't manage either? Then the will of the people remains on the side of the second amendment, try again another time.

Women know that people give lip service to things they don't actually believe all the time, which is why there's no Equal Rights amendment. But maybe people care more about guns.

I just went through the MD Wear and Carry class because I was curious about what it required, and am of the opinion that it presents a fairly high barrier for a Constitutional right. It was $400, 2 full days (16 hours) , and then actually applying for the permit requires additional fees and paperwork - including multiple not-related references, fingerprints, and an extensive background check. I'm told MD typically uses the full 90 days they have to grant the permit, if granted. My class had a decent mix of races, although few women, lest one think this is just a bunch of white dudes trying to compensate for something. There is a shooting portion of the class where you must make a minimum score in order to pass. In many ways, it reminded me of the "this is everything that can go wrong and how you're going to die" drivers ed training I had in the 1980s. Then assuming you're going to carry, you have to purchase and license a handgun. And you have to maintain your Wear and Carry permit, which is every 2 years (3 after the first renewal) requiring an additional $200 fee and full day (8 hour) class, including the shooting test, and gives the state another opportunity to revoke your permit if in the past 2/3 years you have done something to indicate you are not a safe and sober person. This is not a one time thing, it requires consistent effort and expense. SCOTUS only struck down requiring a "good and substantial reason" (because in MD, self-defense was insufficient. You needed to provide multiple police records, if you weren't a well-connected, wealthy white dude who could find someone connected to back your permit application).

I do not own a gun and have no intention of carrying, or even purchasing my own weapon. I'm fine renting from the range when I want to go target shooting. I do enjoy target shooting, typically with .22 rifles, so making guns entirely illegal is something I probably wouldn't support, but I can see myself being persuaded that even England's restrictive laws are reasonable. But for where the law of the land is today, MD's Wear and Carry requirements, without the good and substantial reason requirement, seem reasonable.

Thank you for the informed discussion. This was a good post.

-Someone who does not agree with the concept of CCPs generally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I see a list of CCP requirements in MD?

He just invited the super majority Dems in the MD legislature to create all sorts of new requirements for the CCP license, like mental health screenings.

So the state can spend a much of money losing before SCOTUS and creating even worse precedent for gun restriction laws? Great plan. With liberals like you, who needs conservatives

You obviously didn't understand the SC decision.

[Anonymous]

My concern is that this ruling is an opening salvo by the SC to force states to grant reciprocity to CCP holders from other states where the bar to entry is non-existent and any lunatic can conceal carry.


Maryland clearly has a robust CCP infrastructure with frequent trainings and recertification. This is good. The problem is if the SC tells Maryland that they MUST recognize a CCP from Texas, which has minimal standards (21+ and no criminal convictions).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I just went through the MD Wear and Carry class because I was curious about what it required, and am of the opinion that it presents a fairly high barrier for a Constitutional right. It was $400, 2 full days (16 hours) , and then actually applying for the permit requires additional fees and paperwork - including multiple not-related references, fingerprints, and an extensive background check. I'm told MD typically uses the full 90 days they have to grant the permit, if granted. My class had a decent mix of races, although few women, lest one think this is just a bunch of white dudes trying to compensate for something. There is a shooting portion of the class where you must make a minimum score in order to pass. In many ways, it reminded me of the "this is everything that can go wrong and how you're going to die" drivers ed training I had in the 1980s. Then assuming you're going to carry, you have to purchase and license a handgun. And you have to maintain your Wear and Carry permit, which is every 2 years (3 after the first renewal) requiring an additional $200 fee and full day (8 hour) class, including the shooting test, and gives the state another opportunity to revoke your permit if in the past 2/3 years you have done something to indicate you are not a safe and sober person. This is not a one time thing, it requires consistent effort and expense. SCOTUS only struck down requiring a "good and substantial reason" (because in MD, self-defense was insufficient. You needed to provide multiple police records, if you weren't a well-connected, wealthy white dude who could find someone connected to back your permit application).

That’s too easy!!!!!

I want it to stay the old way - where only wealthy or well connected white guys like my husband could get a permit. That was so much better!

I don’t want a bunch of emotional women, poors, and minorities being able to get permits to. And I will support any Dem who will keep that from happening.