21 State Attorneys General Ask Supreme Court to Void Maryland Gun Law - Good Reason

[Aim1]

Case is: Malpasso v. Pallozzi.

A coalition of 21 state attorneys general is asking the Supreme Court to strike down a Maryland law that denies concealed carry permits unless applicants can convince local officials they have a “good and substantial reason” to be granted one by local authorities.


This would be a good case for SCOTUS, no?

If SCOTUS took this case and ruled that one does not need a good reason to obtain a carry permit (a 2nd Amendment win) doesn't it also mean that you need a permit to carry outside the home?

I believe Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land. You shouldn't need a permit to exercise your 2nd Amendment right.




https://www.theepochtimes.com/21-st...e-court-to-void-maryland-gun-law_3184841.html

 

[AlexanderA]

Carry permits are not the crux of the gun issue. Wholesale bans of entire classes of firearms are. You can't carry what you can't own in the first place. Let's focus on what really matters.

 

[GEM]

No, I strongly disagree. Firearms are used for self-defense inside and outside of the house. Denying the ability to defend yourself outside of the home is as or more important than a 30 round mag that just sits at home.

The great progress in gun rights in the past few years is the expansion of the self-defense movement as seen in gun sales, the development of the self-defense culture as dominating the gun world and the actual usage of firearms to really protect people.

The state bans have not as yet denied carry guns of efficacy. Even if a state is limited mags to ten rounds or banning semi auto rifles, you can still carry a very effective gun with 10 rounds and an extra mag or two.

The suit is quite a reasonable one and hopefully a SCOTUS case, if it every happened with enshrine the right to carry outside of the home.

In my life, having a AR at home would not have helped in confrontations in the outside world.

 

[Walkalong]

No, I strongly disagree. Firearms are used for self-defense inside and outside of the house. Denying the ability to defend yourself outside of the home is as or more important than a 30 round mag that just sits at home.

Yep. Just as important.

 

[GEM]

I would also like to add that the phrase: good reason to obtain a carry permit denotes a general risk to the RKBA. The need to justify having a weapon or specific reason, if allowed, has and will be used to deny carry or ownership. What is the good reason for the AR?

What is the good reason for free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc.? In general, good reason to have a right is unacceptable. There has to be a good reason to control the implementation of a right, as for example, assembling in an unsafe manner or conducting human sacrifices in your religion. However, having a good reason for the simple instantiation of the right is not what the BOR is about.

 

[AlexanderA]

Re-read what I said: carry permits are not the crux of the gun issue. I'm not saying that carry permits aren't important. (Actually, "constitutional carry" would be even better.) But the danger is that in congratulating ourselves about the expansion of "shall issue" over most of the country, we are overlooking AWBs, magazine bans, etc., which are the real ways in which the antis are going to disarm us. Just look at what's happening in Virginia. The carry-license system isn't the focus of the antigunners, except maybe marginally. No, they're going after the guns themselves.

 

[bdickens]

Q: what reason do you have for needing a carry permit?

A: don't you see the news?

 

[GEM]

No one is ignoring the gun bans. You were unclear in your OP. If you want to say that currently the biggest threat is the gun bans, we get that. However, carry and type of weapons are both central to the the issue. We all understand the ban risk.

Some states have draconian permit regulations. As Americans, we should care about those folks. It is like the Civil Rights movement, people out of a segregation state fought for those in oppressed states. The same should happen with gun rights.

Telling folks to move, the usual response is unacceptable. If we don't care about Maryland, why should we care about Virigina?

 

[bdickens]

What ya gonna do when there's nowhere left to move to?

 

[Steve S.]

Then there are states such as Missouri; as long as you meet the legal requirements (age, residency, etc), no permit/ license is required.
The Wild West of MO is concentrated in a small triangle-shaped portion of North St. Louis City (minority poverty, drugs, civil unrest, etc) - you cannot turn on any local news day and not hear reported shootings in that triangle. There is a push by the Democrat leadership to override the MO law and require permits to conceal carry in the city limits.
It is obvious to me that the politicians simply do not know how to reduce the murder madness so uh, let’s try this knowing that the shooters could not care less about having or not having a permit.
My reason for wanting a carry permit is because our governing bodies can not protect me or mine - the police are responders, not preventers or stoppers - they are the fire department for crime. Self-protection always gives you a chance - at the time of need, the government is never there and the police are always late - the first four minutes always belong solely to me, I and my family are on our own - we need a chance to survive for that four minutes no matter where that four minutes takes place - it is simple to me.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

I lived in NYC for a very long time. It was impossible for the average citizen to get a carry permit. Only the rich, powerful, and connected could get them.

Even people whose professions required them to be at risk carrying large sums of cash or valuables Such as diamond merchants were denied carry permits, but Howard Stern and Chuck Schumer were issued them.

Anything that can change this system is a good thing

 

[LNK]

Carry permits are not the crux of the gun issue. Wholesale bans of entire classes of firearms are. You can't carry what you can't own in the first place. Let's focus on what really matters.

Oh, right, we can't do both at the same time? Any suit that causes a positive decision is a good one. It's not like we only get to bring up one thing at a time.

 

[stillquietvoice]

If SCOTUS took this case and ruled that one does not need a good reason to obtain a carry permit (a 2nd Amendment win) doesn't it also mean that you need a permit to carry outside the home?

It would be better that Scotus ruled that permits are unconstitional.

All states that charge fees for our rights be refunded.

What is the good reason for free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc.? In general, good reason to have a right is unacceptable. The

The bill of rights garentees these freedoms, but try having a origin demonstration. The local govt will stop you with out paying for a permit.
Or say it can't be done on the steps of the court house or on any particular day, time...

Go to a city Council meeting use free speech to lift gun regulations. After 3 minutes you'll be escorted out. The media will report, usually unfavorablely, about a disruptive citizen threatening city officials.

I love in a state that ignores the 2nd Amendment, restricting handgun ownership, use, and a county that further limits possession of handguns. Furthermore in order to get a ccw here I had to sign a waiver stating that my right is a privilege and can be taken away at any Time for any reason.

That's not what the 2nd says.

 

[Waveski]

If the government wields the power to grant or deny that a citizen may exercise a right as granted in the constitution , based on the governments perception of "need" , it is then not a right but rather a privilege at the governments whim.
In that case the citizen is more a subject than free citizen.

 

[AlexanderA]

I forgot to mention, in my earlier posts, that there's another downside to a permit system. It could be a trap set by the antigunners. We all know that total confiscation is the end stage for them. Every data base that identifies gun owners facilitates confiscation. I'm surprised that gun owners, like lemmings, are falling all over themselves to sign up for just such a data base -- which is exactly what a carry permit system is. People worry that their Forms 4473 will be computerized. Well, a carry permit is a direct record rather than an indirect record. Anyone with a carry permit is presumed to own a gun. Obviously, "constitutional carry" avoids this problem, which is why it's highly preferable to permits. Never invite "the man" into your life.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Carry permits are not the crux of the gun issue. Wholesale bans of entire classes of firearms are. You can't carry what you can't own in the first place. Let's focus on what really matters.

If that's the case, I would (and have) argue that so-called "red flag" laws trump class-based firearm bans in urgency since they are blanket bans on gun ownership altogether. Worse yet, they can be applied without due process.

 

[40-82]

I forgot to mention, in my earlier posts, that there's another downside to a permit system. It could be a trap set by the antigunners. We all know that total confiscation is the end stage for them. Every data base that identifies gun owners facilitates confiscation. I'm surprised that gun owners, like lemmings, are falling all over themselves to sign up for just such a data base -- which is exactly what a carry permit system is. People worry that their Forms 4473 will be computerized. Well, a carry permit is a direct record rather than an indirect record. Anyone with a carry permit is presumed to own a gun. Obviously, "constitutional carry" avoids this problem, which is why it's highly preferable to permits. Never invite "the man" into your life.

If the Antis ever have the power to institute an outright ban, they're not going to require anything like illegally saved 4473's or records of carry permits.

They'll show up at your door and demand that you turn over your guns. You'll either turn them over or go to jail. They may or may not institute a search. If they do, pleading Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights won't do you much good. They'll say, special times require special measures--or the equivalent rot. If you look like the type, whether they find guns or they don't won't make any difference. If you have nothing to turn over you'll still pay the consequences. In those last few weeks just before the outright ban, a lot of liberals will be looking to buy an illegal gun just to have something to turn in to prove their loyalty.

The chances of a redneck getting away with burying his guns out back somewhere is a concern of too much depth to worry over much about jailing the occasional misidentified liberal.

I can just hear him screaming as they drag him away, "I'm in the ACLU. I voted for Obama twice. I only had a subscription to Outdoor Life because I liked the fishing stories. I have the canceled checks to show I contributed to Moms Against Guns. I'm so close to Bloomberg, he lets me call him, Mike."

Actually, none of this could happen. Imagine this conversation between a future Democratic Governor of Virginia and a top aide.

"Oh, Great Khan(that's how the Governor means to be addressed in private), we can't jail all of the gun owners in the state."

The great Governor looks down from this throne. "And why not? None of them voted for me. None of them contributed to my campaign. Until we put these people in jail the great causes of Socialism will always be in jeopardy."

The aide again, in the meekest and most subservient of voices, and from a position so lowered, he's almost on his knees. "But all, Great Khan, all? If we jail them all, who will we tax?"

And there's the sound coming from our esteemed Governor, much like air being released from an overripe bladder. "Oh."

 

[Skeptic13]

'.....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

All assaults on our gun rights are equally important. Any time the left can diminish our 2nd amendment rights they win. They have been slowly chipping away at the 2nd amendment since the Firearms Act of 1934. We do not need to fight among ourselves about what restriction is more important than another. We need to fight them all equally. The left will never stop the assault. We should never stop fighting for our rights.

 

[Speedo66]

I lived in NYC for a very long time. It was impossible for the average citizen to get a carry permit. Only the rich, powerful, and connected could get them.

Even people whose professions required them to be at risk carrying large sums of cash or valuables Such as diamond merchants were denied carry permits, but Howard Stern and Chuck Schumer were issued them.

Anything that can change this system is a good thing

Robert De Niro, Mr. anti-gun, has one, too.

NYC says you have to have a special reason to have a handgun permit. A bodega owner in the Bronx applied for one since he'd been robbed at gunpoint several times. His request was denied, NYPD said another bodega owner down the block had also been robbed at gunpoint many times so his reason was not unusual.

 

[TikkaShooter]

If the Antis ever have the power to institute an outright ban, they're not going to require anything like illegally saved 4473's or records of carry permits.

They'll show up at your door and demand that you turn over your guns. You'll either turn them over or go to jail. They may or may not institute a search. If they do, pleading Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights won't do you much good. They'll say, special times require special measures--or the equivalent rot. If you look like the type, whether they find guns or they don't won't make any difference. If you have nothing to turn over you'll still pay the consequences. In those last few weeks just before the outright ban, a lot of liberals will be looking to buy an illegal gun just to have something to turn in to prove their loyalty.

Well said and here is how bad it is:
"Virginia representative Donald McEachin suggested Wednesday that Governor Ralph Northam may have to call out the National Guard to enforce the stricter gun laws Northam wants to pass. Northam brought up the new laws after more than 70 places in Virginia plan on declaring themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries.

In Second Amendment Sanctuaries, cities have the option of not using public funds to enforce laws that could restrict the gun rights of residents.

"If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books then there are going to be some consequences, but I'll cross that bridge if and when we get to it," Northam said, according to WSET."
https://www.newsweek.com/virginia-s...uard-called-force-enforcement-new-gun-1477242

Donald McEachin is of course a Democrat.

 

[LNK]

I forgot to mention, in my earlier posts, that there's another downside to a permit system. It could be a trap set by the antigunners. We all know that total confiscation is the end stage for them. Every data base that identifies gun owners facilitates confiscation. I'm surprised that gun owners, like lemmings, are falling all over themselves to sign up for just such a data base -- which is exactly what a carry permit system is. People worry that their Forms 4473 will be computerized. Well, a carry permit is a direct record rather than an indirect record. Anyone with a carry permit is presumed to own a gun. Obviously, "constitutional carry" avoids this problem, which is why it's highly preferable to permits. Never invite "the man" into your life.

I am pretty sure every gun owner in the United States is already on a list for confiscation. They may not know what guns you have, but they know you have some. The insurmountable task of collecting them is the problem they don't know how to solve. Which means the second amendment is doing its job. They want to disarm Americans, but they fear the American people too. Which is as it should be. They have the patience of Job, and are willing to play the long game of incrementalism. The best thing we can all do is train subsequent generations to be gun owners and understand that governments only want total control of the population.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Actually confiscating all of the guns from all of the otherwise law-abiding people is not the real goal of this legislation.
The real goal is to make all of these people that insist upon their right to keep and bear arms - and all of those officials that back that right - look like criminals to the common people.
Once those that insist on retaining their rights and their property are marginalized by being declared to be criminals and a danger to the population at large then the Second Amendment "bitter clingers" are effectively silenced and driven underground.
Then those successful legislators can move on to more restrictive actions... .

 

[CapnMac]

Great Khan, all? If we jail them all, who will we tax?"

Sadly, that answer would be "All the rest."
The goal is a compliant populace, in "our" case is is by trampling our 2A rights; for others, their rights will be trampled, too.
Functionally every part of he Bill of Rights is abused.
Barring only the 3rd, and that one probably becasue they can think of no way to quarter troops without compensation.

 

[Lucky Derby]

Sometimes a war must be fought on more than one front. What do suppose would have happened if we had only fought the Japanese and ignored Germany?

 

[GEM]

The TX church incident clearly indicates that carry is a crucial issue. If only the Federal Legislature and/or SCOTUS would get off their butts and affirm this is a clear manner that void states that have procedures and rules that block easy access to carry by law abiding citizens.

Of course, that is pipe dream. Sigh. There is no real interest in any of the branches of government in being aggressive and proactive for gun rights. The best you get from the elected branches is "we will defend" (never expand) and sent a check.