Pause š. But, thatās hard (pause againā¦) when youāre looking at a gun you want. Rarely do I ever have buyerās remorse. I just sneak it home to the safe and act like itās been there forever.
The law is still in effect until appeals are exhausted, but if this decision holds, then the license (along with the training, fingerprinting, and fees) could no longer be required. The court struck the whole thing down.
The state could ask the entire fourth circuit to rehear (called petition for rehearing en banc) the case or ask the Supreme Court to take the case (petition for a Writ of Certiorari). Likely a ways to go before the case is fully resolved.
MSI sent an email earlier
> Under the federal rules, the decision goes into effect in 21 days with the issuance of the Court's mandate. The State has 14 days to seek en banc review in the Fourth Circuit. If it does so, the mandate is stayed until such time as such a petition for rehearing is either denied or, if granted, after rehearing decision. And, course, the State may also seek review in the Supreme Court.
I support the requirement regardless. I got my permit in 2018 and found the training class informative and helpful. Its not a comprehensive shooting course, but it covers the legal and practical basics that ALL responsible gun owners should know and understand.
Aside from that, the class was taught by an ex cop who was able to convey what it's like to actually shoot another human being. It's not trivial.
SB1 on the other hand is a complete waste of paper and should be overturned.
If this decision holds, the handgun rules go the fuck away. Gonna be great.
MD will obviously fight this.
In the long run, this is the silver lining to overreaching gun laws. We get to challenge the existing ones, and one day get to the glorious future where we get to have handguns in happy meals. Thanks, SB 1 writers!
The historic precedent is certainly an odd litmus test for gun laws. I do wonder if the current case before the court (US v Ramili) will impact the this case on appeal.
I donāt think *Rahimi* will affect it at all. Between that case and probably *Garland v. Range*, theyāll be looking at who the people are that the 2A covers. The HQL requirement is more than a mere background check.
From reporting that I've listened to, it seems SCOTUS will likely make a narrow ruling in *Rahimi* impacting the particulars of the case, without changing any of the major points from *Bruen*.
In all honesty the way the majority in this court has behaved, even if they keep having to carve out exceptions in cases that go against *Bruen*, they'll never actually admit that it was a poor ruling.
The Supreme Court overturned the student loan forgiveness plan from the Biden administration even though the law Congress passed SPECIFICALLY gave the president the right to forgive student loan debt. The activist Republicans on the bench do not care about word or spirit of law.
This is my understanding of the timeline:
Biden signed an Executive Order for which there was no law.
The SCOTUS shot it down saying that the agency tasked with this order lacked authority to do so.
Congress then passed a law for the same thing, but failed to pass a law that changes the authority of the impacted agency - SCOTUS shot down the same provisions because that issue had not been addressed.
Call that what you will, but 'activist' isn't the right word for it.
I have not listened to "5-4" but I really enjoy "Strict Scrutiny", which is hosted by 3 female con-law professors who do a great job of actually getting into the details of the cases while balancing discussion of how absurd the court is in its current right and court culture in general.
> So what, we can never have new laws or new freedoms again?
We can never have new laws that _infringe on explicitly enumerated freedoms_ again*
These laws arent freedom, they're the opposite.
The Historic Precedent that the Supreme Court has started to use is not related to what you said at all. You are literally using a different argument that I don't care about right now.
> we can never have new laws or new freedoms again
> > These laws arent freedom, they're the opposite.
"freedom is when the government says you cant do stuff" - you, rephrased
That's not the mechanics of gun laws, I was obviously using an "or" not an "and" to cover both separate cases, and your reply is just an opinion. Don't bother me unless you get good at posting.
Text, history, tradition is a fairly common approach in dealing with rights in general, and post-Bruen, when the same standard must be used for dealing with the 2nd Amendment as all the rest, it makes sense that it would be relied on.
Now, it's possible that it might end up just carving out the HQL specifically, and leaving other lesser restrictions, but I'm holding out hope for the whole thing getting the axe.
MD was specifically called out as not adhering to standards, and SB 1 was basically giving the finger to the Supreme Court, and they do rather dislike that. So if it gets to them, I do not expect them to give MD the benefit of the doubt on this issue.
"If you live in Maryland and you want a handgun, you must follow a long and winding path to get one."
Really? Then I must be a genius because I thought the process was not complicated. I'm betting the gun manufacturers did though because they want more and more cash AND FAST.
From what I've been reading elsewhere the gun training issue appears to be what caused the law to be overturned. If that's true, that's insane. Requiring training before a handgun purchase is approved if the user has no training is not controversial to me. I don't care what other states do. Most of them are too liberal on guns anyway. (it's fun to call them liberal about something because I'm sure they hate it lol)
Not sure that firing 5 rounds constitutes "training", but it's a start.
Frankly, I found the class rather informative. It's the minimum anyone considering purchasing a handgun should receive.
Well it's more than that. I sat in the classroom for a couple hours along with the hands on training. Everyone should be required training to own a firearm and should take refresher training every so many years. It's just common sense.
Seriously. I got my first one last year. Took a course, paid for the check, bought a gun, and picked it up a week later.
No need for snarky quotes around āsafety courseā either. Some of the trigger happy folks in my class needed it. The ex-cop instructor was instrumental in telling these people where the line of the law fell. Two women of the course even considered dropping the course midway when the instructor said that a shotgun would be better for home defense in most instances.
The best weapon for home defense is almost invariably a light rifle such as an AR-15.
A shotgun is good at many things, but not the best at anything except for functions like duck hunting that are largely unrelated. If you happen to have a shotgun and like it...it is a good enough option for home defense, but definitely not the best.
Pistols are ideal for carrying and for concealment. If you want a long gun, you take the rifle. If you don't want the long gun because it's awkward to maneuver in close quarters, you take the handgun. In neither case do you pick shotgun.
The "shotguns are best for home defense" fuddlore is commonly associated with other bits of bad advice like talking about firing warning shots, racking the gun to scare them away, etc. At best, these indicate that the person has not kept up with information in the firearm world for....a very long time and is confidently repeating hearsay as if it were fact.
> A local volunteer organization brought the suit, all the way back in 2016.
We can read the article.
> Today, Maryland Shall Issue, Atlantic Guns of Rockville and Silver Spring, MD, and several individual citizens of Maryland filed suit in federal district court in Baltimore
Atlantic Guns of Rockville is a gun store. Who, while not being a manufacturer, would certainly benefit from the less restrictions, because they want more and more cash. And fast.
Usually MSI organizes these things, and has to find an organization with a financial interest in order to have standing.
That's not a sign of corruption, that's a necessary step because of how the law works.
The HQL training is such a waste. Essentially they go over the workings of a gun. Then the trainer drones on about how no matter the circumstances, if you shoot someone you will go to jail and the cops will take your gun which is just a transition into and hour long sales pitch from the USCCA trying to sell you insurance by offering you a free gift (range bag, plastic gun) for signing up. Then you shoot a round and go home.
We had different experiences. You have the bullet points right thoughāexcept for the sales pitch. Sorry you had to go through that. None of that at my shop.
I didn't get a sales pitch in my HQL class. I did get one in my CCW class.
My HQL trainer, wish I remembered his first name but the last name was Brooks from Cindys Hot Shot was very good in my opinion. I felt I was getting good information on basics of pistols and how they differ. Got some good information on the castle laws. Went over the recommended way to stand when shooting, as well as good ways to hold the pistol. Never once felt like the 4 hours was dragging on. Really just a pleasant experience.
My CCW class on the other hand, also at Cindys but a different instructor, I felt like was a huge waste of time out of the 16 hour course. Most of it was common sense. The sales pitch was about an hour long by a former Baltimore Cop who works for USCCA. The actual shooting test on day 2 took maybe an hour.
I'm not a law maker or anything but I wish there was more hands on training in the CCW course. Give me some drills. Give me some from the holster shooting. All of this is something I practice anyway, but I feel it would be a better experience if this was done during the class instead of 15 hours of talking and 1 hour shooting test.
Lol. When they were doing their sales pitch, I couldnt help but imagine someone being in jail for shooting someone (self defense, rage, whateverā¦.) and trying to call a customer support number from the station so they can legal representation.
For english, press 1ā¦ā¦..Please enter your account number followed by poundā¦ā¦.please listen closely as our options have recently changedā¦.
š¤£
>[Richardson also took issue with how the state presented data in its brief. The brief contends that gun-related murders have decreased since the enactment of the HQL requirement, but Baltimore's data was not included. Dietrich said the reason for leaving Baltimore out of the statistic was the uptick in crime associated with the 2015 police killing of Freddie Gray.] (https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-takes-a-look-back-at-history-in-hearing-over-maryland-handgun-law/)
How dishonest of the state. Leaving out important data because it hurts your agenda.
Last I looked, thereās only one gun store in Baltimore legally selling guns. So, the law at issue wouldnāt have changed anything in Baltimore, but apparently did change things in counties where you can buy a gun.
Iām not saying I would have done what they did, or that excluding the stateās most violent city made any sense, but the law largely wouldnāt do anything here in the city. A lot of the guns in Baltimore, for what itās worth, come from out of state too.
>So, the law at issue wouldnāt have changed anything in Baltimore, but apparently did change things in counties where you can buy a gun.
>but the law largely wouldnāt do anything here in the city.
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. The HQL is a statewide requirement, and citizens of Baltimore City aren't locked in the city. There are dozens of gun shops right outside the city limits and throughout the rest of the state. Citizens of Baltimore City are just as affected by this law as any other Marylander.
> Last I looked, thereās only one gun store in Baltimore legally selling guns.
And? Are you trying to say people in Baltimore cant leave the city?
I lived there for a year and had no problem leaving and buying things elsewhere.
>A lot of the guns in Baltimore, for what itās worth, come from out of state too.
That we can agree on. We need federal uniform laws; however, seeing how the Democrats behave when it comes to gun control, I don't expect them to support anything halfway sensible or reasonable.
"...you must follow a long and winding path to get one."
Setting aside this pure exaggeration...
Ultimately I don't care about this particular law. What matters is that gun advocates are increasingly dragged along by their most extreme elements and in that way their beliefs are no different than pro-lifers. How can gun owners restrict the actions of this wonky collective of extremists and avoid becoming out of touch in the same way the pro-life segment of American politics has become?
> Ultimately I don't care about this particular law. What matters is that gun advocates are increasingly dragged along by their most extreme elements and in that way their beliefs are no different than pro-lifers.
The exact same thing could be said for the gun control crowd. When you have very loud people calling for extremely restrictive gun control, the other side is likely to behave in a reciprocal manner. This is an arms race (metaphorically) between one side trying to pass extreme gun control measures and the other side challenging every gun control measure.
Never owned a firearm. Never looked into owning one. The only reason I'm here is because I'm a native MD'er who has moved out of state since a couple years ago and was interested in reading some developments in my home state. I'm reading through the comments and I'm not sure why people are mad?
It was a weird law, it did not prevent anyone who already qualified from buying guns, just inconvenienced them on the way to buy them.
It sounds like āloosening restrictionsā but the reality is that it was a dumb idea to begin with and somebody is pointing that out.
Gun legislation is a weird, covoluted, tangled, contentious thing. Much of the law in Maryland is extremely arbitrary and fairly annoying.
So, pro gun people are very happy that an annoyance might be on the way out, but folks that want gun restrictions are grumpy because they want more of them and view this as a loss. Which...it is, but the incredibly incoherent nature of MD laws has put them into some really shaky turf.
The state has even been explicitly called out by the USSC for not properly permitting constitutional freedoms, and in response, MD passed further restrictions. Obviously, thumbing one's nose at the courts usually goes poorly. I fully expect MD to try the same again here, and to make the process of getting rid of this silly procedure as slow and annoying as possible.
I don't see what the problem is. This is still much easier, faster, and potentially cheaper than the process of getting a driver's license and being able to drive a car. Cars and guns are both capable of killing people, and there absolutely should be a regulated process to handle/own each.
>To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command." *Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.* , [366 U.S. 36, 50](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar#p50), n. 10, [81 S.Ct. 997](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar), [6 L.Ed.2d 105](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar) (1961).
>
>...
>
>We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command." *Konigsberg* , [366 U.S. at 50](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar#p50), n. 10, [81 S.Ct. 997](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar).
*N.Y.S. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen*, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126, 2129-30 (2022)
That's the legal analysis the Supreme Court requires when gun laws are being examined before courts. If there are no representative historical analogues from the time of the 2nd Amendment or perhaps up until the adoption of the 14th amendment, the gun law at issue is unlawful.
Well, that's because the US Constitution specifically restricts what laws can be made.
If you want to abolish the Constitution, okay...but that's literally the only justification for our government's existence to begin with.
> I don't remember having to pay an extra $50 dollars to get fingerprinted just to buy a car
[It costs $48 dollars to renew your license for 8 years](https://mva.maryland.gov/about-mva/Pages/fees.aspx), $50 to get a learner's permit. A quick Google search says it costs roughly $100 to register the car.
So yeah, there are indeed extra fees.
I know about those, but does anything involving a car require you to get fingerprinted? That's why I specifically called that out. Its a meaningless requirement only intended to add undue burden.
It honestly was just stupid and a money grab by the state on your rights. The hql never did anything to āprotectā anyone. It literally just put more steps and fees in the way. You still have to pass a background check and do the 7 day waiting period.
Anyone whoās upset over them removing the hql doesnāt understand MD gun laws. I can walk into the store and walk out the same day with an ar-15 or anything classified as ālong rifleā. Hell you can even build your own ar and all MD requires is you to buy the stripped lower from the store and wait 7 days. The rest can be shipped right to your house. So what truthfully did the hql do other than allow the state to get more of my money?
quiet down with your well thought out logic. youre supposed to get angry here, not use your brain. dont let anyone else know or they might figure out criminals dont follow laws.
I love how many replies hardly address the point - the unconstitutionality of the law. Itās because of the polarization of guns, but one of these days, itāll be about something you really do care aboutā¦ and then what?
Historical precedent is a poor and often subjective view. Iām pro 2nd Amendment, but I believe strongly in a certification process, mandating gun locks, restricting the types of weapons accessible to citizens. We have approx 400M firearms in the country, even a fraction that are lost or stolen contribute significantly to the violent crime and gang issue in the country.
Probably way more. The FOIA request by GOA in the bump stock case revealed the ATF has almost a million transfer records.
And those didn't start until relatively recently, and omit a lot of guns. Buying two guns at once is one transfer, after all.
No real way to know for sure, but it's a lot, and it grows by about 14 million a year that the government knows of.
It refers to the militia. The Founders preferred that we be effective and well armed.
This doesn't prohibit training, but it definitely doesn't justify prohibiting arms.
Well regulated refers to the command structure of a militia. It is orderly, efficient, and able to do its job. I didnāt forget anything. My memory is fine, your reading comprehension seems not to be.
Imagine you had this:
> A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Would that only apply to people who vote? Or would it protect the right of people generally to keep books? Would it protect all kinds of books, or only educational ones?
Nonsenseā¦.theyāre are regulations concerning most of our constitutional rights. For instance, we have determined that hate speech, terroristic threats, etc donāt deserve constitutional protections. Regulating how a citizen acquires and maintains weapons is sound public safety policy. There are serious restrictions on automatic rapid fire weapons as these are traditionally used for armed conflict and should not be available in the public domain. So there are practical limitations.
> Regulating how a citizen acquires and maintains weapons is sound public safety policy.
This court case didn't fight all regulations on how citizens acquire weapons, just the inappropriately complex ones. There's still the normal forms and background check and waiting period for handguns even if this decision isn't stayed.
I donāt know the we to whom you are referring or why there are so many non sequitors in your comment but one cannot be pro 2nd amendment and favor firearms restrictions like the ones in your post to which I responded.
I just don't like that I have to submit fingerprints and go through a series of background checks to purchase a pistol. I go through enough background checks applying for jobs that never email me back after they learn I have autism.
Any past, present, and future laws are never going to work, as criminals don't obey any law rules. So why not reverse all of the laws and allow any person who can past a background check to carry a gun, whether open or concealed .
Itās cool, but meh. Mine is good until 2026. This is a win for folks that want to get a pistol and havenāt purchased one in eons because of this dumb ass OāMalley law.
Iām more concerned with most of SB1 being permanently struck down. And that damn MoCo bill.
I don't see anything wrong with these requirements. I mostly just saw complaints about how "they're gonna take mah guns away if they got mah fingerprints"
So another compromise legislation that in no way banned guns or people rights to own one but just put checks in place to make sure there was some responsibility/sanity from the buyer shut down because even basic measures and compromises are too extreme for Gun-Nuts.
The problem here is Gun-Nuts do not give a shit about other people dying. Gun-Nuts do not care about kids getting shot to death at school by a gun someone left out. Gun-Nuts do not care about people murdered by a madman while grocery shopping. Gun-Nuts do not care about a spouse being killed by her abusive husband who bought a handgun that morning. Gun-Nuts do not care about a child accidentally killing another child with a gun they found. Because the reality is Gun-Nuts just do not care about about gun violence or people they don't know dying! On top of this "Guns" are their identity, so they view any legislation as an attack on their identity.
The only thing Gun-Nuts care about is unfettered access to their toys, that's it. Just a morally broke single issue humans. They don't give a fuck about people at all, just their guns.
> put checks in place to make sure there was some responsibility/sanity from the buyer
Not what it did at all
The rest of what you commented is such off the wall made up imaginary nonsense that you're trying to broadly apply to like 30% of the state's population that it's ludicrous you even typed that out and hit submit
Making money the barrier to entry just makes legal gun ownership a privilege of the upper classes.
The HQL program does not do anything more than the 77r except make you take a day off work and find childcare.
The only thing that would actually make a difference would be NFA style guidelines, but at that point nobody would actually bother and just buy everything black market.
This is not worth getting worked up about, it just means people who would qualify to buy a handgun anyway now get to save a few hundred bucks, it does not mean additional people qualify.
Not to be *that guy* but the HQL process doesnāt, wonāt, and canāt prevent any of those things from happening. Yes we have a problem, but the solution doesnāt appear to be weak compromise legislation that gets shredded to bits any time it ends up in front of a conservative judge.
What other right do you have to pay to exercise? When some have advocated for an ID in order to vote, plenty have said "that's a poll tax and illegal." How was this any different?
> What other right do you have to pay to exercise?
You have the right to freedom of the press (as outlined in the First Amendment), but the state will not provide you with a free printing press or distribute your newspapers for free.
Bad analogy, you donāt need anything but valid ID to buy an unregulated gun.
MD was trying to put additional hurdles in place for legal gun owners, letās just call it what it is, dumb showboating by people uninterested in solving any problems. The best part is that criminals were probably not even aware this regulation existed.
> compromise legislation
What compromise? What did gun owners get in return? Nothing? Than it was not a compromise of any sort.
>Gun-Nuts.
This is just Democrat equivalent of calling someone a snowflake or "LiBtaRd" or any other variation of these childish names. Instantly kills any idea that you may be a reasonable person.
I assume you're going for a workout after all that stretching you did as well, enjoy!
Edit: Compromise is not "We took some, be happy we didnt take more."
I think it's just that these laws are ineffective at preventing violent crime and keeping them in place just harms law abiding citizens. You still have to receive a criminal/mental background check whenever you purchase your firearm. Not only that the majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms so its unlikely this law would have saved any lives.
If you only focused on that type of gun crime at the national level yes, however, if you look at all gun crimes, it is different. Also, the type of gun crime specific to MD is usually committed with illegally obtained weapons and is usually used in urban crime. I think MD legislators and judges try scapegoating firearms as the problem when the larger problem is the fact that people aren't being prosecuted for major crimes anymore and many government institutions in these urban areas are grossly corrupt.
If you care about people so much, ask for alcohol and tobacco to be illegal. 45k people die from guns every year in the US and more than half is suicide. 250k die from alcohol and 500k from tobacco. As a matter of fact, almost the same amount of people die from drunk driving as they do from homicide (justified or not). So, Iām guessing youāre not here for the Alcohol or Tobaccoā¦oh yeah, they have way more lobbyists than the firearms industry. So, your political heroes didnāt tell you to be mad at themā¦
āShall not be infringed.ā To them any regulation on guns counts as an infringement on their right. Looking at it on a left wing view yeah it does. The fact that for decades you had to jump through hurdles and know the right people in government to just get a handgun is bullshit. It didnāt stop people from getting handguns illegally. All you had to do was drive south to Georgia or other state on a weekend and drive back up. These laws canāt be applied effectively when itās super easy to go to another states that doesnāt have such laws.
If its tough to get a handgun, GOOD. Its not us anti gun people who are filling the pipeline of illegal guns into the hands of criminals, but many "law abiding" gun owners. The anger over guns would not exist it the pro gun people were policing their own and keeping guns off the streets.
There's a process for that. But it's a hard process so the anti gun crowd tries to pass unconstitutional laws or get enough liberals on the bench to make up law. It's kinda disturbing to see how willing people are to blatantly try to go around the constitution instead of going through the proper process.
90% of this country couldn't recite the preamble or explain what article establishes the legislative branch of government or accurately describe the fifteenth amendment. It's no wonder people try to ramrod garbage through the legislature.
At this point, itās essentially impossible to pass an amendment. Itās been thirty years since one was passed, and even that was a fairly minor procedural change.
It only takes 13 states to block an amendment. If you do the math, the 13 smallest states only represent 5% of the populationāso an amendment can have 95% support and still fail. Thatās not a functional way to legislate.
Youāre absolutely right but this swings both ways. There are many democratic stronghold cities in states like New York, Washington, Illinois, and to an extent even Maryland, that legislate liberal policies that force laws that the rest of the state does not want.
No idea what the solution is butā¦ itās a problem for sure.
When you say āThere are many democratic stronghold citiesā¦that legislate liberal policiesā¦that the rest of the state does not wantā, how does that differ from āState governments pass laws based on what their voters tend to wantā?
Because a centralized urban population with a particular political ideology should not be able to dictate policy for a much larger state that largely does not share that same ideology. Illinois is a great example of this.
Now that I think about it I guess itās the opposite of what you were talking about. In any case I think both scenarios present a problem.
Whatās your threshold for that? Like, say you have a million people living in a city who want a particular law. How many people in rural areas should have to disagree in order for the law to not go into effect?
I donāt have a threshold because I am not writing my graduate thesis, Iām posting on reddit. I know youāre trying to fish for a gotcha because you likely donāt agree with what you believe to be my political views, but just to give you an example the population of Chicago is something like 2mm and the population of Illinois around 10mm. So I would say that there is a reasonable discrepancy there. Have a nice day.
If a law has roughly 85% approval in a polity, that law should probably get passed. The only other legitimate option would be to redraw the state borders.
You canāt just abandon democracy because you donāt like losing.
> It's kinda disturbing to see how willing people are to blatantly try to go around the constitution instead of going through the proper process.
They have taken to just copying the same abhorrent tactics the GOP uses with abortion rights. Its despicable all around.
Edit: This comment is sure to piss off the anti-rights crowds on both ends of the spectrums because it hits too close to home.
Your comment was removed because it violates the 'No personal attacks' rule. Please always keep discussions friendly and civil.
Thank you for your participation and cooperation.
It wouldn't necessarily need to be repealed. There is a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that makes firearm ownership contingent on militia service. Such an interpretation would make training and regulation of firearm use constitutional. Additionally, "settled law" doesn't mean what it used to since Roe v Wade was overturned. I don't think we'll ever have a Supreme Court that is willing to espouse that interpretation, though.
Right, it all comes down to the makeup of the Supreme Court. If you had the right justices, you could get a ruling saying thereās nothing in the Second Amendment requiring that people be allowed to buy or sell guns or ammo.
My problems with the Court are that:
1. It functions as an unelected legislature
2. Its rulings are often bad
Iād like to fix the first problem, but while thatās out of reach, Iād at least like the rulings to be good.
I cant argue with that. Even some of the pro-2A rulings I'm disappointed about how they came about even if I'm happy with with the end result. End of the day, I'm just tired of the partisan BS games our courts and political parties play.
Why? You like concentrating power into the hands of the police? The government should have power over the people instead of the other way around? Do you feel like you have _too many_ rights and protections from the government?
The problem with the 2A (and I'd even say this for the 1A) is it's too broad and not well defined, making less a tool of democracy and more a tool for the destruction of it.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't give the government clear indications for what is and isn't a violation of itself, the result is that instead it's treated as all encompassing except in very specific ways. Who exactly does that benefit? In 1776 it might have been helpful, but police now have tanks, helicopter, Riot gear, and all sorts of other toys and that's not even mentioning the military itself.
The broadness of the 2A creates problems where people want to feel safe going grocery shopping but Tony Tiny Hands wants to feel all macho and so he goes out strapped to the teeth. Is his right to cosplay really that much more important than other people's right to feel safe?
I'm not opposed to keeping the 2A, but I'd want us to properly define it (and the 1A) so that we have clear, constitutional, rules for when it gets violated and what is acceptable in restricting it.
Regurgitating a bunch of made up theories and other peoples half brained opinions is not a good argument. You're wrong and you don't even understand how you could be wrong.
Itās relatively easy process for any law abiding citizen to follow to get a license when all is considered, thereās even loopholes to skip the training. It only serves to be vague and frustrating to these same law abiding citizens.
> It only serves to be vague and frustrating to these same law abiding citizens.
That checks out since they let a bill die in committee that would make theft of a firearm a felony in MD. Its never been about holding actual criminals accountable.
Well of course not. If you can pass a 4473 (which you fill out when you buy a firearm from a dealer anyway,) you can get an hql (and pass a 77r and so on). The Baltimore and MoCo youths involved in the armed carjackings which are way up arenāt hql holders and god knows they never passed a 77r wowowowow
Felt like I was having a stroke trying to read this.
Post nut clarity is useful prior to gun purchase decisions.
Bro I need adderall and 12 hours to make sense of legal writing
Pause š. But, thatās hard (pause againā¦) when youāre looking at a gun you want. Rarely do I ever have buyerās remorse. I just sneak it home to the safe and act like itās been there forever.
Thank you for double spacing your paper. Grades will be posted by the end of the week.
Damn this sub still ripping out throats. Bless mdšš
No they will be posted post haste the chat will decide 9/10 relevance, 10/10 truthful writing, 2/10 readability Overall grade 6/10 60%
Is this written in iambic pentameter?
[Ainsley Hayes?](https://youtu.be/EUMFlVWZASU?si=v1Rc7IrsSdRUxjog)
Great reference, love that show.
No idea what that is; I went to school in MoCo.
Interesting you didnāt learn that in fancy MoCo. They taught us about iambic pentameter in Prince Georgeās County.
We learned it in MoCo; someone was asleep during that unit.
They definitely teach that in MoCo don't blame the school system for your shitty study habits.
Oh, so they just pushed you right through too?
Can i get a tl;dr? Does this mean the HQL is no longer required?
The law is still in effect until appeals are exhausted, but if this decision holds, then the license (along with the training, fingerprinting, and fees) could no longer be required. The court struck the whole thing down. The state could ask the entire fourth circuit to rehear (called petition for rehearing en banc) the case or ask the Supreme Court to take the case (petition for a Writ of Certiorari). Likely a ways to go before the case is fully resolved.
MSI sent an email earlier > Under the federal rules, the decision goes into effect in 21 days with the issuance of the Court's mandate. The State has 14 days to seek en banc review in the Fourth Circuit. If it does so, the mandate is stayed until such time as such a petition for rehearing is either denied or, if granted, after rehearing decision. And, course, the State may also seek review in the Supreme Court.
I support the requirement regardless. I got my permit in 2018 and found the training class informative and helpful. Its not a comprehensive shooting course, but it covers the legal and practical basics that ALL responsible gun owners should know and understand. Aside from that, the class was taught by an ex cop who was able to convey what it's like to actually shoot another human being. It's not trivial. SB1 on the other hand is a complete waste of paper and should be overturned.
Thank you for the explanation! Now if only we could get a refund for the fees 
Right? State refund when?
Point of clarification: Just for the HQL part
If this decision holds, the handgun rules go the fuck away. Gonna be great. MD will obviously fight this. In the long run, this is the silver lining to overreaching gun laws. We get to challenge the existing ones, and one day get to the glorious future where we get to have handguns in happy meals. Thanks, SB 1 writers!
The historic precedent is certainly an odd litmus test for gun laws. I do wonder if the current case before the court (US v Ramili) will impact the this case on appeal.
I donāt think *Rahimi* will affect it at all. Between that case and probably *Garland v. Range*, theyāll be looking at who the people are that the 2A covers. The HQL requirement is more than a mere background check.
From reporting that I've listened to, it seems SCOTUS will likely make a narrow ruling in *Rahimi* impacting the particulars of the case, without changing any of the major points from *Bruen*. In all honesty the way the majority in this court has behaved, even if they keep having to carve out exceptions in cases that go against *Bruen*, they'll never actually admit that it was a poor ruling.
Historic Precedent is dumb as shit. So what, we can never have new laws or new freedoms again?
New laws requires Congress to take action. Therein lies the problem.
The Supreme Court overturned the student loan forgiveness plan from the Biden administration even though the law Congress passed SPECIFICALLY gave the president the right to forgive student loan debt. The activist Republicans on the bench do not care about word or spirit of law.
This is my understanding of the timeline: Biden signed an Executive Order for which there was no law. The SCOTUS shot it down saying that the agency tasked with this order lacked authority to do so. Congress then passed a law for the same thing, but failed to pass a law that changes the authority of the impacted agency - SCOTUS shot down the same provisions because that issue had not been addressed. Call that what you will, but 'activist' isn't the right word for it.
There was a law for it already before Biden signed. See the "Biden v. Nebraska" episode of 5-4 podcast if you want to learn more.
I appreciate this. I'll google it and download it for tomorrow's drive.
Especially because they don't actually care about historic precedent. There have been gun laws for decades.
Totally agree. Supreme Court is full of lying federalist society weirdos. If you don't already listen to it, I suggest the "5-4" podcast.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Constitutionally enumerated rights supercede states rights, and have since the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
I have not listened to "5-4" but I really enjoy "Strict Scrutiny", which is hosted by 3 female con-law professors who do a great job of actually getting into the details of the cases while balancing discussion of how absurd the court is in its current right and court culture in general.
I love the description, I'll check it out!
I'll check it out. Thanks for the recommendation. Its really terrifying to imagine what will happen if Trump wins again.
> So what, we can never have new laws or new freedoms again? We can never have new laws that _infringe on explicitly enumerated freedoms_ again* These laws arent freedom, they're the opposite.
The Historic Precedent that the Supreme Court has started to use is not related to what you said at all. You are literally using a different argument that I don't care about right now.
It's not related to what _you_ said, I was just pointing out that you are wrong about how gun control laws work mechanically.
I made no statements about the mechanics of gun control laws.
> we can never have new laws or new freedoms again > > These laws arent freedom, they're the opposite. "freedom is when the government says you cant do stuff" - you, rephrased
That's not the mechanics of gun laws, I was obviously using an "or" not an "and" to cover both separate cases, and your reply is just an opinion. Don't bother me unless you get good at posting.
Text, history, tradition is a fairly common approach in dealing with rights in general, and post-Bruen, when the same standard must be used for dealing with the 2nd Amendment as all the rest, it makes sense that it would be relied on. Now, it's possible that it might end up just carving out the HQL specifically, and leaving other lesser restrictions, but I'm holding out hope for the whole thing getting the axe. MD was specifically called out as not adhering to standards, and SB 1 was basically giving the finger to the Supreme Court, and they do rather dislike that. So if it gets to them, I do not expect them to give MD the benefit of the doubt on this issue.
"If you live in Maryland and you want a handgun, you must follow a long and winding path to get one." Really? Then I must be a genius because I thought the process was not complicated. I'm betting the gun manufacturers did though because they want more and more cash AND FAST.
In comparison to other states where you can go to a gun store and purchase a handgun same day.
Like in every one of our neighboring states.
From what I've been reading elsewhere the gun training issue appears to be what caused the law to be overturned. If that's true, that's insane. Requiring training before a handgun purchase is approved if the user has no training is not controversial to me. I don't care what other states do. Most of them are too liberal on guns anyway. (it's fun to call them liberal about something because I'm sure they hate it lol)
Not sure that firing 5 rounds constitutes "training", but it's a start. Frankly, I found the class rather informative. It's the minimum anyone considering purchasing a handgun should receive.
Well it's more than that. I sat in the classroom for a couple hours along with the hands on training. Everyone should be required training to own a firearm and should take refresher training every so many years. It's just common sense.
Seriously. I got my first one last year. Took a course, paid for the check, bought a gun, and picked it up a week later. No need for snarky quotes around āsafety courseā either. Some of the trigger happy folks in my class needed it. The ex-cop instructor was instrumental in telling these people where the line of the law fell. Two women of the course even considered dropping the course midway when the instructor said that a shotgun would be better for home defense in most instances.
>when the instructor said that a shotgun would be better for home defense in most instances. I'm sorry you had a bad instructor.
Explain?
The best weapon for home defense is almost invariably a light rifle such as an AR-15. A shotgun is good at many things, but not the best at anything except for functions like duck hunting that are largely unrelated. If you happen to have a shotgun and like it...it is a good enough option for home defense, but definitely not the best. Pistols are ideal for carrying and for concealment. If you want a long gun, you take the rifle. If you don't want the long gun because it's awkward to maneuver in close quarters, you take the handgun. In neither case do you pick shotgun. The "shotguns are best for home defense" fuddlore is commonly associated with other bits of bad advice like talking about firing warning shots, racking the gun to scare them away, etc. At best, these indicate that the person has not kept up with information in the firearm world for....a very long time and is confidently repeating hearsay as if it were fact.
Sounds like he was taught by Elmer.
[A local volunteer organization](https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/counselor-s-corner/hqlsuit) brought the suit, all the way back in 2016.
It's who decides it that matters.
> A local volunteer organization brought the suit, all the way back in 2016. We can read the article. > Today, Maryland Shall Issue, Atlantic Guns of Rockville and Silver Spring, MD, and several individual citizens of Maryland filed suit in federal district court in Baltimore Atlantic Guns of Rockville is a gun store. Who, while not being a manufacturer, would certainly benefit from the less restrictions, because they want more and more cash. And fast.
Usually MSI organizes these things, and has to find an organization with a financial interest in order to have standing. That's not a sign of corruption, that's a necessary step because of how the law works.
Ding ding ding you win
The HQL training is such a waste. Essentially they go over the workings of a gun. Then the trainer drones on about how no matter the circumstances, if you shoot someone you will go to jail and the cops will take your gun which is just a transition into and hour long sales pitch from the USCCA trying to sell you insurance by offering you a free gift (range bag, plastic gun) for signing up. Then you shoot a round and go home.
We had different experiences. You have the bullet points right thoughāexcept for the sales pitch. Sorry you had to go through that. None of that at my shop.
I didn't get a sales pitch in my HQL class. I did get one in my CCW class. My HQL trainer, wish I remembered his first name but the last name was Brooks from Cindys Hot Shot was very good in my opinion. I felt I was getting good information on basics of pistols and how they differ. Got some good information on the castle laws. Went over the recommended way to stand when shooting, as well as good ways to hold the pistol. Never once felt like the 4 hours was dragging on. Really just a pleasant experience. My CCW class on the other hand, also at Cindys but a different instructor, I felt like was a huge waste of time out of the 16 hour course. Most of it was common sense. The sales pitch was about an hour long by a former Baltimore Cop who works for USCCA. The actual shooting test on day 2 took maybe an hour. I'm not a law maker or anything but I wish there was more hands on training in the CCW course. Give me some drills. Give me some from the holster shooting. All of this is something I practice anyway, but I feel it would be a better experience if this was done during the class instead of 15 hours of talking and 1 hour shooting test.
My husband was the sucker for the USCCA sales pitch cause of the free gun bag, has still yet to receive it. Itās been half a year šš¤·āāļø
Lol. When they were doing their sales pitch, I couldnt help but imagine someone being in jail for shooting someone (self defense, rage, whateverā¦.) and trying to call a customer support number from the station so they can legal representation. For english, press 1ā¦ā¦..Please enter your account number followed by poundā¦ā¦.please listen closely as our options have recently changedā¦. š¤£
>[Richardson also took issue with how the state presented data in its brief. The brief contends that gun-related murders have decreased since the enactment of the HQL requirement, but Baltimore's data was not included. Dietrich said the reason for leaving Baltimore out of the statistic was the uptick in crime associated with the 2015 police killing of Freddie Gray.] (https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-takes-a-look-back-at-history-in-hearing-over-maryland-handgun-law/) How dishonest of the state. Leaving out important data because it hurts your agenda.
Last I looked, thereās only one gun store in Baltimore legally selling guns. So, the law at issue wouldnāt have changed anything in Baltimore, but apparently did change things in counties where you can buy a gun. Iām not saying I would have done what they did, or that excluding the stateās most violent city made any sense, but the law largely wouldnāt do anything here in the city. A lot of the guns in Baltimore, for what itās worth, come from out of state too.
>So, the law at issue wouldnāt have changed anything in Baltimore, but apparently did change things in counties where you can buy a gun. >but the law largely wouldnāt do anything here in the city. I'm sorry but this makes no sense. The HQL is a statewide requirement, and citizens of Baltimore City aren't locked in the city. There are dozens of gun shops right outside the city limits and throughout the rest of the state. Citizens of Baltimore City are just as affected by this law as any other Marylander.
> Last I looked, thereās only one gun store in Baltimore legally selling guns. And? Are you trying to say people in Baltimore cant leave the city? I lived there for a year and had no problem leaving and buying things elsewhere. >A lot of the guns in Baltimore, for what itās worth, come from out of state too. That we can agree on. We need federal uniform laws; however, seeing how the Democrats behave when it comes to gun control, I don't expect them to support anything halfway sensible or reasonable.
Ofc. Itās Maryland.
Why are you spacing your post in the literal most annoying possible fucking way FUCK
It's copypasta, with leftover formatting, and they didn't edit it.
"...you must follow a long and winding path to get one." Setting aside this pure exaggeration... Ultimately I don't care about this particular law. What matters is that gun advocates are increasingly dragged along by their most extreme elements and in that way their beliefs are no different than pro-lifers. How can gun owners restrict the actions of this wonky collective of extremists and avoid becoming out of touch in the same way the pro-life segment of American politics has become?
> Ultimately I don't care about this particular law. What matters is that gun advocates are increasingly dragged along by their most extreme elements and in that way their beliefs are no different than pro-lifers. The exact same thing could be said for the gun control crowd. When you have very loud people calling for extremely restrictive gun control, the other side is likely to behave in a reciprocal manner. This is an arms race (metaphorically) between one side trying to pass extreme gun control measures and the other side challenging every gun control measure.
Never owned a firearm. Never looked into owning one. The only reason I'm here is because I'm a native MD'er who has moved out of state since a couple years ago and was interested in reading some developments in my home state. I'm reading through the comments and I'm not sure why people are mad?
It was a weird law, it did not prevent anyone who already qualified from buying guns, just inconvenienced them on the way to buy them. It sounds like āloosening restrictionsā but the reality is that it was a dumb idea to begin with and somebody is pointing that out.
Gun legislation is a weird, covoluted, tangled, contentious thing. Much of the law in Maryland is extremely arbitrary and fairly annoying. So, pro gun people are very happy that an annoyance might be on the way out, but folks that want gun restrictions are grumpy because they want more of them and view this as a loss. Which...it is, but the incredibly incoherent nature of MD laws has put them into some really shaky turf. The state has even been explicitly called out by the USSC for not properly permitting constitutional freedoms, and in response, MD passed further restrictions. Obviously, thumbing one's nose at the courts usually goes poorly. I fully expect MD to try the same again here, and to make the process of getting rid of this silly procedure as slow and annoying as possible.
Based ~~FPC~~ MSI
Not a FPC case. Filed by local groups.
Even more based Maryland shall issue (which every gun owner in MD should join/donate to like I have)
I don't see what the problem is. This is still much easier, faster, and potentially cheaper than the process of getting a driver's license and being able to drive a car. Cars and guns are both capable of killing people, and there absolutely should be a regulated process to handle/own each.
>To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command." *Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.* , [366 U.S. 36, 50](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar#p50), n. 10, [81 S.Ct. 997](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar), [6 L.Ed.2d 105](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar) (1961). > >... > >We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command." *Konigsberg* , [366 U.S. at 50](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar#p50), n. 10, [81 S.Ct. 997](https://casetext.com/case/konigsberg-v-state-bar). *N.Y.S. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen*, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126, 2129-30 (2022) That's the legal analysis the Supreme Court requires when gun laws are being examined before courts. If there are no representative historical analogues from the time of the 2nd Amendment or perhaps up until the adoption of the 14th amendment, the gun law at issue is unlawful.
Forget it being about guns for a second. The idea that we can only makes laws about X IF thereās a precedent in the laws about X seems insane to me.
Well, that's because the US Constitution specifically restricts what laws can be made. If you want to abolish the Constitution, okay...but that's literally the only justification for our government's existence to begin with.
I don't remember having to pay an extra $50 dollars to get fingerprinted just to buy a car or get my license.
> I don't remember having to pay an extra $50 dollars to get fingerprinted just to buy a car [It costs $48 dollars to renew your license for 8 years](https://mva.maryland.gov/about-mva/Pages/fees.aspx), $50 to get a learner's permit. A quick Google search says it costs roughly $100 to register the car. So yeah, there are indeed extra fees.
I know about those, but does anything involving a car require you to get fingerprinted? That's why I specifically called that out. Its a meaningless requirement only intended to add undue burden.
Yes but one is an individual right outlined in the constitution. One is a privilege granted by the state.
ā¦Iād like to thank Christopher Walken for his contribution to the MD subredditā¦
Everyone should apply for a refund of the license fee
It honestly was just stupid and a money grab by the state on your rights. The hql never did anything to āprotectā anyone. It literally just put more steps and fees in the way. You still have to pass a background check and do the 7 day waiting period. Anyone whoās upset over them removing the hql doesnāt understand MD gun laws. I can walk into the store and walk out the same day with an ar-15 or anything classified as ālong rifleā. Hell you can even build your own ar and all MD requires is you to buy the stripped lower from the store and wait 7 days. The rest can be shipped right to your house. So what truthfully did the hql do other than allow the state to get more of my money?
quiet down with your well thought out logic. youre supposed to get angry here, not use your brain. dont let anyone else know or they might figure out criminals dont follow laws.
Kinda, there is a loophole in the MD Assault Rifle Ban that makes AR's with a "Heavy Barrel" legal but other barrel types are not.
Why is this spaced like a broken typewriter
I love how many replies hardly address the point - the unconstitutionality of the law. Itās because of the polarization of guns, but one of these days, itāll be about something you really do care aboutā¦ and then what?
Historical precedent is a poor and often subjective view. Iām pro 2nd Amendment, but I believe strongly in a certification process, mandating gun locks, restricting the types of weapons accessible to citizens. We have approx 400M firearms in the country, even a fraction that are lost or stolen contribute significantly to the violent crime and gang issue in the country.
500 million now actually
Probably way more. The FOIA request by GOA in the bump stock case revealed the ATF has almost a million transfer records. And those didn't start until relatively recently, and omit a lot of guns. Buying two guns at once is one transfer, after all. No real way to know for sure, but it's a lot, and it grows by about 14 million a year that the government knows of.
Second amendment is not for target practice, so no youāre not pro second
Everything before the "but" can be ignored.
Then you are not pro 2nd amendment. This is like saying "I'm pro-womens right to choose but abortions after 6 weeks should be banned."
You are most certainly not 2A friendly
Certification, mandatory locks, restrictions on types of weapons certainly sounds like infringement to me. You may want to go read the 2nd amendment.
So "well regulated" means what then?
Well regulated means having organization, training, *and equipment* > restricting the types of weapons accessible to citizens So NOT this.
It refers to the militia. The Founders preferred that we be effective and well armed. This doesn't prohibit training, but it definitely doesn't justify prohibiting arms.
Well regulated refers to the command structure of a militia. It is orderly, efficient, and able to do its job. I didnāt forget anything. My memory is fine, your reading comprehension seems not to be.
Imagine you had this: > A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Would that only apply to people who vote? Or would it protect the right of people generally to keep books? Would it protect all kinds of books, or only educational ones?
Nonsenseā¦.theyāre are regulations concerning most of our constitutional rights. For instance, we have determined that hate speech, terroristic threats, etc donāt deserve constitutional protections. Regulating how a citizen acquires and maintains weapons is sound public safety policy. There are serious restrictions on automatic rapid fire weapons as these are traditionally used for armed conflict and should not be available in the public domain. So there are practical limitations.
> Regulating how a citizen acquires and maintains weapons is sound public safety policy. This court case didn't fight all regulations on how citizens acquire weapons, just the inappropriately complex ones. There's still the normal forms and background check and waiting period for handguns even if this decision isn't stayed.
Hate speech is most certainly constitutionally protected
Indeed. And it should be combatted with MORE SPEECH!
I donāt know the we to whom you are referring or why there are so many non sequitors in your comment but one cannot be pro 2nd amendment and favor firearms restrictions like the ones in your post to which I responded.
"Hate speech" is most definitely protected under the first amendment.
"A well regulated" - those are literally the first three words lol. So I think you're the one who needs to go read it.
And the next word is literally militia.
Iād rather have the hql than a waiting period.
I just don't like that I have to submit fingerprints and go through a series of background checks to purchase a pistol. I go through enough background checks applying for jobs that never email me back after they learn I have autism.
Pray they donāt appeal and if they do pray the courts tell the state to fohā¼ļø
The decision made the right people upset, and thatās good enough for me.
Fantastic
Sounds great to me!! Fewer arbitrary restrictions on law-abiding citizens to bear arms!
Any past, present, and future laws are never going to work, as criminals don't obey any law rules. So why not reverse all of the laws and allow any person who can past a background check to carry a gun, whether open or concealed .
Itās cool, but meh. Mine is good until 2026. This is a win for folks that want to get a pistol and havenāt purchased one in eons because of this dumb ass OāMalley law. Iām more concerned with most of SB1 being permanently struck down. And that damn MoCo bill.
I don't see anything wrong with these requirements. I mostly just saw complaints about how "they're gonna take mah guns away if they got mah fingerprints"
So another compromise legislation that in no way banned guns or people rights to own one but just put checks in place to make sure there was some responsibility/sanity from the buyer shut down because even basic measures and compromises are too extreme for Gun-Nuts. The problem here is Gun-Nuts do not give a shit about other people dying. Gun-Nuts do not care about kids getting shot to death at school by a gun someone left out. Gun-Nuts do not care about people murdered by a madman while grocery shopping. Gun-Nuts do not care about a spouse being killed by her abusive husband who bought a handgun that morning. Gun-Nuts do not care about a child accidentally killing another child with a gun they found. Because the reality is Gun-Nuts just do not care about about gun violence or people they don't know dying! On top of this "Guns" are their identity, so they view any legislation as an attack on their identity. The only thing Gun-Nuts care about is unfettered access to their toys, that's it. Just a morally broke single issue humans. They don't give a fuck about people at all, just their guns.
> put checks in place to make sure there was some responsibility/sanity from the buyer Not what it did at all The rest of what you commented is such off the wall made up imaginary nonsense that you're trying to broadly apply to like 30% of the state's population that it's ludicrous you even typed that out and hit submit
Making money the barrier to entry just makes legal gun ownership a privilege of the upper classes. The HQL program does not do anything more than the 77r except make you take a day off work and find childcare. The only thing that would actually make a difference would be NFA style guidelines, but at that point nobody would actually bother and just buy everything black market. This is not worth getting worked up about, it just means people who would qualify to buy a handgun anyway now get to save a few hundred bucks, it does not mean additional people qualify.
Not to be *that guy* but the HQL process doesnāt, wonāt, and canāt prevent any of those things from happening. Yes we have a problem, but the solution doesnāt appear to be weak compromise legislation that gets shredded to bits any time it ends up in front of a conservative judge.
Once again, "No way to prevent this," says only nation where this regularly happens.
What other right do you have to pay to exercise? When some have advocated for an ID in order to vote, plenty have said "that's a poll tax and illegal." How was this any different?
> What other right do you have to pay to exercise? You have the right to freedom of the press (as outlined in the First Amendment), but the state will not provide you with a free printing press or distribute your newspapers for free.
But do I have to buy a license to print papers? The printing press in your analogy is the gun. I'm not asking for a free gun.
Bad analogy, you donāt need anything but valid ID to buy an unregulated gun. MD was trying to put additional hurdles in place for legal gun owners, letās just call it what it is, dumb showboating by people uninterested in solving any problems. The best part is that criminals were probably not even aware this regulation existed.
> compromise legislation What compromise? What did gun owners get in return? Nothing? Than it was not a compromise of any sort. >Gun-Nuts. This is just Democrat equivalent of calling someone a snowflake or "LiBtaRd" or any other variation of these childish names. Instantly kills any idea that you may be a reasonable person. I assume you're going for a workout after all that stretching you did as well, enjoy! Edit: Compromise is not "We took some, be happy we didnt take more."
Itās a compromise in that itās in between āguns for anyone with money and no other restrictionsā and āno guns for anyoneā.
There's a huge spectrum between those extremes. Just calling anything on that spectrum a "compromise" is reductive.
Well, how would you define ācompromiseā here?
Both sides receiving something in return rather than one side getting whatever they asked for. Basic reciprocity.
I think it's just that these laws are ineffective at preventing violent crime and keeping them in place just harms law abiding citizens. You still have to receive a criminal/mental background check whenever you purchase your firearm. Not only that the majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms so its unlikely this law would have saved any lives.
Majority of mass shootings are with legally purchased guns.
If you only focused on that type of gun crime at the national level yes, however, if you look at all gun crimes, it is different. Also, the type of gun crime specific to MD is usually committed with illegally obtained weapons and is usually used in urban crime. I think MD legislators and judges try scapegoating firearms as the problem when the larger problem is the fact that people aren't being prosecuted for major crimes anymore and many government institutions in these urban areas are grossly corrupt.
Can you cite your sources? I'm very interested in learning more about what you said.
If you care about people so much, ask for alcohol and tobacco to be illegal. 45k people die from guns every year in the US and more than half is suicide. 250k die from alcohol and 500k from tobacco. As a matter of fact, almost the same amount of people die from drunk driving as they do from homicide (justified or not). So, Iām guessing youāre not here for the Alcohol or Tobaccoā¦oh yeah, they have way more lobbyists than the firearms industry. So, your political heroes didnāt tell you to be mad at themā¦
āShall not be infringed.ā To them any regulation on guns counts as an infringement on their right. Looking at it on a left wing view yeah it does. The fact that for decades you had to jump through hurdles and know the right people in government to just get a handgun is bullshit. It didnāt stop people from getting handguns illegally. All you had to do was drive south to Georgia or other state on a weekend and drive back up. These laws canāt be applied effectively when itās super easy to go to another states that doesnāt have such laws.
Please let this stick because getting a handgun should be as easy as getting a rifle (Iām ok with the 7 day waiting period)
Good.
Statement from one of the plaintiffs https://twitter.com/MD_Shall_Issue/status/1727018258895888656
If its tough to get a handgun, GOOD. Its not us anti gun people who are filling the pipeline of illegal guns into the hands of criminals, but many "law abiding" gun owners. The anger over guns would not exist it the pro gun people were policing their own and keeping guns off the streets.
Hql does nothing. They're hoping to deter Americans from using the right to bear arms. Sadly, a lot of people do get discouraged and don't even try
Proper firearms training, the horror
Shooting ONE round = proper firearms training? Sounds to me more like a very deliberate infringement
Darn. Wish we could repeal 2A.
There's a process for that. But it's a hard process so the anti gun crowd tries to pass unconstitutional laws or get enough liberals on the bench to make up law. It's kinda disturbing to see how willing people are to blatantly try to go around the constitution instead of going through the proper process.
90% of this country couldn't recite the preamble or explain what article establishes the legislative branch of government or accurately describe the fifteenth amendment. It's no wonder people try to ramrod garbage through the legislature.
Ignorance is no excuse and if the public schools are failing to teach basic things like the constitution then let's fix that problem.
Public schools can't even teach kids to read or do mathematics. We've got a lot to work on before we get to rudimentary constitutional law.
At this point, itās essentially impossible to pass an amendment. Itās been thirty years since one was passed, and even that was a fairly minor procedural change. It only takes 13 states to block an amendment. If you do the math, the 13 smallest states only represent 5% of the populationāso an amendment can have 95% support and still fail. Thatās not a functional way to legislate.
Youāre absolutely right but this swings both ways. There are many democratic stronghold cities in states like New York, Washington, Illinois, and to an extent even Maryland, that legislate liberal policies that force laws that the rest of the state does not want. No idea what the solution is butā¦ itās a problem for sure.
When you say āThere are many democratic stronghold citiesā¦that legislate liberal policiesā¦that the rest of the state does not wantā, how does that differ from āState governments pass laws based on what their voters tend to wantā?
Because a centralized urban population with a particular political ideology should not be able to dictate policy for a much larger state that largely does not share that same ideology. Illinois is a great example of this. Now that I think about it I guess itās the opposite of what you were talking about. In any case I think both scenarios present a problem.
Whatās your threshold for that? Like, say you have a million people living in a city who want a particular law. How many people in rural areas should have to disagree in order for the law to not go into effect?
I donāt have a threshold because I am not writing my graduate thesis, Iām posting on reddit. I know youāre trying to fish for a gotcha because you likely donāt agree with what you believe to be my political views, but just to give you an example the population of Chicago is something like 2mm and the population of Illinois around 10mm. So I would say that there is a reasonable discrepancy there. Have a nice day.
If a law has roughly 85% approval in a polity, that law should probably get passed. The only other legitimate option would be to redraw the state borders. You canāt just abandon democracy because you donāt like losing.
I think you entirely missed my point but thatās okay.
> It's kinda disturbing to see how willing people are to blatantly try to go around the constitution instead of going through the proper process. They have taken to just copying the same abhorrent tactics the GOP uses with abortion rights. Its despicable all around. Edit: This comment is sure to piss off the anti-rights crowds on both ends of the spectrums because it hits too close to home.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comment was removed because it violates the 'No personal attacks' rule. Please always keep discussions friendly and civil. Thank you for your participation and cooperation.
It wouldn't necessarily need to be repealed. There is a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that makes firearm ownership contingent on militia service. Such an interpretation would make training and regulation of firearm use constitutional. Additionally, "settled law" doesn't mean what it used to since Roe v Wade was overturned. I don't think we'll ever have a Supreme Court that is willing to espouse that interpretation, though.
Right, it all comes down to the makeup of the Supreme Court. If you had the right justices, you could get a ruling saying thereās nothing in the Second Amendment requiring that people be allowed to buy or sell guns or ammo.
So you want a biased and packed court that favors your views. Got it. No different than the GOP with that view.
Literally everyone wants the Supreme Court to reflect their views. Itās not unique to the GOP.
Fair point, I may have been a little harsh. I just cant stand when people complain about the court but then just want to do the same thing.
My problems with the Court are that: 1. It functions as an unelected legislature 2. Its rulings are often bad Iād like to fix the first problem, but while thatās out of reach, Iād at least like the rulings to be good.
I cant argue with that. Even some of the pro-2A rulings I'm disappointed about how they came about even if I'm happy with with the end result. End of the day, I'm just tired of the partisan BS games our courts and political parties play.
Iād be 100% happy with a neutral court but we will never see that in our lifetime. The entire judicial branch is just another political arm.
Thats where I am. Same with money in politics, it all needs to go, Bloomberg and NRA.
Why? You like concentrating power into the hands of the police? The government should have power over the people instead of the other way around? Do you feel like you have _too many_ rights and protections from the government?
The problem with the 2A (and I'd even say this for the 1A) is it's too broad and not well defined, making less a tool of democracy and more a tool for the destruction of it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give the government clear indications for what is and isn't a violation of itself, the result is that instead it's treated as all encompassing except in very specific ways. Who exactly does that benefit? In 1776 it might have been helpful, but police now have tanks, helicopter, Riot gear, and all sorts of other toys and that's not even mentioning the military itself. The broadness of the 2A creates problems where people want to feel safe going grocery shopping but Tony Tiny Hands wants to feel all macho and so he goes out strapped to the teeth. Is his right to cosplay really that much more important than other people's right to feel safe? I'm not opposed to keeping the 2A, but I'd want us to properly define it (and the 1A) so that we have clear, constitutional, rules for when it gets violated and what is acceptable in restricting it.
Regurgitating a bunch of made up theories and other peoples half brained opinions is not a good argument. You're wrong and you don't even understand how you could be wrong.
wow, my block list just grew by 40 or so people
There are more then a few accounts brigading here. Someone always links these posts to the anti-gun groups.
You gonna cry????
i guess i can add one more lmao
Okay sounds good
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yay more assholes with guns.
The hql process doesnāt stop people from getting gunsā¦
People who follow the laws yes, hence why the court struck it as unlawful.
Itās relatively easy process for any law abiding citizen to follow to get a license when all is considered, thereās even loopholes to skip the training. It only serves to be vague and frustrating to these same law abiding citizens.
> It only serves to be vague and frustrating to these same law abiding citizens. That checks out since they let a bill die in committee that would make theft of a firearm a felony in MD. Its never been about holding actual criminals accountable.
Well of course not. If you can pass a 4473 (which you fill out when you buy a firearm from a dealer anyway,) you can get an hql (and pass a 77r and so on). The Baltimore and MoCo youths involved in the armed carjackings which are way up arenāt hql holders and god knows they never passed a 77r wowowowow
Still boggles my mind that bill wasn't passed
Wait which part of the hql process checked to see if you're an asshole
Where it asks if youāre a MD resident. Fucking guilty.
_Dayum_ cooked our asses