Maryland, model of gun control, torn asunder by activist Federal judge!

[CountDeMoney]

Concealed carry isn't what this case is about.

Actually, it is, as that's the purpose of his permit, in addition to the alleged arbitrariness of his renewal's rejection.

Ah.  The story just refers to a "gun-carry permit" which, in Virginia, is just a permit to carry a gun.  Concealed carry requires a different permit.

From your comment, I conclude that a Maryland "gun-carry permit" is a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  Can anyone, then, carry a handgun openly in Maryland, without a permit?  That's effectively what you have in Virginia, where the po-po have to provide a positive reason for denial of what here is called a "gun-carry permit," and so getting one is trivially easy.  Concealed carry permits require the applicant to provide a reason for concealed carry, with the justification (AIR) that police are more in danger from concealed weapons, and so there is a state interest in reducing the number of people allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

Open carry: only if the reason for the permit is a condition of employment, e.g., armored car driver, security officer, etc.  In the case of a citizen such as the subject of the case, it would be required to be a concealed weapon, as it is not a condition of employment.  #2 on the MSP's list of no-nos (after carrying under the influence of alcohol/drugs) is what's called "indiscriminate display".  You better have a badge or uniform if you're carrying it openly.

[grumbler]

Open carry: only if the reason for the permit is a condition of employment, e.g., armored car driver, security officer, etc.  In the case of a citizen such as the subject of the case, it would be required to be a concealed weapon, as it is not a condition of employment.  #2 on the MSP's list of no-nos (after carrying under the influence of alcohol/drugs) is what's called "indiscriminate display".  You better have a badge or uniform if you're carrying it openly.

Interesting.  I withdraw my arguments, then.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, they're picky like that 'round these parts.  They don't even like you carrying it openly in plain clothes as a shop owner, like a jeweler or pawn broker.

Weird thing is how the states see things differently;  when I was doing bails on the Eastern Shore, I had to change at the line.  Maryland wants it concealed unless you're in some sort of uniform, as open carry can be considered indiscriminate;  however, Delaware would require you to carry openly--even as a non-resident--as concealed carry was a definite no-no without a very special permit.  So, I had to pull my shit out at the Delaware line, and tuck it back in once I was back in Maryland.

Pennsylvania, IIRC, didn't give a shit either way.

[Berkut]

IIIRC, in Arizona, you needed a permit to go around without a gun.

[Habbaku]

In Kennesaw, Georgia, every homeowner must own a gun, by law. :CSA:

[Admiral Yi]

In Kennesaw, Georgia, every homeowner must own a gun, by law. :CSA:

Sort of like Obamacare. 

[PDH]

It's okay if it is something good like guns, not bad like healthcare.

[CountDeMoney]

The Maryland attorney general's office has filed a motion to delay an order from a federal judge finding that the state's handgun permitting process is unconstitutional, pending an appeal.

Calling the ruling an "unmapped" legal issue, attorneys for the state argue in a motion filed late Wednesday that clarification from the appellate courts "would be prudent in light of the potentially significant adverse consequences for public safety."

The attorneys wrote that granting a motion to stay the court order would also allow the Maryland General Assembly to consider whether to enact legislation that might address the court's concerns while upholding the intent of the state's restrictions.

Opponents of Maryland's strict gun laws have long complained that obtaining a permit to carry a handgun has been nearly impossible. Among the many rules, the state requires that applicants show a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun.

This week, ruling in a lawsuit brought by a Maryland man who had a permit but was denied a renewal, U.S. District Judge Benson E. Legg called the "good and substantial reason" clause unconstitutionally broad, an arbitrary regulation designed to minimize the number of guns on the street, but one that doesn't necessarily keep everyone safe.

The ruling was hailed as a victory by gun enthusiasts, who saw it as a bolster to public safety. There are 12,000 active carry permits in the state, and advocates expect that number to increase exponentially — possibly more than tenfold. Experts also told The Baltimore Sun that the ruling is likely to withstand an appeal.

Critics say the state's laws are reasonable, and loosening the restrictions will lead to more violence in a state with already-high levels of gun crime.

Maryland State Police spokesman Gregory Shipley said the agency, which oversees the permit process, will not be making any permit decisions solely on the "good and substantial reason" requirement until "the court clarifies its position" based on the attorney general's request.

In their motion, assistant attorneys general Matthew J. Fader and Stephen M. Ruckman wrote that the state's ability to protect public safety is harmed by the ruling and that the inability to enforce crucial components of the handgun permit regulations will "expose citizens to an increased risk of handgun violence."

They quoted an opinion from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a different case: "We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights."

[MadImmortalMan]

It's okay if it is something good like guns, not bad like healthcare.

STATES' RATS!


Local law vs federal.

[PDH]

Romneycare is satanic.

[derspiess]

IIIRC, in Arizona, you needed a permit to go around without a gun.

When I was in New Mexico a while ago I had to go way out in the desert to the little town of Reserve.  Was told by the bank president that all residents of Catron County are required to carry a gun and a certain length of rope in their vehicle.

That part of New Mexico seems like a good place to live if you really, really want privacy.

[Ideologue]

Yeah, they're picky like that 'round these parts.  They don't even like you carrying it openly in plain clothes as a shop owner, like a jeweler or pawn broker.

Weird thing is how the states see things differently;  when I was doing bails on the Eastern Shore, I had to change at the line.  Maryland wants it concealed unless you're in some sort of uniform, as open carry can be considered indiscriminate;  however, Delaware would require you to carry openly--even as a non-resident--as concealed carry was a definite no-no without a very special permit.  So, I had to pull my shit out at the Delaware line, and tuck it back in once I was back in Maryland.

Pennsylvania, IIRC, didn't give a shit either way.

I like Maryland's better.  I'm fine with concealed carry, but people openly carrying firearms make me nervous.

[Ideologue]

In Kennesaw, Georgia, every homeowner must own a gun, by law. :CSA:

Fuck that.  At first blush I doubt it's even constitutional.  EP violation for religious and other pacifists.  Where's the freedom?

Then again, if the state wants to provide me a gun (or rocket launcher, or heavy bomber), I'll take it.  But those things are expensive.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm a gun enthusiast but considering all the victories the gun lobby has had recently I think I could start to get behind some level of regulation of gun ownership. In the mid-90s I was basically opposed to any gun regulation, even regulations I felt were reasonable. Not because I was an obstinate asshat, but because things like the Brady campaign and the very real 1994 Assault Weapons Ban made me feel very justified in my belief that there was a serious and effective movement to substantially limit private gun ownership. I felt the strategy being utilized was one of attrition and ever expanding regulation as opposed to overt bans, so to me I felt I had to oppose even moderate regulation.

Now things are materially different, the anti-gun forces are weak and with virtually no voice. Barack Obama was mentioned as a gun grabber and hasn't done a damn thing about firearms, he won't touch the issue. John Kerry wore blaze orange and carried a shotgun around. When the Democrats are trying to show, every election cycle, how much they love guns too it's obvious to me we've passed that point in the early/mid 90s when our right to have a gun was being more seriously challenged.

So now I feel I can tolerate reasonable regulations. Generally I think you should be free to "own or possess" any firearm aside from NFA regulated weapons without any restrictions. However, I'd be supportive of a license to take those firearms off your property and a license to purchase new firearms. The licenses would be "shall issue" in the same manner as a driver's license, and they would require completion of safety training with a mandatory, state conducted safety test.

I'd be fine with outright prohibition of open carry (something that puts me on the NRA hit list these days), because I think open carry does nothing but cause a public disturbance and I feel it serves no valid purpose. I think concealed carry should be permissible for anyone who can get a firearms license subject to regulations on where you can bring the firearm.

I'd also advocate military, retired military, police, and retired police be exempted from any licensing requirements.

I'd also advocate any purchase require that you social security number be ran against a database of convicted felons and people who have been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals.

To me, all of those are reasonable regulations of our right to have a firearm. However, any scheme which requires me to show need for a permit to exercise my right is too onerous. I'm fine with safety regulations for any right that can impact the public, because let's be honest gun ownership isn't something that happens in a vacuum and affects no one else in society. But any requirement that I need to demonstrate some "need" or "just cause" to get a firearms permit is simply unacceptable.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think currently though, the state of firearms laws in America remains stupid.

First, in general if you want to legally own a firearm in this country, it's not very hard. If you want a super specific type of firearm, it is a little harder in some states than others. If you want to carry the firearm in public, it's a little harder in some states than others.

A few of the very large cities (counting D.C. in this) things are a little different and it is genuinely very difficult to legally get a gun. I oppose that, but those are fringe cases, I'm all for those regulations being dismantled over time but at the same time I think most people that really care about owning a gun do not live in NYC, Washington, San Francisco, or Chicago. Especially since in all of those cities you could still say, work there, but easily live in a more gun friendly jurisdiction since even California and New York State it's not difficult to legally own a weapon as long as you aren't in certain stupid municipalities.

So the first thing to take away is, by and large the people who are up in arms about current gun law being too restrictive are mostly making a mountain out of a molehill.

At the same time, there are some really, really dumb laws out there. California recently banned .50 cal rifles (maybe just banned new purchases, I can't remember), these are weapons that are essentially unknown in the world of crime and just about the only people who own or use them privately are hardcore gun nerds that like to take them out to the range. These are extremely expensive weapons, extremely heavy and awkward to use, and are just simply not part of crime in America. They were banned essentially because of stupidity because of the fact they deliver an incredibly powerful round, even though there was no evidence they were being used in crime whatsoever. Finally, the power of the round is mostly irrelevant for crime, far more portable (and still legal) firearms exist that can kill police through body armor that aren't .50 cal rifles and also have a far greater likelihood of actually killing police since they are more likely to be actually used by a criminal.