Congrats MD! CCW now "shall issue"

Pasifikawv

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
521
Reaction score
100
Location
WV
It will now be a lot easier to CCW permits and carry a firearm in Maryland thanks to a court order filed by Judge Benson E. Legg. The order gives state officials two weeks to implement his ruling striking down the requirement that concealed carry applicants show a "good and substantial reason" to exercise their Constitutional rights.

NRA-ILA | Maryland carry permit law struck
 
Register to hide this ad
Good for Maryland, and the law abiding folks there.
thumbsup.gif
 
Let's hope the rascals follow the judge's order.

Chicago lost in the supreme court and doubled down on their restrictive laws.
 
Hopefully this will stay as law, cause NJ has that same clause in it. Maybe the NRA will actually do something for us here after MD is settled.
 
Not one to want to put a dent in your armor but if law abiding citizens can easily obtain a CCW, so can bad guys with no criminal record. I'm sure anyone posting a badge will agree with me.
 
Not one to want to put a dent in your armor but if law abiding citizens can easily obtain a CCW, so can bad guys with no criminal record. I'm sure anyone posting a badge will agree with me.

While that may be technically true, statistics show that individuals with CCWs are far more law-abiding than the general public. If "shall issue" stands in MD, I am sure the legislature will follow the suit of other "shall issue" states to require a visit to the police station/sheriff's office, background checks, fingerprints, and training (often provided by NRA Cert instructors and/or retired LEOs).

I certainly do not think many gang-bangers without a criminal record will voluntarily spend time with their local PD/SO, pay for & sit thru hours of training with NRA/Retired LEOs, provide all their personal data & pay the application fees, and willingly submit their fingerprints for file.

Bad guys, with or w/o a record, typically do not bend over backward to stay on the right side of the law. That's why they are the bad guys. Nor do bad guys generally (at least willingly) give the PD/SO their address, phone #, DL#, fingerprints, SS#, etc. Possible: yes; likely a recurring issue: no.
 
While that may be technically true, statistics show that individuals with CCWs are far more law-abiding than the general public. If "shall issue" stands in MD, I am sure the legislature will follow the suit of other "shall issue" states to require a visit to the police station/sheriff's office, background checks, fingerprints, and training (often provided by NRA Cert instructors and/or retired LEOs).

I certainly do not think many gang-bangers without a criminal record will voluntarily spend time with their local PD/SO, pay for & sit thru hours of training with NRA/Retired LEOs, provide all their personal data & pay the application fees, and willingly submit their fingerprints for file.

Bad guys, with or w/o a record, typically do not bend over backward to stay on the right side of the law. That's why they are the bad guys. Nor do bad guys generally (at least willingly) give the PD/SO their address, phone #, DL#, fingerprints, SS#, etc. Possible: yes; likely a recurring issue: no.

My comment was not meant to mean the bad guys would apply for a CCW but that everyone can now carry concealed in MD and that included the bad guys. As it is now, gang members illegally carry concealed and will probably always do so. Didn't want to add to the confusion.
 
My comment was not meant to mean the bad guys would apply for a CCW but that everyone can now carry concealed in MD and that included the bad guys. As it is now, gang members illegally carry concealed and will probably always do so. Didn't want to add to the confusion.
I used to live in Maryland, and this argument was used against shall issue. The speaker favoring shall issue noted that the CHL licensees in VA have a crime rate 95% lower than the population of MD as a whole.

So far, nothing has changed in MD because of the court order, and expect MD to pile on the restrictions. Heck, you even have to take a course and get a permit to BUY a handgun there, much less carry it. But the crime rate is higher than PA and VA, where CHL are shall issue.

Basically, the argument that shall issue somehow increases crime and danger to officers just does not hold up to scrutiny.
 
My comment was not meant to mean the bad guys would apply for a CCW but that everyone can now carry concealed in MD and that included the bad guys. As it is now, gang members illegally carry concealed and will probably always do so. Didn't want to add to the confusion.

I fully understand. To that end, I am not a fan of "Constitutional Carry" that allows persons to carry a concealed firearm without a permit (see VT, AK, AZ, and WY).

The court's ruling does not make MD "constitutional carry." It only removes the condition that a bureaucrat will arbitrarily decide if the law-abiding citizen has sufficient "good cause" as stated on the application to exercise his rights prior to issuing a permit. All other application and vetting requirements remain in effect.

I like the set up in WV and numerous other states that allow plainly visible open carry without a permit, but requires a permit for concealed carry. So long as a non-prohibited person has the option to carry openly without a permit, I see no conflict with Constitutional rights even if a permit is (justifiably, IMO) required for concealed carry.

I also have no problem with reasonable training requirements for a CCW (NRA or similar gun safety course.) If the ruling is not overturned, I expect MD to add a training requirement to its permitting process. I hope it is a reasonable training requirement and not some extravagant and convoluted scheme to try to undue the intent of the court's ruling.

As it is now, MD (and several other states) do not provide any avenue for the law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm -openly or concealed- except at the whim of a bureaucrat weighing the stated "good cause." This leads to arbitrary denials, favoritism, and unequal treatment under the law. The right itself should be sufficient cause if all other vetting and training requirements are satisfied.

Requiring a permit (contingent on bg ck & training) for concealed carry gives LEO's a tool to use against criminals. If Johnny Gang-Bang is a known dirt-bag but not yet busted and has a Hi-Point in his waistband, LEO can affect an arrest if he does not have a permit. In a "constitutional carry" state, the LEO would have to let Johnny walk and hope they can catch him red-handed in the future. Of course, Johnny Gang-Bang likely would not choose to open carry if he is up to no good and/or on his way to knock over the local Stop-n-Rob. Further, a prohibited person would generally not open carry and bring attention upon himself as doing so would likely result in a quick trip to lockup.
 
Not one to want to put a dent in your armor but if law abiding citizens can easily obtain a CCW, so can bad guys with no criminal record. I'm sure anyone posting a badge will agree with me.

My vote for the stupidest post of the year award.

- Equating good guys with bad guys
- Implication that CCW is needed in the first place, no CCW required states work just fine, thanks.
- "Bad guys" with "no criminal record" - How do you know who the bad guys are then? Is there some special test that's applied or do you use state-certified psychics to determine "bad guys" or.... what?
 
Last edited:
I fully understand. To that end, I am not a fan of "Constitutional Carry" that allows persons to carry a concealed firearm without a permit (see VT, AK, AZ, and WY).

The court's ruling does not make MD "constitutional carry." It only removes the condition that a bureaucrat will arbitrarily decide if the law-abiding citizen has sufficient "good cause" as stated on the application to exercise his rights prior to issuing a permit. All other application and vetting requirements remain in effect.

I like the set up in WV and numerous other states that allow plainly visible open carry without a permit, but requires a permit for concealed carry. So long as a non-prohibited person has the option to carry openly without a permit, I see no conflict with Constitutional rights even if a permit is (justifiably, IMO) required for concealed carry.

I also have no problem with reasonable training requirements for a CCW (NRA or similar gun safety course.) If the ruling is not overturned, I expect MD to add a training requirement to its permitting process. I hope it is a reasonable training requirement and not some extravagant and convoluted scheme to try to undue the intent of the court's ruling.

As it is now, MD (and several other states) do not provide any avenue for the law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm -openly or concealed- except at the whim of a bureaucrat weighing the stated "good cause." This leads to arbitrary denials, favoritism, and unequal treatment under the law. The right itself should be sufficient cause if all other vetting and training requirements are satisfied.

Requiring a permit (contingent on bg ck & training) for concealed carry gives LEO's a tool to use against criminals. If Johnny Gang-Bang is a known dirt-bag but not yet busted and has a Hi-Point in his waistband, LEO can affect an arrest if he does not have a permit. In a "constitutional carry" state, the LEO would have to let Johnny walk and hope they can catch him red-handed in the future. Of course, Johnny Gang-Bang likely would not choose to open carry if he is up to no good and/or on his way to knock over the local Stop-n-Rob. Further, a prohibited person would generally not open carry and bring attention upon himself as doing so would likely result in a quick trip to lockup.

The last four words of the second admendment are shall not be infringed there is no requirements in there that say you need a training course a permit ect. People need to read and understand what the constitution says
 
FTG-05,

Did you really think I was equating good guys with bad guys? What I was saying was, if the law was easy for good guys to get permits, it would be just as easy for bad guys to get them....provided their backround checks came back ok. Even those you think are good guys cause problems...Aurora, Penn St, etc. I don't believe that everyone carrying concealed is 100% mentally able to do so. Most of those carrying concealed don't know squat when it comes down to possibly discharging their weapon except that pulling the trigger makes their weapon go bang.
 
My vote for the stupidest post of the year award.

- "Bad guys" with "no criminal record" - How do you know who the bad guys are then? Is there some special test that's applied or do you use state-certified psychics to determine "bad guys" or.... what?

There are idiots in "North Alabama" that go about life with the good guy persona and carry concealed that can go sideways at the blink of an eye. They may appear as good guys, like the guy in Aurora, then things start to go south. That was the gist of my comment.
 
My vote for the stupidest post of the year award.

- Equating good guys with bad guys
- Implication that CCW is needed in the first place, no CCW required states work just fine, thanks.
- "Bad guys" with "no criminal record" - How do you know who the bad guys are then? Is there some special test that's applied or do you use state-certified psychics to determine "bad guys" or.... what?

Exactly. Legally, a person without a criminal record IS a good guy. That attitude smells of the "everyone is a criminal who just hasn't been caught yet" attitude.
 
Back
Top