search
top

Not Without Reform First

Maryland wants to make carrying a firearm a felony instead of a misdemeanor. To me this is unacceptable without first making Maryland a shall-issue state. Pennsylvania has a tiered approach. If you are otherwise qualified to have a license, it’s a misdemeanor for carrying without a license. Only if you’re prohibited from carrying a firearm does it become a felony. Why can’t Maryland take such an approach? Oh yeah, because locking up criminals isn’t the point.

22 Responses to “Not Without Reform First”

  1. gnbrotz says:

    Yeah, but in PA it’s an M1 even if your qualified to be licensed, so you’ll still be stripped of your rights going forward if convicted. Seems like a bit of overkill for someone not already prohibited.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I agree… but I don’t think we should require a license at all :)

  3. gnbrotz says:

    You’ll get no argument here on that point!

  4. Sebastian says:

    I don’t really get the point of a license this day in age. If you stop someone legally, you can run them and see if they are wanted for anything, and what their criminal history is. If they are prohibited persons, bust them for having the gun at all. If you don’t have a legal reason to stop someone, the law isn’t going to matter anyway.

  5. j t bolt says:

    Good point. I missed that take on it myself.

  6. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, Thanks for the material for a little post over at my blog. Everything that infringes on your rights, if you’ll pardon the expression, you see as a conspiracy. Don’t you think some of these gun control folks are well-intentioned, from your perspective misguided, but at least well meaning?

  7. Or an open carry state. Maryland’s CCW system is so restrictive it’s ridiculous. And open carry will likely get you arrested for disturbing the peace or some other trumped up charge.

  8. Sebastian says:

    My understanding is that you need a license in MD to OC.

  9. Sebastian says:

    Mike,

    I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. I think most of you could give a rat’s behind about crime. You just hate guns, or hate gun owners.

  10. Sebastian says:

    Or at the least hate people who stand up and say it’s a right and ought to be treated as such.

  11. Jeff the Baptist, MD prohibits ALL carry without a permit. To open carry in this state, you must hold a permit. If you are one of the very few, fortunate people to demonstrate “need against apprehended dangers” then you best bet that you should keep it covered up.

    It sucks. It’s BS, but Gura and company are working on it. I just don’t understand how I can cross the line into Sebastian’s state and carry on my VA Non-Res permit, or in WVA, VA, and DE, hell even Texas or the US Virgin Islands on my Non-Res permit, but MD doesn’t trust me?

    Pathetic!

  12. Pyrotek85 says:

    @mikeb302000

    “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

  13. Huh I had thought it was defacto illegal not dejure. It gets to be an even bigger pain when you realize that even a loaded magazine or speedloader is considered a firearm in Maryland. You can’t even have one in your car without violating transportation laws.

  14. Link P says:

    “…those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C. S. Lewis

    http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33029.html

  15. Jeff The Baptist, welcome to the hell that is Marylandstan.

  16. Bob S. says:

    I realize it’s kind of unfair, gun owners can’t win with me. If these guys were already criminals, their guns originally came from legitimate sources. Gun owners are to blame. If they were legitimate gun owners up until this incident, they prove the 10% theory, or worse, they prove the 10% figure is too low.

    That’s from Mikeb302000’s blog -http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/11/road-rage-in-north-carolina.html

    So, why should we even bother with you any more MikeB302000?

    You don’t seem like you will be satisfied with anything less than no firearms in the hands of citizens.

    You call pro-rights advocates extremists but doesn’t that position, that policy statement you made show that the true extremism in on your part?

    Never mind the fact that while you feel that the rest of us may be part of the problem, you’ve admitted to being a part of the problem.

    To sum up, I did Parris Island Marine Corp training when I was 17, in the summer of 1970. I didn’t have to go to Viet Nam, thank goodness. After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years. I was never passionate about them back then and over the last couple of decades have become strongly anti-gun, especially since I started writing this blog.

    http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.html

    Instead of throwing all the people that haven’t broken the law under the bus, why don’t you do something about your own admitted criminal past?

    You believe that one strike means people should loose their rights forever….what freedoms are you going to give up to make this right?

  17. mikeb302000 says:

    Bob, I’ll bet you wish you had a nickel for every time you brought that up.

    I don’t hate guns or gun-rights activists, Sebastian. And I certainly don’t “hate people who stand up and say it’s a right and ought to be treated as such,” as silly a concept that is to me.

  18. Bob S. says:

    Mikeb302000,

    I wish I had a nickel for every incident where you’ve displayed your hypocrisy.

    You blame gun owners who haven’t had guns stolen, who haven’t sold guns for being part of the problem, yet you’ve admitted to owning firearms illegally.

    You’ve asked others how they have stored their firearms but won’t talk about how you stored yours….even the firearms you legally owned.

    You’ve asked most of us if we’ve broken the law and then didn’t believe us when we claimed not to have — yet you’ve admitted to breaking the law.

    You claim you only want ‘reasonable restrictions’ but admit that “gun owners are to blame”.

    Does that sound reasonable?

    Since all gun owners are to blame, the logical conclusion to your goals is getting rid of all guns, isn’t that right Sparky?

  19. mikeb302000 says:

    Yes, Bob, that’s right. You have uncovered my secret plot. I should have known that I might be able to fool all the other pro gun bloggers, but, not you Bob. You are too sharp for the likes of me.

    Thanks for revealing my dirty secret, Bob. Thanks to you, now I can drop all the pretense and write about what I really believe.

  20. Sebastian says:

    Trip trap trip trap trip trap, who’s that tripping over my bridge?

  21. Bob S. says:

    Right MikeB302000, so much for open and honest discussion of the issues, eh Sparky?

    Let’s see, your first reply was an insult as Sebastian as seeing everything as a conspiracy.

    Could have talked about the effectiveness of the two approaches, but you didn’t.

    Could have talked about why we should engage you since you see ‘gun owners as the problem’. But you didn’t.

    If all gun owners are the problem, why should we discuss anything with you Sparky?

    The logical conclusion, which you blew off with attempt at sarcasm, is simple — if gun owners are the problem, the only acceptable solution is to not have gun owners, right?

    But you don’t want to talk about how your views are ‘reasonable’ or which ‘reasonable laws’ will solve the problem short of a complete gun ban.

    Your responses prove that Sebastian has it right:

    Oh yeah, because locking up criminals isn’t the point.

  22. Sebastian says:

    Oh, it is only I, the tiniest Billy Goat Gruff , and I’m going up to the hillside to make myself fat

top