This could be the proper case for Constitutional Carry

A "good guy with a gun" doesn't have a chance in a liberal run city! They're to busy letting bad guys with guns back out on to the street!

Aim1 said:

And the state appears to be moving forward with their case. If they are so intent on prosecuting I don't see how he isn't convicted.

Click to expand...

And then he will have standing.

And then in ten years we might get SCOTUS to weigh in on it. And hopefully it will be as amicable to 2A as it seems to be now.

I avoid jurisdictions where me having a handgun is an issue.

Aim1 said:

Do your Constitutional Rights end at your home states borders?

Click to expand...

No, of course not, Second Amendment included.

Courts and judges make mistakes both on accident and on purpose, same as public “health” officials. It’s our job to hold them accountable. With judicial, it’s an exceptional long process, by design.

our 2a is our only enumerated constitutional right that is zip code dependent, which is immoral and wrong.

The officers should have used their discretion and not made the arrest.. What morons.

Sorry, folks...but depending on the gentleman's voting history, he may have helped to put himself in that predicament. Some people choose to vote for the side that dictates that their peasants deserve no 2nd Amendment rights. IF he is one such foolish person, then oh well...eat it.

mope540 said:

Sorry, folks...but depending on the gentleman's voting history, he may have helped to put himself in that predicament. Some people choose to vote for the side that dictates that their peasants deserve no 2nd Amendment rights. IF he is one such foolish person, then oh well...eat it.

Click to expand...

Considering he's from a different state, his vote means nothing.

FlyBri said:

Considering he's from a different state, his vote means nothing.

Click to expand...

presidential elections have no effect??

mope540 said:

presidential elections have no effect??

Click to expand...

This is a Maryland issue, not federal.

As much as I would love to see a national concealed carry law, we don’t have it yet. One of your responsibilities is to know where you’re allowed to carry. He broke the law. Plain and simple. Ignorance is no excuse. I agree that they should have used discretion, especially since he acted heroically. We are responsible to know where we can and cannot carry as responsible gun owners. And he’s a brother Marine!!!! If I were a lawyer out there, I’d represent him for free.

Jdague12 said:

As much as I would love to see a national concealed carry law, we don’t have it yet. One of your responsibilities is to know where you’re allowed to carry. He broke the law. Plain and simple. Ignorance is no excuse. I agree that they should have used discretion, especially since he acted heroically. We are responsible to know where we can and cannot carry as responsible gun owners. And he’s a brother Marine!!!! If I were a lawyer out there, I’d represent him for free.

Click to expand...

I do not want to see a national law about much of anything. For the most part, while it might be frustrating to have to deal with 50 different laws on things, that is what federalism ends up being.

I am not a fan of laws restricting people from doing anything that harms no one else. Carrying/owning guns, use of drugs, gambling, prostitution, whatever. But it is not the place of the federal government to decide such things for the whole country.

Heller already decided that states can have sensitive areas..

The 2nd Amendment applies to all American citizens and is the law of the land. I see national recipriocity coming out of this case, or another one like it, just like driver's licenses. Bearing arms is a right everywhere in this country, not just the state one resides in, whereas driving is a privilege.

Jdague12 said:

As much as I would love to see a national concealed carry law, we don’t have it yet. One of your responsibilities is to know where you’re allowed to carry. He broke the law. Plain and simple. Ignorance is no excuse. I agree that they should have used discretion, especially since he acted heroically. We are responsible to know where we can and cannot carry as responsible gun owners. And he’s a brother Marine!!!! If I were a lawyer out there, I’d represent him for free.

Click to expand...

"He broke the law."

The law broke the law.

But he should have avoided the situation where laws are written without regard to the highest law of the land.

And most of the lawmakers who passed those laws have violated their oaths of office.

Oh, but that's an oversimplification.

Sorry. Didn't mean to focus on things so closely.

I have to learn to look at the big picture.

Terry, 230RN

To be clear, are we talking about Constitutional Carry (zero firearms laws including no age limits) or Permitless Carry?

If First Amendment protects free speech in public spaces such as sidewalks etc, then the Second Amendment should also apply. Enough of this 100 feet etc nonsense. Is someone supposed to take a tape measure everywhere they go or risk violating the law?

This is unfortunate. However, I cannot believe that any reasonable, responsible person who carries concealed was not actually aware of Maryland's laws, especially as a resident of Virginia Beach, VA.

I also have a problem with any person who may potentially think that any recent Supreme Court decisions would somehow obviate the relevant state laws on firearms with respect to concealed carry.

This guy is now behind the proverbial 8-ball and, quite frankly, he put himself there. We can argue all the woulda-coulda-shoulda's we wish, but this is a fact. And now he has to walk a path he perhaps had no intention of ever doing. And regardless of the outcome, it's going to cost him dearly.

I like the fact that he's a veteran. I like the fact that his VA concealed carry and job apparently puts him in a good light with respect to being trusted with firearms by virtue of the processes he had to go through to attain both. I'm presuming at this point that he's not got some deep, dark legal secret buried somewhere which could put him in a bad light. These are all things which could put him in good standing as a potential candidate worth fighting a legal battle up the ladder in the courts.

But ultimately, the question will be whether or not he had any kind of legal standing to intentionally violate Maryland state firearms laws. I'm sure an attempt will be made to draw Marland firearms law into question with respect to the Second Amendment. But even if they DID, then that in itself does not obviate Maryland's stand on whether or not they have to accept any other state's concealed carry within their own jurisdiction.

And before people move into the "there oughta be a federal law which deals with this" mindset, I'd like to point out the inherent dangers in this. Putting such power into the federal government is, quite literally, putting all your eggs in one basket. Need I remind people here that the NFA and GCA are FEDERAL laws. States rights are powerful checks on the federal government and the fact that we have 50 states spread far and wide geographically, politically, economically, and culturally has been critical on the progress we've been able to make against oppressive gun control measures and protecting the Second Amendment itself. In fact, this is very likely the ONLY reason why we haven't traveled down the gun control path any further than we already have so far.

tarosean said:

Heller already decided that states can have sensitive areas..

Click to expand...

Sensitive areas predates Heller by a long stretch, IIRC.
Heller restated the pre-existing notion.

Apparently MD does issue to out of State residents for personal protection.

• Personal protection.

For each category, additional documents are required.

WCHPs require a state-approved 16-hour firearms training course that includes live-fire training. An additional eight hours of training is required at each WCHP renewal. Permits are issued to residents and non-residents. Some areas are off-limits, including rest areas and state parks. In terms of reciprocity, Maryland does not honor permits from any other states.

shafter said:

If First Amendment protects free speech in public spaces such as sidewalks etc, then the Second Amendment should also apply. Enough of this 100 feet etc nonsense. Is someone supposed to take a tape measure everywhere they go or risk violating the law?

Click to expand...

Well, as far as I know, none of the school shooters have been charged with possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. So that federal law seems to be a bit useless anyway. There are exceptions to that law, however, so maybe there's a loophole in it that allowed them to bring their firearms within that 1000 feet.

Another "feel good" law that makes us think we're "Doing Something?"

"The Supreme Court wants the case to be reconsidered by the lower court and focus on whether the text of the law is compatible with the Second Amendment."

All of us ought to send all the judges in the lower Court dictionaries. We can call them amicus lexicons as if they were briefs. We can specifically cite the pages on which the words "arms," "be," "bear," "keep, " "infringed," "not," "right," and "shall" occur. Like that, in alphabetical order, just to be proper about it.

Terry, 230RN