CCW IN MD ?? Need 30 people

imported post

The Heller case has at least changed the "collective" rights to "individual" rights. I've been doing a LOT of research and these liberal courts have ALWAYS said it's a collective right of the militia. Although they'll probably say now that the 2A doesn't apply to the states.

However, if that were true, MD could ban ALL firearms tomorrow, and no one could do a thing about it. Does anyone think MD would win in court doing something like that?

imported post

From my earlier post: "In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... So much for the subset'militia'. As to the 2A being 'not applicable to the States'... The Constitution refers to 'The People' as above. This recognizes (not grants) the Right to self defense... and the means (Arms).

Maryland... (having been unfortunate enuff to have been born there) has degenerated into a Socialist state populated by subservientsheeple and vocal parasites. I don't see that changing... ever.

imported post

Sonora, not saying you're a lawyer, but do you think that prima facie argument would hold up in an Open carry state if one wanted to carry a sword around?

Not that I have one mind you...but if i did i would carry it. Old school and all that...a classic look from a time gone by.

imported post

The 2A is the RTK&BA... Arms. 'doesn't say anything about 'firearms' specifically... just 'bearable arms'. Yeah... that would include swords. (I have about 8 of those which would be quite servicable for their intended purpose) My favorite being the 1851 Ames cutlass. It also puts the kabosh on length of sheath knives if carried openly... (as is the case in AZ).

Swords might seem 'eccentric'... but they 'are' bearable arms... openly carried. If ya have a LEO encounter tho... Don't respond with: "There can be only ONE!"


Uhh... no I'm not a Lawyer, butI paid attention in my Criminal Justice classes back when. 'Lotta 'lore 'n opinion' floatin' around in that which had no basis in actual Law... regardless of what the State (MD) prohibited to the contrary. Rights are pre-existing conditions of humanity, not something permitted or granted by any authority. The 'authority' (Government) is tasked with recognition of such individual rights and (supposedly) their support and defense. Nothing other. That's the 'Shall not be infringed' part of the 2A.


Further edit: Swords (sabers) were quite common in the Southwest and the former Spanish areas of Texas 'n California in the early 1800's to about the early 1870's. (The 'Alamo'/'Zorro' era) 'Downside... they're clunky... and you need to practice with them. A rolled up old carpet hung from a rope serves nicely as a target. .A 3 lb sabre gets really heavy after a bit. The hand and a half broadswords (dubble edged) work great. Beware the 'novelty' stuff... they're wall hangers. You need a blade that will bend 6" from center and remain true. Krupp CK-55 steel is good. 'Collectors Armory' stuffare all 'real' weapons.


'Best way to carry is to use a belt frog to accept (and hold) the sheath. That way the whole thing may be removed easily. Heh... 'could start whole new trend... swords, pikes, axes, war hammers... even Assagi's (short stabbing spears). The LEO's 'n their Politico masters would go nutz.:what:

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

snip.........She got in her car and went home. This was back in the late '80's. Nice thing about wheel guns is there's no brass left at the scene. Had she not done that... she'd have been a forgotten 'statistic'.

Click to expand...

Good story. She was/is somebody's wife, mother, sister or simply friend and she came home that night. No other comment is necessary.

Yata hey

imported post

That's the whole idea... People have a Right to defend themselves.State denial of the means to that Right is tyranny. There'd be a LOT less rapes 'n other street crimes if ordinary people were heeled 'n packin'.

As I mentioned previously... the majority of those who I knew to be heeled (illegally by definition)... were women in their 20's to 50's.I don't blame them. Baltimore area (in particular) is dangerous in some areas... most areas (now).

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Swords might seem 'eccentric'... but they 'are' bearable arms... openly carried. If ya have a LEO encounter tho... Don't respond with: "There can be only ONE!"

Click to expand...

Either that, or, "My name is Iñigo Montoya... "

imported post

Sonora Rebel said:

This was back in the late '80's. Nice thing about wheel guns is there's no brass left at the scene. Had she not done that... she'd have been a forgotten 'statistic'.

Click to expand...

And another nice thing....that was back before the surveillance state existed. Nowadays she would have been caught on an public security camera and the local news would be asking for witnesses to call in.

Imagine the freedom of a world without cameras and metal detectors...without the state to "protect" them, people would have to (or rather have the option to) handle their own problems. Nobody would brazenly insult or assault you because they'd end up receiving some hot lead or cold steel and all anybody would say is "Nice shot, sir." There'd be no police and no public prosecutors -- it would be up to private citizens to bring criminal charges (as indeed, it was from the time of Julius Caesar to the 20th century).

Sometimes I wish I had been born 200 years earlier.

imported post

Virginian683 wrote:

snip.......
Imagine the freedom of a world without cameras and metal detectors...without the state to "protect" them, people would have to (or rather have the option to) handle their own problems. Nobody would brazenly insult or assault you because they'd end up receiving some hot lead or cold steel and all anybody would say is "Nice shot, sir." There'd be no police and no public prosecutors -- it would be up to private citizens to bring criminal charges (as indeed, it was from the time of Julius Caesar to the 20th century).

Sometimes I wish I had been born 200 years earlier.

______________________Qoute box not working___________________________


We do not endorse vigilante style responses as being in any way appropriate.

Julius Caesar, as you would know if a student of history, was not broght up on criminal charges by private citizens but murdered.

What you suggest is at best anarchy and at worst reduced to the law of the jungle.

Sonora Rebel's story was not a recommendation that we should solve our problems in this manner.

Yata hey

imported post

"Imagine the freedom of a world without cameras and metal detectors...without the state to "protect" them, people would have to (or rather have the option to) handle their own problems."

I imagine what mischief would ensue undetected without them.

The State has an obligation to protect the 'public'. The individual has the 'right' to protect him/herself. Not all are capable, or willing to take that personal responsibility. The State has the obligation to recognize that individual right when so exercised as previously set forth in the Constitution.

What seems to come into conflict is State obligation and individual right... altho this is caused due to perception and misconception by the State that it's obligations take precedence. They do NOT. This poses an inconvienece that the State seems ill-equipped to address. The usual State response is repression anddenial of individual rights. This... is Tyranny. It need not be so.

This is not the case everywhere. I sit here typing this with a loaded pistol on my hip. I can go get in my truck 'n go down to the local mini-mart with this pistol on my hip and return w/o incident. I've broken no law... alarmed nobody... 'cause this is ARIZONA. The 'State' got it right before it was a State.

Too bad they can't 'get it right' elsewhere.

'Just noticed... this is the MD Forum... where the hell are the Marylanders? THIS is indicative that MD will remain in the oppressor camp 'til the end of time. 'Must've destroyed the gene pool in the wars.

imported post

the state has only the obligations which the people place on it and are willing to pay for. At least that is how it once was and should be. The government has become its own self determining entity now deciding without the people what its responsabilities are and what it will make the people pay for.

imported post

Government vs The People - who is supposed to be in charge?

The tail is wagging the dog or in this case the tail is leading the sheep. Ain't supposed to be that way.
Its a** backwards.:cuss:

Yata hey

imported post

MikeV wrote:

I wish you all the luck in the worl. Unf I live in a rather rural area of Frederick County so I would not really be of any use to that, but I sure hope that YOU are successful in your pursuit.

MikeV

p.s. you should contact Henry at MD Shall Issue. He runs a great orginization and might be able to give you guidance and support.

Click to expand...

Henry is taking a hiatus. MSI is being headed by Sebastian Sassi for the interim.

imported post

press1280 wrote:

The Heller case has at least changed the "collective" rights to "individual" rights. I've been doing a LOT of research and these liberal courts have ALWAYS said it's a collective right of the militia. Although they'll probably say now that the 2A doesn't apply to the states.

However, if that were true, MD could ban ALL firearms tomorrow, and no one could do a thing about it. Does anyone think MD would win in court doing something like that?

Click to expand...

The MD AG (Doug Ganzler) in defence of the Baltimore stolen gun reporting law said he thinks the courts said it did not apply to the states because of something called incorporation or something, but everything he cited was about the right of the state to regulate the militia and the Heller case was specifically about the right of an individual NOT in a state militia.
Ganzler is an idiot.
The 14th Amendment shall apply the individual RKBA to the states.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Sonora, not saying you're a lawyer, but do you think that prima facie argument would hold up in an Open carry state if one wanted to carry a sword around?

Not that I have one mind you...but if i did i would carry it. Old school and all that...a classic look from a time gone by.

Click to expand...

Ironically enough, one can openly carry a sword around in public in MD except for just a few places like maybe Ocean City.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

I think you must have to be a retired LEO (and I'm not certain they'll even issue in that instance anymore).... When I resigned from BPD, I attempted to obtain a permit ('cause I had lotta perps still in the joint that I'd arrested and would be gettin' out at intervals...) No joy! The State already had my fingerprints, history... all that stuff. There was NO valid reason not to issue me a CC permit. You can repeat the 2A rhyme and verse 'til the cows come home with emphasis on actual instutionalized denial (by the State) of Constitutional 'Rights' and they'll laugh at ya.

There are a LOT of otherwise law-abiding citizens in MD who CC w/o permits because they are forced to. Some just carry in their vehicles and some 'carry'. I knew several. 'Knew a soldiers wife (Ft Meade) who worked at Penny's in the Columbia mall who was followed by six 'hoodles' to her car after the store closed one nite. She had to park way out on the extreme edge of the lot... to the rear of the store. Ennyhoo... there was no doubt what these 'persons' were up to... and she's about 5' 'n 100 lbs at the time. Well... long story short, she's carryin' a S&W Mod 36 .38 in her purse. Five shots... but anyway... she gets to her car and they start to 'circle'. She pulled that pistol 'n lit 'em up. All 5 shots. They ran... three of 'em limpin'. She got in her car and went home. This was back in the late '80's. Nice thing about wheel guns is there's no brass left at the scene. Had she not done that... she'd have been a forgotten 'statistic'. Does the State care? Hell no. Maryland is stuck on stupid.

Click to expand...

If your friends still feel the dire need to carry, then tell them to carry antique handguns. Apparently there seems to be a gap in MD law about antiques and they would at least have something to work with legally if caught with it. However, a loaded firearm of any kind in a car is still illegal in MD, but that is just a misdemeanor which would not keep them from owning a firearm for the rest of their lives.

The hole in law I am referring to is the handgun possession/transport law says it does not address antiques.
The other hole in law is the dangerous weapons section about concealed carry.....it excludes handguns but does not exclude antiques from the definition of "handgun".
The open carry of antiques seems to be legal, but concealed carry is questionable.
But even if legal, there is no state preemption on it and some local laws may make the open or concealed carry of a loaded antique illegal, but there again I think it is a misdemeanor carrying less than a year making it not a violation that will make someone lose their gun rights for life.

I am not a lawyer, but I can support my reading of the MD code and anyone doubting me can see for themself if I am right or wrong.

imported post

based on discussions with some police a sword could be treated as probably cause for arrest just as much as how they will arrest someone for a loaded magazine (and no gun)

might be legal but it does not exempt you from harassment

imported post

kohburn wrote:

based on discussions with some police a sword could be treated as probably cause for arrest just as much as how they will arrest someone for a loaded magazine (and no gun)

might be legal but it does not exempt you from harassment

Click to expand...

True, but if they arrest you for the open carry of a sword which is not illegal (in state law), they can be sued and they will lose. It has happened before with the knife law.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf

Probable cause or not, an arrest for violating a law that does not exist is fals arrest and the police do not have qualified immunity in MD under those circumstances. If landscapers can walk around in public with machettees, then people can walk around with swords unless the law specifically says they cannot and the state law does not prohibit the peaceful open carry of either swords, machettees, civil war officer's sabers, baseball bats, etc.
It is illegal to carry one with the intent to unlawfully injure, but they need something to show there was probable cause to believe there was intent to unlawfully injure, but just having the sword would not be or else they could arrest landscapers.

I am not a lawyer, but the Sorrel case shows they can lose lawsuits for law and precedent the officer should know (like the magazines and knife law), and it shows when they arrest for something that is not illegal, they are the ones breaking the law.

So I say let them arrest people and harrass them. Maybe those people will get a few extra bucks out of it.
Before long they will get tired of losing money and stop harassing people that are obeying the law.

imported post

The problem with Maryland is the politicians are running it without any public imput nor do they care what the people think! They call closed sessions on a regular basis and nothing is ever done about it. It is enough to make you sick. The people of MD allow this to go on, and just feel as though they have to accept it. I think it is time for us to stop accepting it, and start to challenge it. Lets start sending letters to Doug ganslers office. Let him know what he is doing wrong, along with the politicians and be sure to copy Judges, Lawyers, US Congressmen, Justice Scalia, etc. Get the message out. I think there are too many people here in MD that think their voice wont do any good....ya know what? You cant say you failed at something till you try first. I love MD but we need to fight to get it back!!!!!

imported post

thats part of the problem, Maryland's "so sue us" attitude takes advantage of people who can't afford to fight back in the courts.