-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
WTOP Report: Virginia CHP-holder arrested in Frederick, Md
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
TFred
Regular Member
hunter45
Regular Member
For real....who carries Hi Points (other than thugs in DC)?
Oh Boy...I've seen this dust storm before.:lol:
I don't own one, don't want one but they shoot fairly well and are inexpensive.
There are members here that can't afford anything else and a Hi Point in the holster is better than air.
Someone said to me the other day they couldn't get expensive guns like I have...everything is relative because the most expensive gun I own was only a couple of thousand. I know some people that pay that for a barrel.
But if a High Point was all I had, I wouldn't feel especially undergunned.
I know people who only own a single barrel shotgun but will kill as much or more than I will this year.
There are a lot of reasons to ridicule some people that own a gun. Carrying what they can afford shouldn't be one of them.
Last edited:
hunter45
Regular Member
This guy doesn't think that they shoot well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us7mKJNlm8Y (you gotta watch, it's hilarious).
But seriously, I understand that is all some people can afford, and having a Hi Point is a hell of a lot better than having no firearm at all.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
ne
Sorry guys. When I click on the link it comes right up on my phone. I don't have a LexisNexis subscription either. Thanks TFred.
Sorry guys. When I click on the link it comes right up on my phone. I don't have a LexisNexis subscription either. Thanks TFred.
Last edited:
zoom6zoom
Regular Member
I sorta doubt the test case idea. If the best he can afford for a carry gun is a .380 High Point, he probably can't afford a good lawyer, either.
TFred
Regular Member
And I apologize as well, one shouldn't assume, should one?
I guess it's a quirky thing they do for mobile users? When I click the link from my home DSL it takes me to a login screen.
TFred
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
And I apologize as well, one shouldn't assume, should one?
I guess it's a quirky thing they do for mobile users? When I click the link from my home DSL it takes me to a login screen.
TFred
No worries. Just as long as everyone gets the information one way or another, right? I appreciate the assist.
VApatriot
Regular Member
Maybe he got a cheap gun because he knew that there was a chance he would lose it if the test case didn't work out. Maybe that is wishful thinking, but I still wish this guy the best.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Test case? I wonder how many Sheetz-es you gotta visit for gas before you encounter a cop.
Oh, wait. Sheetz sells fresh Krispy Kremes. Nevermind.
Oh, wait. Sheetz sells fresh Krispy Kremes. Nevermind.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
+1
I disagree with Skidmark and ProShooter. A law that violates fundamental human rights is no law at all. Which of the Founders said it is our duty to disobey such laws? Such laws should be viewed exactly as Repeater did above.
Test case? I wonder how many Sheetz-es you gotta visit for gas before you encounter a cop.
Oh, wait. Sheetz sells fresh Krispy Kremes. Nevermind.
hahaha the Sheetz nearest me has cops in it at all times of the day, especially at night they will meet up to use the bathroom and get coffee. I am surprised that the guy would carry knowing the law, it will be interesting to see what happens I'd love to see the Maryland laws more where they should be.
JimMullinsWVCDL
State Researcher
A violation of Md. Code Crim. Law Art. § 4-203 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 3 years in jail for the first offense. Accordingly, this is a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" and a federal firearm possession disqualifier under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) and 922(g)(1).
Maryland is among a small handful of states that do not limit the maximum jail sentence for a misdemeanor to one year (the prevailing rule under federal law and the overwhelming majority of states' state laws) and has a criminal code chock full of multi-year misdemeanors (e.g., the lowest level of criminal assault is a 10-year misdemeanor). Although I do not have an exhaustive list, I know that Pennsylvania (first degree misdemeanors, including many firearm misdemeanors, are punishable by up to 5 years in jail) and South Carolina also have many misdemeanor offenses punishable by multiple years in prison and trigger federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) and 922(g)(1).
It seems we merely disagree on the extent to which the government has reached the point where it is no longer sufferable. The first tme anyone asserted that
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Kife, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
less than 3% of the polulation got behind the notion, and we were fortunate that cooler heads prevailed and we came out with a Republic rather than a Democracy. Given the political, social and cultural circumstances today (meaning since, just to pull a date out of thin air, 1935) I fear what we will get if we follow your advice.
stay safe.
ProShooter
Regular Member
Agreed.
If we pick and choose the laws and only follow the ones that we like, we'll have anarchy and chaos. If there is a law that one does not like, the required course of action is to effect a change of that law, not to disregard it.
To some extent. its like the "concealed means concealed" comments I so often see.....its a bad road to start down.
Repeater
Regular Member
You're funny.
By your logic, the only (lawful) recourse is to avoid the premises of Maryland altogether. Under those circumstances, your "stay safe" is ironic.
DontTreadOnMeVa
Regular Member
Hmmm....
So its revolution or compliance? No space for civil disobedience? How many times have Gun owners and other put their ass on the line by risking charges to move the ball forward in the fight for our rights? Yes, it would be nice if voting both always fixed all. However sometimes people have defy a law to see it questioned or reviewed. The choice to defy unjust laws has a long and valid history. How many movements that have furthered rights in this country has relied on those that put skin in the game and risked?
The gentleman arrested in Fredrick is most likely foolish, the future will tell. I can not however stand in agreement that it is revolution or compliance with unjust laws. Sometimes to see things put right it takes is a woman to say....no I will sit in the front of the bus, or man to say no am allowed to carry here, anyone picketing the White House for suffrage even if it means arrest, even if it defies a law. To say the only choices are revolution or voting are the only paths to further freedom, forgets or simply rejects all those that use civil disobedience in the promotion of freedom.
I have nothing but respect for those such as Danbus(a local example) that risked money, jail and a criminal record. Revolution or compliance, hoping someday an unjust law is changed, are not the only choices. The acts of such are not the road to anarchy and chaos as suggested.
I love good quotes:
We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong.... There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them. -Alexander Bickel
------------------------
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law." -MLK
Ordinarily, a person leaving a courtroom with a conviction behind him would wear a somber face. But I left with a smile. I knew that I was a convicted criminal but I was proud of my crime. -MKL
------------------------
Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
------------------------
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -Robert A. Heinlein
ProShooter
Regular Member
Civil disobedience can be accomplished, and it comes in many forms....but I do not see knowingly breaking the law to be one.
Repeater
Regular Member
The new 'Jim Crow'
Whether some of you realize it or not, this becomes a repeat of the internal arguments civil rights activists had in the last century. The conflict was how, not whether, to resist hate-inspired Jim Crow laws and customs.
The conflict was between civil disobedience, and direct action specifically, and various forms of accommodation of the oppressor.
The famous sit-ins did result in arrests -- and did also result in positive change. Now, what if there had been no direct action? If you could argue that positive change would have occurred anyway, I would have to wonder how much longer it would have taken. Justice delayed is justice denied.
And by the way, those of you who suggest carrying "concealed" instead of carrying openly so as not to "offend" or cause an "incident" need to understand that is analogous to "passing for white."
Whether some of you realize it or not, this becomes a repeat of the internal arguments civil rights activists had in the last century. The conflict was how, not whether, to resist hate-inspired Jim Crow laws and customs.
The conflict was between civil disobedience, and direct action specifically, and various forms of accommodation of the oppressor.
The famous sit-ins did result in arrests -- and did also result in positive change. Now, what if there had been no direct action? If you could argue that positive change would have occurred anyway, I would have to wonder how much longer it would have taken. Justice delayed is justice denied.
And by the way, those of you who suggest carrying "concealed" instead of carrying openly so as not to "offend" or cause an "incident" need to understand that is analogous to "passing for white."