Unfortunately it isn't money. The way the laws are enforced it is more who you know than why you need it. Try opening a check cashing business in the middle of downtown Baltimore and you will probably still get turned down. Be someone famous and meet a local sheriff at a party and your chances are very good.

Most states have created right to carry laws just to make things more uniform and fair.

It should be noted that whilst ordering papers for sale at paper writing service, you can get unkind attitude. In case you feel that the bureau is trying to cheat you, don't buy term paper from it.
http://www.petfriendlycottages.eu

Indeed, all sorts of personal rights would be infringed - regularly.

Welcome to the Wild Wild West. Can I get you a tank to go with that shotgun?

Baltimore Matt - I'd throw trash in front of you. You'd better hope for more than a 12g when that happens.

@FIFA - Silly comment. Just look at PA, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL. All have shall issue. All have lower crime.

@Derrick Brown - Huh? Or are you just a troll trying to start an argument?

AG - are you just ignorant. You are trying to relate carry permits and the amount of crime without one iota of real evidence. Fool.

@FIFA, you made that stupid remark about Wild, Wild West and you accuse me of not having the facts? Take a look at http://www.gunfacts.info/

This site debunks all the myths you honestly believe are true (but are not). The site is fully annotated with research and statistics.

Instead of doing the research and learning the facts, you make decisions restricting the rights of others based on feeling fed to you by the Maryland Democratic leadership.

You are a fool.

@AG - as I said are you just ignorant? You link to "facts" reveals the following about the author of your "facts".

"Guy [Smith] is a regular speaker on television, radio (Gun Talk, NRANews' Cam & Company) and at meetings of civil liberty groups, including being an invited speaker at the Gun Rights Policy Conference".

Now there is an unbiased non-partisan source.

Idiot.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

@Baltimore Matt. I'm a huge 2nd ammendment supporter, but your 12 gauge comment has too much hot air in it. Comments like that loses support for the 2nd ammendment by giving our opponents the impression that we are gonna go around shooting people over stupid things like throwing trash in the street. If you want to help keep our rights in tact, then don't make comments like that. Unless you are an undercover liberal who is trying to undermine the constitution.

@ FIFA. It seems that you have placed anyone who supports the 2nd ammendment as biased and unreliable. I suppose that you would only trust research that is conducted by anti-gun supporters because they are unbiased and totally reliable. The purpose of the second amendment has and always will be to limit the power of the government. This was an ideal valued by those who created the constitution. If you would like, they make up 39 references you can use and research as to why a government should not be allowed to disarm the population. I've heard they are pretty reliable. Of course, who would trust someone whose face shows up on our money?

Run a pool on how few comments will be brand new and don't make same arguments made many times before. Could be Zero.

Guaranteed - 99.44% recycled - maybe with a stir or two.

FIFA, could be zero? An argument has to be made prior to being repeated so minimal number is one. Thanks for an intelligent thoughtful post.

I will take 73 in the pool.

Thanks Matt??

Actually the concept is that the gun discussion that will occur here has happened on numerous blogs on the Patch in the past with the same posters. So, thus the Zero possibility.

Bmore Matt - You're out of the pool at 3:35 on Thursday

“Comments like that only hurt us” - a very astute observation, Dan Da-man

The “us” are the pro-gun advocates.

And comments like the one above hurt the pro-gun advocate cause because they expose the insanity of allowing any idiot to obtain and carry a deadly weapon – for example an idiot that would use that weapon as a threat (or worse) against a potential litterbug.

Another example: if the idiot down in Florida (Mr. Community Crime Watch) was not carrying a gun, he would not have been emboldened to follow and approach a young man who was minding his own business and the tragedy that ensued would have been averted.

Piotr, could you please direct me to the court transcripts or other legal document that established the fact that the "young man ... was minding his own business" when he was shot by the "idiot".

Of course, this can't simply be your opinion from hundreds of mile away based only on 'unbiased' TV reports and statements in the media for agenda-driven blowhards. That would be incredibly irresponsible of you, and I can't imagine that you would be that careless.

Dan...I think if we have them, we should be able to better our city with them. While I support our right to arms, concealed weapons only protect the individual from harm where as unconcealed weapon protects society from harm. Imagine how much someone would want to commit a crime (almost any crime) if people around them were openly packing.

Phil,

We are getting a little off topic, but I guess I invited that.

So, yes, I will do you one better than a transcript.

Please refer to the AUDIO of the 911 call where the “idiot” himself, when pressed by the 911 operator, does not identify any mischievous behavior of any kind by the “young man” in question.

That is my source. I have no reason to disbelieve the “idiot’s” own account on the 911 call audio tape.

My only concern is that the laws would be enforced much like the DMV rights to drive. How many people on the roads should have had their licenses taken away before their 97th birthday? I really don't want to see a 200 year old woman with a walker packing heat. BUT you cann't discriminate because of age (or can you)?

People like you only like the constitution when you think it supports your current point of view. When it doesn't support your point of view, you want to complain about it.

That is a sucker bet.

What's the over/under? 100?

Tim, take the under as the answer is Zero. I never attack, question, ridicule or otherwise amuse myself, towards anyone for defending the Constitution if that is what they are really doing. Because if that is what they are doing they should be members of the ACLU.

FIFA
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Eastsider, not really, I recognize the constitution is an imperfect document and also recognize the only way to alter it is through the amendment process or the nomination process of the Supreme Court. As has been proven now by both sides.

So then FIFI, With your vast understanding of the Constitution perhaps you could explain why the 16th Amendment was NEVER fully ratified by the States...?
You are quick to make claims but never back them up with facts...unless you consider vague Wikipedia postings that don't give the answer follow up...Please share some of the knowledge instead of the diggity stuff that you are known for...

The 16th Amendment was ratified. That just more Sovereign Citizen Conspiracy Theory BS.

Could you pleas provide the proof that it was ratified Steve...should be a pretty easy task if what you say is true....My statement... The 16th Amendment to the Constitution was NEVER FULLY ratified by the States. In order for an amendment to become law it must be fully ratified. To date this has never happened. Some, but not all signed on and the government illusion continues ....make a little effort Steve, shut me up about it by providing the evidence for your claim.

My BFF Buckaroo-roo and his tax protestor argument, again.

Let's go the simplest routes possible.

1. Amendments to the Constitution passed by the Congress of the United States and affirmed by 3/4 of the states are constitutional when done.
2. The Amendment will be unconstitutional when so ruled by the judiciary branch.
3. The judiciary branch has not ever held the Amendment to be unconstitutional.

Ergo Buckaroo - the amendment is constitutional until you can get the courts to agree with your knucklehead arguments.

You believe that your "argument" has merit, so, go attach a statement to your income tax return that you don't have to pay any income taxes explaining your arguments why. Then go make your case in front of the judge, shortly thereafter. Watch the judge b-tch slap you on the spot and lock your hind end up and attach liens on your assets.

Man-up. Do it Buckaroo.

We're so sorry, Uncle Albert,
We're so sorry if we caused you any pain.
We're so sorry Uncle Albert,
But there's no one left at home in your brain.

If I am foolish your bantering is that of a 2 year old looking for his mommy.

@FIFA. As I said. Have seat and let the grown ups talk.

Uncle Albert - You a grown up? As I said, we're so sorry if we caused you any pain.

No one knows if you are armed anyway...it's no ones business.
Live freely and assume whatever position you choose to regarding self safety and security. Non law placed by corrupt courts simply do not count . Those that abide by them will remain a slave to the system. To each their own...

Wonder what came first, the chicken or the egg. Seems analogous here.

Driving is NOT a constitunal right.

well, Sheeple is it?
i never said it was.... i was using the permit, schooling and license processes you have to go through to operate a vehicle as an example....." just like you have to go through driving school and get a permit before you get your licence to drive a car".... and actually it is, "right to travel" google it.

And before you vote you should have to pass a test showing you understand the laws of our nation and are intelligent enough to vote.

Ooh wait. The nation did try that once and it didn't work out too well, did it?

Unfortunately there are a large number of people in this country who have an agenda when it comes to gun control, not to mention controlling people themselves. Even seemingly innocent things like you suggest can be manipulated and abused by people who don't play by the same rules.

@Amanda

I can google a lot of things that are not true or correct.

yeah it should be all guns. i just see the huge difference between people that are educated and handle guns as appose to the ones that aren't. i'm not talking about the money and taxes part of this thats a whole nother story with in the issue. i'm just saying, a lot could be made better with this whole thing.

MD now requires a instacheck to buy a long gun, the only difference is no waiting period like a handgun.

Very true! Just the process that we go through to make changes. It's just sad that so much of our tax dollars are being spent on a cause that is doomed to fail.

@ Mr Jones Agreed.

It is called the Second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and BEAR Arms, shall not be infringed.
That should say it all but I am sure many will try to find fault with it.

Actually, its 17-45. But who likes to split hairs. ;)

Mossberg 500 is nice.

G-man. That is one nice pump shot gun. I hunted with a 870 for years and loved it. They do have one hell of a kick.

Right on G-man cya there

My Mossberg 500 is cut to 18.25" and had a pistol grip with folding stock loaded with 3" 00 buckshot to make it a great home defense firearm. Short and powerful. When I was a teen at home alone one night I heard the back door open that no one in the family ever entered from. I got my Dad's pump shotgun and stood at the top of the steps scared of what may happen. I heard the stairs start to creek as many do and I racked a round and then heard the front door open and the screen door slam. Who ever it was knew damn well what that sound was and did not want to hear the next sound. That is why I still have a pump shotgun. The sound of chambering a round is enough for most thugs. they do not want to hear the bang/flash next.

Sounds like the same set up I have, and yes as far as home defense short barrel and 00 is the way to go.

East have you noticed the ammo shelves getting bare?

Dan,
Yes I have, that’s because mine are getting fuller. LOL

I have a feeling if it becomes state law that anyone can carry this Liberal Democratic State will raise the tax on ammo and add some type of O’Lair fee to reduce the amount of ammo sold.

I need to buy a new ammo safe. If the rights deniers now want to stop on line ammo purchases I may have to make a big investment especially since ammo is cheap again.

It is no different than the Iraqis killing US Soldiers with weapons supplied by the US. Lets keep it real.

Hey, its a good gun and the only thing I'm protecting is my family. I purchased it in 1986 not sure if they sent the barrel's there at that time, thanks for your concern though.

....or they could have caused more deaths. I certainly don't want some wannabee dogooder slinging lead in the dark around me.

There's a guy up in front of the theater shooting out into the crowd and at you. And you're afraid of the guy next to you? Seriously?

Steve, be intellectually honest with yourself and NEVER EVER call the police with a gun when you need help.

Can you point to one state where your so called "arms race" has transpired subsequent the issuance of CCW permits? Also your claim that banning guns will suddenly force criminals to use knives is infantile.

"For all those in the " Arm everyone" to reduce crime. "

Can you show us anyone anywhere anytime who has ever said written or even implied that 2nd amendment supporters called to "arm everyone"?

I said neither of those things. You inferred them from your own prejudices. I simply stated that criminals will be criminals no matter if the whole of the rest of the citizenry is armed or not. If you look at what I called for it is education on both sides of the equation. Your prejudices got the better or your rationale.

Gambler: Try reading the lines, not what you think is in between. Can you tell me one state where everyone carries weapons and has no crime? Your question is as infantile as what you thought I was suggesting.

"Can you tell me one state where everyone carries weapons and has no crime?"

I'm not the one talking about EVERYONE, you are. Clearly in no state EVERYBODY is carrying a weapon, as that would include children, physically disabled people, etc. What we are talking about is a significantly larger proportion of the population carrying than at present. Nobody is dumb enough to think arming everybody is a good idea. Mentally unstable, criminals, for example, should be denied the right to operate firearms.

I also said nothing about no crime. Clearly there will still be crime. However there are amazingly good crime statistics among CCW holders. Take Florida for example. Since 1987 they've issued 2.2 million handgun carry licenses. For having committed a crime, they have revoked 168 licenses. That's 0.00754% of the CCW holders that committed a crime. Of all the states that report data, that statistic does not rise above 0.2%.

Gambler: Thank you for taking my original post to heart. If you read I am not suggesting that 'Everyone' carry or be denied the ability to carry. It is the conversation about the ripple effects of proliferartion. If you are advocating that society would be better with great 'personal protection' you have to be prepared for the negative effects of armament. Even police officers use their weapons when not permitted. When this happens in the majority of cases education is perscribed for the offending officer. I hope that you keep you thoughts beyond those that have been harmed in the past to those that are more likely to be harmed in the future. If you want to look at some startleing stats look at suicide rates for those with access to guns to those without. Public health stats will show you that access without education has rammifications. I already hear you typing a response about proper gun habits and holding owners accountable for their negligence, however think about this. Even if the stats are very low percentages those .000002% represent real people you are risking for potential savings. Potential savings are immeasurable so it if very tough to make a numbers bases decision. Believe or not there are model for this kind of decision to be found in the public health trades rather than the crime stats. You might consider them before closing your mind on the subject.

Chris: I do agree that examining the ripple effects is a wise thing to do. There will be some damage caused by the increase in firearm ownership for sure. But I firmly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives, and I think statistics are with me on that. You are correct that it is very hard to weigh that numerically. However I am one for personal responsibility as opposed to nannying by the government. Let me have my rights and if I abuse them, make me pay the consequences.

That has not worked so well for drugs, not sure if that is going to get the desired results.

Great, so stay under your bed!

Tell the families of the 300+ murder victims in Baltimore or the families of the 500+ murder victims in Chicago that "Guns don't have an effect on crime one way or the other."

That comment is as illogical as any I have read on this page. I just can't imagine making a comment like that and still be able to find your way home.

Sorry Steve, but the only people who are "winners" are the criminals. They rob people, with a gun and get your possessions or even take your life. I would like a fighting chance if I am a victim of a crime. If any criminal comes in my house, God help them cause I will shot and ask questions later.

Sorry, I meant to type shoot.

Zimmerman had a CCW permit despite numerous arrests. Several hundred felons in Florida and Tennessee were issued CCW permits. What happens if you commit a crime after the initial background check? Nothing.

"Need" has no place in the conversation. Do you NEED to comment here?
An 'assault weapon" is a figment of the imagination of the uninformed and uneducated. The AR 15 is not an assault weapon any more than any other semi auto rifle and less powerful than many.

They are used every day in competitive shooting matches and practice.

The founders are not talking about hunting in the right to bear arms. Everyone in that time hunted, or had someone hunt for them. The right to bear arms agaisnt those that oppress. Militia forces, like those that liberated themselves to forge this country, needed that right to prevent military rule. This is what the founders are talking about. As many writings from history they require some interpretation to apply to modern life, but they idea is true.

If the Government decided to use its arms against the people of, pick our state, the constitution grants them some protection. Although not sure what an AR is going to do against a tank, but the Davidians and others proved that in a police action Assault rifles fare better than most in direct action.
Note: I use the term police action in a military context, as in the rules of engagement are different than in military engagements.

That is the problem hear. Most people do not understand that the so called assault weapon is used for sport shooting. My wife and I sport shoot often because we find it to be enjoyable and in a strange way relaxing. We shoot what some call Assault rifles for target shooting and nothing more. I would not say that we need but we do have the right to own and use these weapons in a legal way. By doing so we are not hurting anyone or breaking any laws as a matter of fact we get together with friends and make a day of it and all have a good time at it. your comment above is one of the reasons why there is so much animosity between gun owners and non-gun owners. This is not a matter of need that I or any other owner should have to explain to anyone but desire to continue to enjoy a sport that some love. And lets not forget guns are part of this worlds summer Olympic sport programs.

I agree. we all know what a bear can do to a person in short order. Law or not for that type of self defence i would carry if out in the mountains.

I applied. Apparently the danger of anything like that isnt considered a good reason for requesting the permit

Your damn right. I would too. I would prefer not to be eaten by some 500 lb black bear.

Dunno if I will or not, DNR is constantly driving through around here.

Maybe we can mount guns on the speed cameras......that'll weed them out.

Green Carders have always been able to get gun permits. My Chinese buddy has one.

wtf

"like this"? How about the judges and attorney generals that said the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional? Should they lose their jobs too? Oh that's right, the SCOTUS was wrong in that decision.

Honesty is a redeeming quality.

Knuckles, Matty G. Sounds like you live close to my area Ellerslie, Md I am waiting to get the O K for a permit. I do setups and carry large sums of cash when buying at auctions. Good Luck.

Actually I live in Lavale so im what, 15 min from you lol.