Maryland Gun Owners Vow They Will Not Comply, Gun-Grabbers and Legislators Freak Out

[drgrant]

So you are going to tell me that you would not see people lose their guns for this and have basically zero recourse? Suitability has been weaponized and the mass courts will not help. Federal courts do not appear to have helped there either. The mass courts refuse to use the standard set out in law. I don't like it, but this would be a risk to anyone who is identified with just a phone call to the chief of police in their town.

So you're telling me that a chief would invoke suitability for a person wearing a t-shirt? That's pretty rich, and that'd be a new low. And there would be plenty of recourse given that such an action would clearly be a 1A violation. Most police chiefs in this state are not that stupid.

Weaponized? Yes, only in the sense that a bunch of people display an extraordinary amount of cowardice in the sole interest of preserving their access to a little f***ing plastic card....

-Mike

 

[firestorm]

So you're telling me that a chief would invoke suitability for a person wearing a t-shirt? That's pretty rich, and that'd be a new low. And there would be plenty of recourse given that such an action would clearly be a 1A violation. Most police chiefs in this state are not that stupid.

Weaponized? Yes, only in the sense that a bunch of people display an extraordinary amount of cowardice in the sole interest of preserving their access to a little f***ing plastic card....

-Mike

Maybe you are right, but it seems that things like that are already happening and being ignored. How about suitability yanked LTC's for refusing to answer questions, or for someone seeing your gun for a split second when your coat blows open? Those happened, and from what I understand a court upheld the first one. You say preserving access to a card, but that seems dismissive of the fact that it is your access to firearms, it shouldn't be but we can only work with reality as it is.

I'm not saying that avoiding protest should be the answer, but as to why we don't have things like this that's the reason. It is too easy to lose your rights in this state at the whim of an unelected bureaucrat and the courts don't seem all that willing to help. When even federal courts take "You can get an FID and permit to purchase to satisfy heller" as acceptable even though it is not true in any sense I don't have a whole lot of faith that they will come up with the right answer when you lose your license for a protest that the chief can spin as some sort of threat.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Amazon has Bunches of styles of we shall not comply tees

 

[Waher]

Just my suggestion for MA and NH.
Hunter orage t-shirts with black print that simply say "No More"
Shows unity.
Promotes asking questions "what do you mean by no more".
Still a clear message to legislatures.

Orange has already been hijacked by the mommies and "no more" will get spun by the media as "no more 'gun violence'.

So you're telling me that a chief would invoke suitability for a person wearing a t-shirt? That's pretty rich, and that'd be a new low

Wasn't there some user about 10 years ago that got denied on renewal based on shitposting on NES?

Also:
Are Democrats Serious About Gun Crime?

Despite these numbers, liberals and progressives continue to call for more leniency for criminals, which would erode the benefits—above all, incapacitation—that current incarceration practices provide. After every mass shooting, Democratic politicians demonize conservatives for their opposition to gun-control measures. But the Left’s staunch opposition to incapacitating violent and repeat offenders casts doubt on how serious these gun-control advocates are about stopping gun violence.

The fact City Journal even published an article like this leads me to believe there are limits to Bloomberg's Sugar Daddy Dollars.

 

[drgrant]

Maybe you are right, but it seems that things like that are already happening and being ignored. How about suitability yanked LTC's for refusing to answer questions, or for someone seeing your gun for a split second when your coat blows open? Those happened, and from what I understand a court upheld the first one.

And either of those things is 10 miles away from someone simply wearing a shirt in public. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just don't see it as plausible
especially given the shit-storm of epic proportions it would set off, if the only argument was that the chief was annoyed by your political speech, which is supposed to be protected... particularly when its not something that rises to a threat of violence or inciting a riot, etc.

You say preserving access to a card, but that seems dismissive of the fact that it is your access to firearms, it shouldn't be but we can only work with reality as it is.

Tucker Carlson voice: "No, it's not". A suitability suspension/revocation/denial isn't a death sentence, well, unless one is of the mindset that their life
revolves around owning guns and carrying them within the confines of MA, or that the world ends at the MA border. (this is a fun mass resident trope that I'll never understand, although the illness is more common east of 495, EG, many of the people who live in the "urban cup" think that Springfield is part of NYC.... I guess I just have a different point of view than to base all my actions over around trying to protect a plastic card that I had to beg the state for.

I realize the trepidation can be different etc. But I don't think it serves one well to be afraid of their own shadow.

I'm not saying that avoiding protest should be the answer, but as to why we don't have things like this that's the reason.

I disagree, I don't think it's fear of suitability at all, but more likely apathetic gun owners, etc. Even if there are a half million LTC holders in this state, most of them are going to be fudds and trap on sundays liberals or half-libs.

It is too easy to lose your rights in this state at the whim of an unelected bureaucrat and the courts don't seem all that willing to help. When even federal courts take "You can get an FID and permit to purchase to satisfy heller" as acceptable even though it is not true in any sense I don't have a whole lot of faith that they will come up with the right answer when you lose your license for a protest that the chief can spin as some sort of threat.

While this is true, you have to look at the actual frequency of this happening and the reasons for it, and despite all the fearmongering, suitability revocations etc are still pretty damn rare, even compared to statutory license failures in MA (DUI, DV convictions, 209A, etc. )

At the last couple protests a few people running around with "Heil Healey" posters with Hitler moustaches on her pic, etc, and as far as I know nobody lost their LTC over that. As well as a ton of morons on faceplant saying nasty things about her, etc. To the best of my knowledge nothing has come out of this. If I was to hazard a guess why, it's because even though a lot of that crap is a "bad look" it is clearly protected political speech.

-Mike

 

[OnTheRoad]

"Freedom Matters"

 

[drgrant]

Orange has already been hijacked by the mommies and "no more" will get spun by the media as "no more 'gun violence'.

We could put a pic of a winnebago on it...

"Don't slam the f***in door!!! .......... No More!"

Wasn't there some user about 10 years ago that got denied on renewal based on shitposting on NES?

I don't think that guy was a renewal, he was a new app, and he was getting worked up and shitposting a bunch of different threads on the board, some of which existed because the PD was dragging ass on his license. Either someone from the PD was poking around on the board or someone tipped off the CLEO to this guy, about how "anxious" he was to get an LTC or something became a concern, but this guy was practically hyperventilating about his LTC etc and flapping his arms. \

ETA: I think he got a lawyer and untangled the extension cord, but then he disappeared from NES shortly thereafter....

-Mike

 

[firestorm]

And either of those things is 10 miles away from someone simply wearing a shirt in public. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just don't see it as plausible
especially given the shit-storm of epic proportions it would set off, if the only argument was that the chief was annoyed by your political speech, which is supposed to be protected... particularly when its not something that rises to a threat of violence or inciting a riot, etc.



Tucker Carlson voice: "No, it's not". A suitability suspension/revocation/denial isn't a death sentence, well, unless one is of the mindset that their life
revolves around owning guns and carrying them within the confines of MA, or that the world ends at the MA border. (this is a fun mass resident trope that I'll never understand, although the illness is more common east of 495, EG, many of the people who live in the "urban cup" think that Springfield is part of NYC.... I guess I just have a different point of view than to base all my actions over around trying to protect a plastic card that I had to beg the state for.

I realize the trepidation can be different etc. But I don't think it serves one well to be afraid of their own shadow.



I disagree, I don't think it's fear of suitability at all, but more likely apathetic gun owners, etc. Even if there are a half million LTC holders in this state, most of them are going to be fudds and trap on sundays liberals or half-libs.



While this is true, you have to look at the actual frequency of this happening and the reasons for it, and despite all the fearmongering, suitability revocations etc are still pretty damn rare, even compared to statutory license failures in MA (DUI, DV convictions, 209A, etc. )

At the last couple protests a few people running around with "Heil Healey" posters with Hitler moustaches on her pic, etc, and as far as I know nobody lost their LTC over that. As well as a ton of morons on faceplant saying nasty things about her, etc. To the best of my knowledge nothing has come out of this. If I was to hazard a guess why, it's because even though a lot of that crap is a "bad look" it is clearly protected political speech.

-Mike

You make good points, the only thing I would take issue with is the fact that you can still have guns outside the state does nothing for someone who lives here. It may not be you losing your right to touch them anywhere, but being denied the card means if you are stuck in MA (Job, family whatever) that you are functionally denied the right until you move elsewhere. Otherwise the fudd issue is likely bigger than the fear issue.

 

[308rifleman]

We would never get this up here in mAss. Good for them !!

We would never get this up here in mAss. Good for them !!

Nice photo op. But if that sheriff was ordered by a higher authority, like the governor, to participate in a gun grab action or risk losing his job, would he do it? I think maybe the answer is yes, he would. He would think of himself and his family first and not risk paycheck and benny package.

 

[MachineHead]

Nice photo op. But if that sheriff was ordered by a higher authority, like the governor, to participate in a gun grab action or risk losing his job, would he do it? I think maybe the answer is yes, he would. He would think of himself and his family first and not risk paycheck and benny package.

Not necessarily. It would be pretty much if we had a pro2A AG. The Governor can only recommend them to do something. The Sherriff answers to the people in his county.

Office Of Sheriff

The citizens they serve and protect elect the Sheriffs in Maryland’s 23 counties and Baltimore City. Sheriffs are the only law enforcement officials in the state who answer directly to the people.

Office Of Sheriff

 

[drgrant]

Nice photo op. But if that sheriff was ordered by a higher authority, like the governor, to participate in a gun grab action or risk losing his job, would he do it? I think maybe the answer is yes, he would. He would think of himself and his family first and not risk paycheck and benny package.

Part of the problem is a lot of us here suffer from massisms. (eg, the concept of what a Sheriff actually is, is lost on most of us because we've not seen the other side of it, just the MA sheriffs that run jails and drug clinics or whatever )

In other, less f***ey states (even f***ed up ones like MD) Sheriffs actually have LE powers that are structured differently, such that they are not neutered like the MA sheriffs are, etc. Also since they are elected officials, they cannot be "fired" and that kind of thing. They do not "dance at the behest of a bunch of other elected officials" like most head LEOs in MA do. They act under the "consent of their constituents". In some states they are even considered top of the food chain in LE for the county in which they operate in. This often goes poorly in many cases (eg, like in Arizona, with that f***wit Dupnik, and tank boy Arpaio) but in a lot of cases it ends up producing the result shown in the photo op, etc. There are a lot of Pro 2A sheriffs in this country.

-Mike

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Nice photo op. But if that sheriff was ordered by a higher authority, like the governor, to participate in a gun grab action or risk losing his job, would he do it? I think maybe the answer is yes, he would. He would think of himself and his family first and not risk paycheck and benny package.

He said he would not comply with the laws. So, no way to know until the orders are given.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

We could put a pic of a winnebago on it...

"Don't slam the f***in door!!! .......... No More!"







I don't think that guy was a renewal, he was a new app, and he was getting worked up and shitposting a bunch of different threads on the board, some of which existed because the PD was dragging ass on his license. Either someone from the PD was poking around on the board or someone tipped off the CLEO to this guy, about how "anxious" he was to get an LTC or something became a concern, but this guy was practically hyperventilating about his LTC etc and flapping his arms. \

ETA: I think he got a lawyer and untangled the extension cord, but then he disappeared from NES shortly thereafter....

-Mike

Shut the front door no more.

 

[556USER]

If the President gets to replace the oxygen thief Ginsberg on the high court before he leaves office, then it will be somewhat safe to challenge the "suitability" Nazis in federal court. At least then you might have your case heard. Win it, who knows? I'm not waiting for the ACLU to take my case either. LOL

 

[ISOTOX]

Maryland Democratic official takes heat for calls to 'dox' gun rights activists

 

[MachineHead]

This was in an email from Warrior 12 clothing. These Sheriffs are the real deal.

Our Warrior of the Week is actually multiple people - sheriffs in Maryland.

Sheriffs from several counties in Maryland appeared before the House of Delegates last Monday to testify against gun control legislation they said violated citizens’ rights.

“The way the bill is written, it is impossible to comply. I can’t send [my deputies] on a suicide mission,” Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis said.

Sheriff Lewis said that sending out police to take guns away from law-abiding citizens will likely cause those citizens to shoot at law enforcement officers.

The sheriff said he would not comply with any of the proposed laws that would require his deputies to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Maryland House Bill 786, proposed by Democratic State Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary, would regulate shotguns and hunting rifles much the same as handguns.

The law would create a long-gun qualification license and require background checks for private sales.

And while the law doesn’t specify how long guns are to be confiscated from their owners, it puts the onus on the Maryland State Police to create regulations for executing the law.

HB 786 calls for a penalty of a $10,000 fine and/or up to five years in prison for violators.

“We’re gonna let them know that we are sick and tired of being penalized for Baltimore City’s inability to control crime," Sheriff Lewis said. "If these bills pass, we will not comply."

"Law-abiding citizens are repeatedly being penalized because of Baltimore City's inability to control their crime," he said. "And I'm sorry — I'm not someone's puppet. I'm going to stand up for what I think is unjust and unconstitutional to the American people, including those living in the state in Maryland."

"There are bills that would truly make it a suicide mission for a sheriff deputy or a Maryland state trooper," the sheriff said. "There are just so many reasons why this is unjust and unconstitutional."

Somerset County Sheriff Ronnie Howard and Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler joined Sheriff Lewis in testifying in opposition to the proposed bills in Annapolis.

Sheriff Howard said he also does not plan to enforce the law if passed because it is unconstitutional, WBOC reported.

He also said having guns is a safety measure for residents of remote areas.

“It would be very dangerous for someone to turn in their weapon, living in a very remote area and someone else trying to break into their house. I can't. I'm not. They need it for protection," Sheriff Howard said.

These sheriffs are putting themselves on the line to stand up for the rights of the citizens, and that's why we name them Warriors of the Week.

 

[mg42doc]

Maryland Democratic official takes heat for calls to 'dox' gun rights activists
View attachment 273831

Robbie looks like he hits the Soy HARD.

hand everybody pearls, that seemed to piss the m0ms off.

 

[42!]

Thats a stretch. Revoke LTC for protesting? Please explain the danger to the public.

We have already lost. Right here.

You obviously haven't seen how judges enforce suitability. The whole public safety claim, despite being in the law, isn't necessary. The are perfectly happy going with "broad discretion".

If someone doesn't have enough stones to wear a relatively benign t-shirt out of fear of "suitability" then they're pretty much milquetoast anyways. Not to mention you now have nice grounds for punting to a great federal
court case if the basis of the "suitability" claim is weak.

Coming from someone with no first hand experience. Tell us all how you've had to stand before a judge and defend yourself from an accusation that you're unsuitable because the LO said you are.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

You obviously haven't seen how judges enforce suitability. The whole public safety claim, despite being in the law, isn't necessary. The are perfectly happy going with "broad discretion".



Coming from someone with no first hand experience. Tell us all how you've had to stand before a judge and defend yourself from an accusation that you're unsuitable because the LO said you are.

Peaceful Public protest, just sit in a chair listening and be quiet. The shirt is a 1A right along with 2A. Thats how. But feel free to tuck tail.

 

[Coyote33]

Wait, if you protest the very notion of THE LICENSE ITSELF, then you really don't have to worry about them taking away the license, right?

 

[oldguy68]

Jesus, H Christ.
If all I had do is wear a shirt to get our rights back.
You bet your sweet ass I would and everyday if that what it takes!
Like putting a shirt on is some heroic act. LOL
It's a shirt, I wear what I want, everyday!
What are you going to do if they kick in our doors?
If your too much of a pussy to wear a shirt with a saying you believe in..

 

[42!]

Peaceful Public protest, just sit in a chair listening and be quiet. The shirt is a 1A right along with 2A. Thats how. But feel free to tuck tail.

My comment was about your misguided belief that they have to prove a public safety issue. They don't. The judges are perfectly happy citing "broad discretion". Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. I didn't see you in the courtroom.

 

[Winchester73]

In

One of the things that is becoming abundantly clear to anyone who is paying attention is that gun owners have had enough.

Bob

This. I know that I've sure had enough of politicians accusing me, my family and my ancestors of being bad people.

Gun grabbers can kiss my ass. They don't care about reducing crime, they want to disarm us all. Period.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

My comment was about your misguided belief that they have to prove a public safety issue. They don't. The judges are perfectly happy citing "broad discretion". Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. I didn't see you in the courtroom.

OK your wrong

 

[42!]

Well at least I offered a specific idea, didn't just shat on other people's ideas. And here in NH we already have a way of showing our support. And some of our politicians wear them alongside us. They done scream we will not comply, but some of the politicians do. But everyone knows what the message is.

BTW to the poster that said Moms hijacked hunter orange. So far I've only seen the Moms against gun violence in red shirts. May be different in other areas.

 

[drgrant]

Coming from someone with no first hand experience. Tell us all how you've had to stand before a judge and defend yourself from an accusation that you're unsuitable because the LO said you are.

You're right, I haven't, but I'm still pretty confident in saying that if you fear suitability repercussions over a benign t-shirt used in a peaceful protest, that's pretty much right at the line of throwing in the towel, might as well not get caught donating to GOAL or Comm2a, or anything like that, that's far too risky... that's the level of absurdity we're talking here.

You know, thinking about it, actually, you guys are right... maybe I should just start voting Democrat in case my police chief finds out I'm not a registered Democrat, he might? hate anyone who isn't.... after all, we must protect the plastic card at any and all costs. It's worth sacrificing everything you believe in to the nth degree to protect/hedge against a possible suitability claim, however unlikely.

A friend just called me and said his LO hates cats and I offered to foster the cat. I was thinking of starting a matrix chart of all 351 LOs and Police chiefs listing their political and pet preferences so MA gun owners can see where even more caution is needed.... after all we must protec plastic card, and prevent kittehs from becoming homeless.



"Mike, won't you think of the kittens?"

 

[BostonVI]

Maryland has a crew with t shirts, RI has a crew with t shirts, Maine has a crew with t shirts...there just seems to be a lacking of unity among gun owners who’d pack a hearing wearing the same in MA. If there has been, then my mistake. If not, how do we make the same happen in MA?

I do have to say the “We Will Not Comply” message is going to be the winning message of all. I’ve been seeing that as the prevailing thought online.

Quite a bit of truth here. Go to a public hearing or demonstration that has anything to do with SEIU (or pick your favorite special interest group) and you'll see everyone wearing matching purple t-shirts. Obviously, the shirts themselves are meaningless, but they represent a level of organization and coordination that does draw a certain level of respect and attention from those in power.

 

[42!]

You're right, I haven't, but I'm still pretty confident in saying that if you fear suitability repercussions over a benign t-shirt used in a peaceful protest, that's pretty much right at the line of throwing in the towel, might as well not get caught donating to GOAL or Comm2a, or anything like that, that's far too risky... that's the level of absurdity we're talking here.

You know, thinking about it, actually, you guys are right... maybe I should just start voting Democrat in case my police chief finds out I'm not a registered Democrat, he might? hate anyone who isn't.... after all, we must protect the plastic card at any and all costs. It's worth sacrificing everything you believe in to the nth degree to protect/hedge against a possible suitability claim, however unlikely.

A friend just called me and said his LO hates cats and I offered to foster the cat. I was thinking of starting a matrix chart of all 351 LOs and Police chiefs listing their political and pet preferences so MA gun owners can see where even more caution is needed.... after all we must protec plastic card, and prevent kittehs from becoming homeless.

View attachment 273926

"Mike, won't you think of the kittens?"

AGAIN my comment was about the need to prove a risk to public safety. Reading comprehension fail.

 

[308rifleman]

Part of the problem is a lot of us here suffer from massisms. (eg, the concept of what a Sheriff actually is, is lost on most of us because we've not seen the other side of it, just the MA sheriffs that run jails and drug clinics or whatever )

In other, less f***ey states (even f***ed up ones like MD) Sheriffs actually have LE powers that are structured differently, such that they are not neutered like the MA sheriffs are, etc. Also since they are elected officials, they cannot be "fired" and that kind of thing. They do not "dance at the behest of a bunch of other elected officials" like most head LEOs in MA do. They act under the "consent of their constituents". In some states they are even considered top of the food chain in LE for the county in which they operate in. This often goes poorly in many cases (eg, like in Arizona, with that f***wit Dupnik, and tank boy Arpaio) but in a lot of cases it ends up producing the result shown in the photo op, etc. There are a lot of Pro 2A sheriffs in this country.

-Mike

You are correct. In Alabama, sheriffs have immense power. I watched local police drive past our home and Baldwin County deputy sheriffs would drive by a few minutes later, stopping drivers, issuing citations, making arrests and towing unregistered/uninsured vehicles. Baldwin County sheriff Huey "Hoss " Mack signed off on my pistol permit, despite my BCD. MA sheriffs have basically been castrated, from what I can determine. A MA LO determined that I am to be FID only. I would be really careful when attending protests. Maybe a LTC can be revoked more easily than a FID, but it still is a concern. Cops may run plates and try to identify who was present
A co-worker told me that a scumbag sheriff in Massachusetts , back in the mid 1970s, almost succeeded in banning civilian possession of handguns via a statewide referendum. Scary stuff, indeed.

 

[drgrant]

AGAIN my comment was about the need to prove a risk to public safety. Reading comprehension fail.

Did I ever say they -had- to prove that? I know that "they can do whatever they want" wrt the shit MA judges that will often hear one's case. My point was more along the lines that despite the seemingly unlimited piwer of suitability, there are still real limits in reality (otherwise, the douche towns would just deny everyone) and one has to decide how much they want to bend over/cower vs the percived "risk".

-Mike