'Good reason' in Mayland goes way of the dodo

[Porcupine]

One of the most restrictive states in the union for gun owners, Maryland has until now required those seeking a permit to carry a handgun to state a good reason for being issued a permit. A federal court has ruled this is unconstitutional, you do not need a reason to exercise your rights and the right to bear arms applies outside the home as well as inside it.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/ma ... 73392.html

[TattooedGun]

It depresses me that we do not have the same constitutional rights :(

Are we less likely to be attacked and killed? maybe... would I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it? Absolutely!

[the running man]

Not sure ide want everyone here armed! But repealing the pistol ban would be a start!

[John25]

It depresses me that we do not have the same constitutional rights :(

Are we less likely to be attacked and killed? maybe... would I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it? Absolutely!

We can never have these rights as long as we are 'subjects' not 'citizens'.

The likelyhood of that status changing is very slim I think.

[TattooedGun]

Not sure ide want everyone here armed!

Just the criminals then?

[Tower75]

Seems to be a lot of these overterns in recent years. DC and Chicago both got their handguns back because banning them is un-constitutional, and I "think" Wisconsin recently allowed their citizens to carry CCWs for the first time.

It's written in the Magna Carter, which is dated 16?? something, that English (Now British) subjects should be armed, granted it lists us as good fairing Christian Englishmen, or similar, but it is written in law.

However, there is something that Parliament can do that can override laws that were "in the past" cannot remember what it's called now, though. See, I did a bit of research on this

But as has been mentioned. We're not citizens of the United Kingdom, we're subjects. Parliament makes the rules and we have no "rights" as it were in this regard.

[Porcupine]

Seems to be a lot of these overterns in recent years. DC and Chicago both got their handguns back because banning them is un-constitutional, and I "think" Wisconsin recently allowed their citizens to carry CCWs for the first time.

Yes, Wisconsin now has concealed carry. Illinois is now the only state in the union without it (although a few states states like California are very restrictive so few people are able to get a permit). That particular case was because a pro-gun governor was elected, not a court case, though. Previously the pro-gun state congress had passed bills to legalize carry but the anti-gun governor had always vetoed. The new governor was happy to sign the bill into law.

It's written in the Magna Carter, which is dated 16?? something, that English (Now British) subjects should be armed, granted it lists us as good fairing Christian Englishmen, or similar, but it is written in law.

Not really. What you speak of is not the Magna Carter (1215) but the English Bill of Rights (1689) which states:

[The lords] declare:

[...]

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

This doesn't mean what some people seem to think it does. It is not the establishment of a new right to arms, it simply repeals the previous royal ban on Protestants keeping arms. Note also that it specifies 'as allowed by law' so it means nothing today really.

But as has been mentioned. We're not citizens of the United Kingdom, we're subjects. Parliament makes the rules and we have no "rights" as it were in this regard.

Legally speaking, not true. If you were born in the UK and at least one of your parents was neither here illegally nor temporarily, you are a British citizen.

In 1948 anyone who was born in the UK (with a legal resident parent) has been a citizen (including those born before 1948), and since 1983 those living in UK overseas territories have also become citizens. The only British subjects left are those who were subjects before 1948 but did not gain citizenship of any country (e.g. they were born in Pakistan or Ireland before 1948 but never acquired Pakistani or Irish citizenship). British subject status cannot be passed on to one's children so in a few years there will be none left.

Politically though it could certainly be argued we are more like subjects. Although we can vote, we have no constitutional protection except that of the European Union, which the government could break from if it wanted to.

[Tower75]

Well... that shut me up :lol: :lol:

Seriously, though. That's interesting stuff to know. Certainly clears things up, doesn't make me feel any better about it mind :?

[IainWR]

If you want the brief lesson in constitutional law, read on:

Constitutions are not, as popularly thought, "written" (eg USA) or "unwritten" (eg UK). They are "entrenched" (eg USA) or not (eg UK). The difference is in the process to change them. The US Constitution is entrenched - it can only be changed by a special process that is embedded in the Constitution itself. The UK Constitution has no special status - it can be amended at any time by Parliament, and many parts of it that do not have the status of law can be changed on the whim of the Prime Minister. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The classic advantage of the UK constitution was demonstrated in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, commonly called the "Good Friday Agreement". This resolution of the Irish terrorist Troubles was timetabled to suit the Government of the Republic of Ireland, who had to achieve a change to their entrenched constitutional claim to the whole island of ireland. Once they achieved that, the concomitant changes to the UK Constitution to amend the status of Northern Ireland and its Government took an afternoon in Parliament to pass the necessary votes.

The classic advantage of the US Constitution is demonstrated by our primary issue, the ability to defend an established position such as the Second Amendment. The Constitution being defended at every level (the oath that the President takes is "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution so help me God"), a campaigning organisation has a clear position to argue, and the NRA of America, with its seven million members, does it very well. The NRA of the UK does not have such a line in the sand to defend even if it had the resources to do it, which with seven thousand members it does not.

Iain

[the running man]

So the nra has 7k members.....7000x£65.00 =455,000 let's see how many staff u got now? On £30k plus? I've heard some are on £60k ,the imperial must cost £200k .......its no wonder the nra is skint.............