Conceal Carry (copy) (copy)

A brief filed by Maryland Shall Issue, a gun rights organization, argues that the state’s gun laws are unconstitutional and have been superseded by other case precedents.

A gun rights advocacy group is challenging Maryland’s concealed carry gun laws in a lawsuit filed against the state’s Handgun Permit Review Board.

The brief, filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on behalf of Edward Holmes Whalen, argues that the state’s gun laws are unconstitutional and have been superseded by other case precedents.

A Maryland resident must provide a “good and substantial reason” to be granted a concealed carry permit. Maryland is one of 10 states considered a “may issue” state, which means it requires a permit to carry a concealed gun, and granting that permit is at the discretion of local authorities. It’s a restrictive law that prevents most average citizens from being able to obtain a permit, said Sen. Michael Hough (R-Frederick and Carroll).

“It’s an undue burden on people,” Hough said. “The vast majority of people that get this permit are armed security or private [investigators]. It’s very difficult for the average citizen to get one.”

The brief filed by Maryland Shall Issue, a gun rights organization, asserts that Maryland’s laws regarding concealed carry have been superseded by precedents in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller found that D.C.’s handgun ban and law that legally owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated the Second Amendment, turning Washington, D.C., into a “shall issue” state. McDonald v. City of Chicago later determined that the Second Amendment applies to states and not solely the federal government. Both cases also determined that the Second Amendment applies outside of the home.

A “great deal” of the argument in this case will center on those precedents, said Mark Pennak, counsel for the appellant.

“They have changed the legal framework entirely,” Pennak said.

Representatives of the Handgun Permit Review Board, the defending party in the case, did not respond to two requests for comment.

The lawsuit argues that Maryland’s good and substantial reason clause is overreaching and unconstitutional.

“If the government said the media needed to provide a good and substantial reason to write a story, would you be OK with that?” Pennak asked, arguing that such a clause could not be applied to other constitutional rights.

Maryland’s Republican legislators, including Hough, have for years tried unsuccessfully to loosen some of the state’s gun laws. In the most recent legislative session, Hough sponsored a bill that aimed to add personal protection and self-defense to qualify as a good and substantial reason. The bill received an unfavorable report in committee and never made it to the Senate floor in a vote that Hough said was nearly along party lines.

Hough acknowledged that since gun rights supporters are an overwhelming minority in the state Senate, it’s going to be challenging to loosen the state’s gun laws through legislation, adding that the court system might be “our best hope.”

“A lot of the pro-gun Democrats aren’t even around anymore,” Hough said of the makeup of the Legislature.

Hough added that he’s particularly interested in the case, because it’s an issue he hears about frequently.

“This is one of the top issues for my constituents,” he said. “They enjoy shooting. They’re law-abiding citizens who want to be able to carry for protection.”

Follow Allen Etzler on Twitter: @AllenWEtzler.

Allen Etzler is a city editor at the Frederick News-Post. He can be reached at aetzler@newspost.com.

(87) comments

bayman

I believe they meant that the Second Amendment applies to the PEOPLE. How do they have the right to determine what the Constitution means, when WE the people put them in office to REPRESENT US? Which they do not anymore. We the people can represent ourselves now with the technology we have today. Congress is outdated and needs to be disbanded.

shiftless88

So your approach to the Constitution not being followed as you interpret it is to destroy the Constitution? Interesting approach, even if completely illogical.

ramrodd

Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan. This is a really bad strategy. At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself. Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldn’t count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment. James Madison gave us the blueprint. When the federal government commits unwarrantable acts, the Father of the Constitution didn’t say “file a lawsuit in federal court.” Madison advised a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. Don’t depend on politically connected lawyers to protect your right to keep and bear arms. --Tenth Amendment Center

gabrielshorn2013

I saw in the print version of the paper that Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will be speaking in Frederick from 7 to 8 p.m. Monday at Evangelical Reformed United Church of Christ. Will this be an opportunity for well thought out dialogue, or a cheerleading session? https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/lifestyle/travel_and_outdoors/gun-safety-activist-author-shannon-watts-to-speak-in-frederick/article_a554e791-684e-5fad-8079-81c2f1511f9f.html

Samanthapowers

imagine sherf trumpkins is wondering the same about his 287g meeting. maybe trumpkins will show some pics from his border trip. what a guy.


gabrielshorn2013

While the Sheriff is off topic to the story, I certainly hope that Ms. Watts meeting was far more civil than the churlish behavior exhibited at the Sheriff's 287g meeting. Were you at either?

Samanthapowers

it is off topic. passions were high at the 287g meeting. people feel strongly that trumpkins is more interested in himself and making a name by rousting innocents. for the gun meeting, out of town. unfortunately.


shiftless88

It is worth noting that since the Heller decision the homicide rate in DC has gone up, even though people were CERTAIN it would fall with a well-armed populace.....

Obadiah Plainsmen

Shiftless please research before making erroneous comments. The homicide rate does fluctuate from year to year since 2008 ( the Heller decision). It has not "gone up" since 2008. And I was there during the 70's and 80's were homicide rates where in the 400's. https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance

DickD

I was there too, during the 70s. Never felt insecure, never carried a gun. We had banks robbed all of the time, but if you just minded your own business it was never a problem. We did have the first female police officer get shot and killed, within a block. The police were after someone, had the streets cordoned off all around us and running down the street with pistols drawn. Then there were the riots and the whole City going up in smoke, but that's another story.

Paws

Homicide is up, crime overall is down, including armed robbery. Gangbangers gonna gangbang no matter what. At least people in DC have the chance to defend themselves when confronted now (should they so choose). Anti gunners would have people be defenseless and at the mercy of the criminal element. Face it, the tide is shifting and the anti-freedom anti-gun crowd is losing the battle.

frazed

How many handgun permits have been issued since the Heller decision? So few that D.C. has been courting a federal contempt charge. Don't expect change to come until change has happened.

Luckydog

I noticed racism got injectted into the conversation although not allowed per site rules! With that said gun control all started with racism as many (Democrats in particular) feard the black man having weapons! (Historical facts) Those who support gun control (restricting rights) if successful will also lose their rights by the same methods!

Comment deleted.
A female citizen

I have friends from all different ethanol groups. The only ones to play the race baiting/ race card are the ones who use it to do wrong or hide wrong. I am part of a minority, so yeah , I know.

A female citizen

I have my HQL and am working toward my CCL . My husband works long hours, we had a stabbing and other altercations across the street from us. Are you saying I have no right to defend myself in my home? I have friends who have been assaulted as they have lived their lives in Frederick. Not late at night, in in bad areas. Are you willing to take away my right to defend myself , or your wife’s or daughter’s? Should we have to stay home behind locked doors and go out only when escorted by a male to be safe? Even then things happen. So again, are you going to take away my rights? The police will show up after the fact, not when something happens. I will be training real senenrios. So don’t take away my rights.

gabrielshorn2013

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup] Good for you female citizen! See my response below for training opportunities.

frazed

[thumbup]

DickD

What rights are you talking about? You can own a gun, you can get a permit for a handgun, you just need to prove the need for a handgun. No need is needed to be proven for a rifle or a shotgun. And if you are really worried about your home, they are far more effective and accurate than any hand gun.

Lev928

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... I"m very pro 2. However, having a right to own a firearm in no way qualifies one to carry it and use it for self defense purposes. A short HQL process, a waiting period, a CCW permit process and an extremely short, one time firearms safety course in NO way qualifies a firearm owner to carry a handgun for self defense. The ONLY people I hear whine and complain about it have never -- and never intend to -- complete actual, real world training in the use of a handgun (or ANY firearm, for that matter) for self defense. The Constitution, federal and state laws determine when you can and cannot use deadly force. Th real world isn't Hollywood. The real world is based upon your training, actual street confrontations and the court room. The reality is that without training, someone carrying concealed will fail to react, make the wrong decision and/or end up in prison. Before you start arguing for your "rights", get educated on what those rights actually are ... and the consequences you face if you fail to meet the responsibilities of having those rights.

DickD

Very good comment, Lev. You might add that so called "self defense" can end up with being in jail for the rest of your life. And you will not get the defense a police officer gets or the consideration from a judge that a police officer gets.

FrederickFan

[thumbup] Saved me from typing. Thanks.

gabrielshorn2013

Agreed Lev. If you want to carry, you need proper training. As mentioned the other day, locallt, both Heritage and Machine Gun Nest offer many practical courses and practice range for the owner to develop their skills. The NRA also has excellent training programs.

https://firearmtraining.nra.org/student-courses/

frazed

[thumbup]

jsklinelga

The federalist, anti-Federalist debate is as old as our country's inception. What are the powers of the Federal Government v States rights? Does Maryland have the right to quarter troops in individual homes during out of control rioting? Can a State vacate habeus corpus during riotous times? Only one of the first 10 Amendments limit Federal jurisdiction and that regards religion. it is very unfortunate that SCOTUS has marginalized their position and influence by overstepping their authority in the last 50 years. These are supposed to be the wise, judicious, apolitical persons that keep our society and laws within the bounds of Constitutional intent. Instead they have politicized and somewhat corrupted the system. Let us hope we get back on track. I think so good old fashioned "common sense" could help with the laws governing the 2A.

DickD

Jim, you are trying to obfuscate a problem to protect all of us. You know that the Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is the militia. Nice try, no cigar m

gabrielshorn2013

And dick, you know full well that the militia is defined as all able bodied citizens, not just the military. No obfuscation on jsk's part whatsoever. Furthermore, well regulated does not mean what you seem to think it does, in context of the 2A. It meant equipped and prepared at that time. The phrase retains the meaning it had when written.

rikkitikkitavvi

Dick knows this Gabe. It has been discussed in a recent article. He lost that argument too. He just wants to keep it going to hear himself yammering.There is no longer common ground between either side for a productive conversation. Neither side is willing to give an inch. I know I'm not. Give an yard and they will want 1760 yards . I think not. Not now. Not ever.

DickD

And you think we still have that need, Gabe, in spite of having the strongest military in the world?

phydeaux994

I know you pro-CC folks have read this many times gab, but here is a reminder.........(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ****For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.**** (my emphasis) The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

gabrielshorn2013

Um, did you see me, or others here say anything to contradict what you posted phy? Red herring. Certainly nobody wants criminals or the mentally I'll to have firearms.

gabrielshorn2013

Irrelevant comment Dick. The 2A says what it says. Don't like it? Change or repeal it. Good luck getting 2/3 of Congress to vote for repeal, getting any President to sign it, then getting 38 states to ratify it. We have to work with the reality of what is, not what some may want. Also, no country will invade another country whose citizens are well armed., hence, "the militia" being all citizens.

MD1756

Most all of the amendments guarantee the rights of "the people" or "citizens." Amendment 10 as far as I recall is the only one to mention the powers reserved for the "states" or to "the people." If the right to keep and bear arms was not intended for "the people" instead of using "the people" the authors would have use "the states." There were careful elsewhere when designating roles, responsibilities and rights why would we think they made a mistake here? They used the term "the people" in other amendments that clearly apply to individual rights and not state rights.

gabrielshorn2013

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]md1756

jsklinelga

DickD The Constitution does not give the right to bear arms. It guarantees that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon . A very important distinction/

DickD

Jim, you still don't have it right. Not all people have that right and the right to bear arms is restricted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."  State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.

MD1756

Dick, it wouldn't be the first time the supreme court got something wrong. Where do you see any limiting language in the Constitution or in the discussions about the right? The framers were careful with other language they used. If you think they meant to allow the bearing of arms only inside the house don't you think they'd specify that? That is part of the "keep" portion of the right (note I said part, because nothing requires a person to "keep" their arms in their house, they could "keep" them elsewhere such as at a shooting range if they so chose). It also seems obvious that there is no need for the "bear" language if it were only intended that arms be borne inside the house. The following link provides some good examples: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

In 1775 General Gage ordered that all private arms in Boston be deposited with the magistrates ... 1778 muskets (weapons of war), 634 pistols (generally not a hunting weapon), 973 bayonets (again weapons of war) and 38 blunderbusses (early version of the shotgun, generally not a weapon used by infantry at the time) were turned in. Who knows how many private arms were not turned in? (Boston's population in 1776 was around 15,000).

The paper also states that the 1st state Declaration of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was PA and it stated "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." It hardly seems reasonable you only need to defend yourself in your own home.

From a source Jefferson used: "A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility... The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws are meant to prevent.... It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder...."

If people don't like the 2nd amendment, then they need to work to change the 2nd amendment, not interpret it in a manner that isn't logical just because it suits their desires.

Comment deleted.
jsklinelga

fcps "Once you understand whitespeak, their stupid lies and ridiculous cover words come through loud and clear." Wow, blatant racism. What bearing, whatsoever, does that have on the Constitutionality of the law in question?

Comment deleted.
KR999

In your tirade you neglected to mention that black on black crime dwarfs black-on-white crime. Was that omission intentional?

Johndoe1

With Frederick on the verge of being another infested city, why not let the law abiding citizens carry a firearm for a change! 🇺🇸

Comment deleted.
Johndoe1

So no good ole boys in frederick, you leftists just want gang members, rapists, and murders like the ms-13, got it! And even though you people all complained about leaving America if Trump got elected, you didn’t, and if I tell you to leave America if you don’t like it, it’s racist! Such progressives you are! Lol!

Comment deleted.
DickD

It is. [thumbup]

rikkitikkitavvi

It's about control John.

Paws

The so called good and substantial reason to exercise your constitutional rights is going to get overturned in the courts, it's just a matter of time. The government cannot pick and choose which rights citizens are allowed to exercise which is what Md. is doing via G&S. Now watch as people who know nothing about guns begin to freak out over a pending catastrophe that will never occur. Even DC is shall issue now and look mom, crime is down overall in DC for the past 2 years since shall issue has been implemented. Here is the sauce: https://dcatlas.dcgis.dc.gov/crimecards/ Too bad you can't say the same thing about Baltimore.

DickD

We need fewer guns, not more. The worse guns are hand guns. So, this is not a hunting issue. Hough needs to go.

Johndoe1

Do you even know the process of obtaining an Maryland HQL license? It takes over a month to go through all the background checks and then once you pass all of them and get your HQL card then you can go buy a handgun but have to wait 7 days before bring it home from the store you purchased it at and you can only buy one handgun a month. What kind of restrictions do criminals have? This is not about putting more guns on the street it’s about letting law abiding citizens carry their legal firearm! It amazes me how many of you democrats have such a Mussolini mindset, a bunch of fascists I tell you!

DickD

So. You want the same rights as a criminal, right. You have them. Go buy a gun and if caught get locked up the same as they will be.

gabrielshorn2013

That's a silly response Dick, and was not even implied by the post. Law abiding citizens have an extremely difficult time obtaining handguns in Maryland, let alone obtaining a CCW license. However, a local gangbanger wannabe has no problem getting one. When they get caught, instead of spending decades in prison, the penalties are negotiated down to nothing by our legal system. Most offenders are repeat offenders who would not have been able to reoffend had they served their full sentence.

DickD

He was complaining about not getting a gun easily and criminals getting one easily, ignoring the fact that they were not obeying the laws. I merely pointed out he could do the same, and get the same punishment, as there is a punishment for having an illegal gun, You know that Gabe.

gabrielshorn2013

No Dick, that was precisely his point. I'm at a loss for how you could interpret it any other way.

phydeaux994

“However, a local gangbanger wannabe has no problem getting one.”.....finally gab, you agree with me. ILLEGAL GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM! What have I been saying! I would like to have Gun Regulation Laws that would help to prevent the proliferation of illegal, anonymous guns. Background checks, closing gun show and internet loopholes, National Registration of at least, handguns with transfer laws. None of these laws violate 2nd Amendment Rights as now written in the Constitution. When do we get serious about reducing the murders and the maiming and the destruction to our Society caused by Gun Violence?

gabrielshorn2013

"finally gab, you agree with me. ILLEGAL GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM!"

You mean criminals will break any law if it suits them! Alert the media!!! But seriously phy, I have never disagreed with that point. However, there is no such thing as an internet loophole, and if you read 18 USC 922 as I gave you the link to many times, you would know that. It is illegal to sell to an out of state resident without using a FFL in that person's home state who will do a full background check. Same for the so called "gun show loophole". The next time a gun show comes to the Frederick Fairgrounds, purchase any firearm from a private dealer, then attempt to leave the building without going through a NICS background check with the FBI. Uh-oh, a felony, and you'll get a free ride in a Deputy's cruiser for your efforts. I addressed the remainder of your comments yesterday in Rick Godfrey's LTE, but you failed to respond. Here they are again for your reference:

"Ok phy, what is your "sensible approach " to solve the problem? I have stated previously that I am willing to register to be able to purchase firearms legally, the same as I must do to vote. I am unwilling to pay a registration fee for each firearm I purchase, the same as you would be unwilling to pay a poll tax (which SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional). I am willing to show ID as well as my registration card at each purchase, but strangely, I need not show such information when I vote (but that's not relevant to the discussion). I do not believe in firearm registrations contained in a database, just as you would reject every vote you ever cast to be put in a publicly searchable database. I believe that all Constitutional firearm laws must be adhered to, and that any violations be prosecuted to the fullest extent of Federal (18 USC 922 & 924) and State (COMAR 29.03.01) firearm laws. Ok, there are my beliefs. What are yours?"

gabrielshorn2013

BTW phy, there is no such thing as "gun violence". It was a catchy term coined by the anti-gun crowd. Inanimate objects cannot do anything on their own. However, violent people with murderous intent will use any weapon, including guns, knives, bombs, clubs, hands, and feet to accomplish their goal. Do you use the term "foot violence"? Hundreds of people are killed every year with feet. Look it up in the FBI database.

phydeaux994

My “sensible” approach would be to treat firearms the same as you would treat automobiles, or poisons, or explosives, or any other dangerous product. As the owner of a deadly weapon, your name should be on the record as being responsible for its use and security in a searchable database. You have to answer for it if it is used illegally or report it if you lose possession of it. I really don’t care what gun owners will or won’t be willing to do. Guns should be regulated like every other deadly product. And if the 2nd Amendment is designed to allow you to arm yourselves against the threat of a takeover by a tyrannical Government, why aren’t you doing something about the man who is trying to do that as we speak. Replacing another level head in charge of our Intelligence Operations with a Henchman who won’t do anything about Russia or any other ENEMY interfering in our elections which won Trump the Presidency in 2016.

gabrielshorn2013

Well phy, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Your statement that you don't care what gun owners want shows that you don't understand the implications of writing laws that do not comply with the Constitution. I provided you with examples of why not, and you throw this mini-tizzy. Are you actually encouraging the violent overthrow of the government? Wow! Therefore, as far as what you want, well, you can go pound sand.

ma23464

It’s really sad that many people don’t understand why the right to keep and bear arms is so important.

Samanthapowers

All those pesky mass shootings - especially children - can have that effect.

Comment deleted.
Samanthapowers

Mass shootings are not a fact? Hmmmmm. I imagine the victims families may disagree with you. Can't you do better? At least try.

ma23464

I agree. The mass shooting are an issue. I wonder if gun control is the answer though. Would these people use other weapons if they could not get guns? I don’t know the answer. It’s certainly something we need to be discussing.

gabrielshorn2013

Yes ma, they will. Just recently, a deranged person in Japan (where most firearm posession is illegal) used a can of gasoline in a stairwell to holl 33 people.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/world/asia/japan-fire-animation-studio.html

bayman

If they cannot get guns, they will use cars, trucks,explosives, crossbows, machetes, knives, meat cleavers,and if they cannot get those then they will use baseball bats, metal rods, gasoline, poison, etc, etc. There are many things people can use to kill others. So we the people need to have our rights to carry a firearm to defend us and our families. The members of the government are defended with firearms, why not us? Plus I will bet that each and everyone of them carries a firearm for self defense.

KR999

I agree, and I believe it's because they're afraid of firearms, and that's due to being ignorant about them, i.e. lack of training, experience with them, etc.

rikkitikkitavvi

True that KR.

FrederickFan

Hough is totally irresponsible. He needs to move to West Virginia with his friend Alex Mooney.

DickD

[thumbup]

bnick467

“If the government said the media needed to provide a good and substantial reason to write a story, would you be OK with that?” No, but a story written by the media doesn't hurl a lead slug at a person at 1100 feet per second with the intention of taking their life. Free speech and freedom of the press also have limits and are not absolute, for example see Schenck v. United States. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/schenck-v-united-states-defining-the-limits-of-free-speech/

phydeaux994

“It’s very difficult for the average citizen to get one.”.....Thank Goodness. What are these people afraid of? Where do they go that’s so terrifying? My advice, DON’T GO THERE, especially after dark. What are the odds that the average citizen will ever be in a situation that would call for them to draw their .257 Magnum from under their shirt? The odds are that they would be the ones that get shot. Anyway, if you want to carry a concealed weapon, carry one. Who’s gonna know?

rikkitikkitavvi

.257?[lol][lol][lol][thumbdown]

EABiker

Cheaper than a .357

BunnyLou

but not as lethal as a .157...

KR999

I think you have it backwards Bunny, a .257 is more lethal than a .157, but not as lethal as a .457.

DickD

Bunny just doesn't know anything about guns. Hopefully she is not planning on buying one.

KR999

Bunny doesn't know anything about guns, Dick? And this from the guy who thought "AR" stood for "Assault Rifle?" And do you believe a .457 is more lethal than a .157?

hayduke2

You gun pros do know there is a legit .257 caliber, right?

rikkitikkitavvi

You are reaching with your defense of what's his/her name and the .257 duke. Rare caliber that is not in common use or availability. His/her typo was quite fun, if it was a typo. If not it is/was even funnier.

phydeaux994

Now you know where the term BTT(BullyTagTeam) originated. But again, answers to the question “what are these people afraid of”...”where do they go that is so terrifying? You guys are afraid to go to the “Golden Mile” to shop with the little old ladies at Boscovs. (My wife is 4’11” and 79 and likes Boscovs). Snakes? Rabid animals? Good Grief, you’re kidding, right? LAMO

Rockfish

Guess you have never spent time in the wilderness. I'll LMAO when you do and unknowingly get caught between mama bear & her cub.

phydeaux994

“For people wishing to carry a form of personal protection, the department recommends the use of bear pepper spray as an effective, LEGAL and safe bear deterrent. It has a large volume and long shelf life and is discharged in an expanding cloud that will reach its target up to 35 feet away. There are a variety of bear pepper sprays on the market that can be purchased at local sporting goods stores or on the internet. When purchasing bear pepper spray, be sure that the label states that it is for use on bears and has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

rikkitikkitavvi

And firearms have been approved by the 2nd Amendment. I think the point you are trying to make phydo is that you have a bad case of hoplophobia. Possibly even Ameriphobia. If you hate guns don't buy one but please refrain from the attempt to forbid law abiding Americans the right to own them. Have a great rest of your day.

Rockfish

1st, law abiding citizens who want to carry, will not carry, even though no may know, because they want to remain law abiding citizens. Folks, for various reasons, would like to carry for protection from criminals in high crime areas, protection from dangerous animals (snakes, rabid animals) while hiking, camping, fishing. Those law abiding citizens who would carry, in my experience, are very responsible, well trained, knowledgeable of the risks and consequences of carrying a firearm.

Cowell

[thumbup]

KR999

Who keeps their ".257" Magnum "under their shirt?"

BunnyLou

Wow! I detect some racism in that statement.

KR999

Hmmm, I believe you're right Bunny.....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominem criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.