TexasCHLforum.com

How much training are firearm toting criminals required to have...?

Oh right, none...while you, Mr. Law-Abiding Citizen have what criminals want, when they want it, including your life if they really want to take it.

I bet the funeral industry loves this kind of thing, good for business doncha know...

So, Mr. Law-Abiding Citizen face the corner and do as told by your state idiots, I mean government...

AndyC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:23 am Oh, wait - found it: "You will spend two weeks with the Firearms Training Unit mastering both the Glock Model 22 .40 caliber handgun and a patrol shotgun". https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Careers/Pages/training.aspx

Good find!

That is completely absurd that private citizens would need double the firearms training of State Police to keep a firearm at home.

I thought Maryland sounded familiar

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/us/maryl ... index.html

Sept 20 mass shooting.

30 days training

Well this will go to the Supreme Court.

We will see which way the wind blows.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:36 pm I thought Maryland sounded familiar

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/us/maryl ... index.html

Sept 20 mass shooting.

30 days training

Well this will go to the Supreme Court.

We will see which way the wind blows.

If I had to pick a test case for the SCOTUS, this might be it. Requiring more training than state LEO's have is not a "reasonable" restriction, IMHO. I just hope the ruling isn't extremely narrow.

I would also ask how much training they require of journalists, preachers / imams / rabbis, and prospective voters.

The whole concept of "reasonable restriction" is flawed, when it applies only to gun rights and not voting rights, freedom of speech, right to a trial, etc.

BBYC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:08 pm The whole concept of "reasonable restriction" is flawed, when it applies only to gun rights and not voting rights, freedom of speech, right to a trial, etc.

Agreed. You might as well put "reasonable restrictions" on life. Say, if your IQ is below a certain level the government just takes away that right as well. After all, it's just a "reasonable restriction" right?

I was just noting that even if the SCOTUS buys into the "reasonable restriction" premise, there is no way it should fly in this case.

That is unreasonable for anyone who is educated in the art of shooting.

it's unfair to the indigent.

It's unfair to live in an "anti" state, be it Maryland or the other usual suspects.

SIA

Beiruty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:37 pm That is unreasonable.

Fixed it for you.

Maybe the citizens of Maryland need some learnin'? Look who/what they elect to the various public offices.

So glad I left in 1988

Allons wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:05 pm So glad I left in 1988

I never lived in MD but part of my territory when I worked out of Wilmington, DE included Salisbury. My experience is that Western MD and the Eastern Shore bear no resemblance to the rest of the State. It is a little like Cook County and Chicago defining what IL is.

I'm surprised that there isn't an open rebellion in the Eastern Shore over this. There are a lot of good ol' boys there. Perhaps they've just decided to ignore it and go on with their lives.