Robber Probably Forgot He Was Not In Maryland
Nov 21, 2011 Political
A Maryland man has been shot and killed at a convenience store in Indiana. Evidently, Terry Wilson of Baltimore tried to rob the store at gunpoint when the clerk pulled a gun and shot him to death.
Wilson is from Maryland where criminal prey on the law abiding because the law abiding are not allowed to carry guns. The state and its moron governor, Martin O’Malley, will tell you they have a process to allow one to carry but that process infringes on law abiding citizens and violates the Second Amendment. You must show a reason why the state should allow you to exercise your right. According to the politicians there is no real need to carry but it is often difficult to see how dangerous things are when one is surrounded by armed police officers. O’Malley has an armed protection detail. He thinks he is more important than the people for whom he works.
In many other states law abiding citizens can carry a concealed weapon (usually red states) and crime rates are lower. Wilson probably forgot that he was not in the killing fields of Maryland when he decided to rob that store. Besides a bullet, I wonder what the last thing that went through his mind was. Toto, we are not in Maryland anymore…
If that had taken place in Maryland and the clerk pulled a gun and shot the felon the state would arrest the clerk for murder. Only felons are allowed to carry guns in Maryland.
I imagine that if several robbers were killed in such attempts in Maryland there would be fewer and fewer robberies. That won’t happen because Maryland seems to like being at the top of the crime stats list.
The morons in elected office from the Teflon Leprechaun governor to the legislators in Annapolis have no clue because they do not believe in individual liberty and in following the Constitution.
They believe in state control of the people and hell, as long as they can live in their gated communities or have armed guards, why should they actually care about the crime?
That is why we are the People’s Republik of Maryland.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: gun laws, indiana, Maryland, O'Malley, robber, Second Amendment, trample on rights
Violence and Schools
Jan 7, 2011 Political
So, I’m sure by now, all you good readers have heard about the school shooting in Nebraska. A student shot two administrators and killed them. Perhaps, to stop these sorts of things from happening, we should make it against the law to have guns in schools. No, better, perhaps we should make it illegal to have guns anywhere near a school. Maybe we could make it a law that 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. I know, let’s go with a new “zero-tolerance” law against anything that looks like a weapon at schools. That will do it for sure. No? Perhaps a law against discharging a gun on school property? A law against shooting guns in a safe manner? How about a law making it a crime to fire a gun in city limits? Make it illegal for someone under 18 to buy ammunition? Wait, I’ve got it: let’s make it against the law for people to hurt other people. In fact, let’s make it an even MORE serious crime for people who shoot other people.
As I’m sure you can imagine, all of these things are already against the law. In other words, the fellow that shot those two administrators already broke dozens and dozens of laws. I’m sure he didn’t care. This is further illustration that no matter how many laws you pass, only the lawful will follow them. In fact, if it were legal to have a gun at school, the only likely difference to this story is that the administrators might be alive today because they shot the 17-year-old who tried to kill them. Gun laws don’t help people, they kill people.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: gun laws, school shooting
Retired Cop Shows Value Of Armed Citizens
Dec 30, 2010 Political
The state of Maryland is a liberal mess. The extremely liberal and heavily populated subdivisions of Baltimore City and those surrounding Washington DC dictate the politics of the entire state. Most of the subdivisions are conservative and vote Republican but the heavily populated few decide the elections.
The state has a Democrat for its governor and a big Democrat majority in the state legislature so nearly all legislation is liberal. When it comes to firearm possession, this is certainly the case.
The Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but in Maryland the process certainly infringes upon the law abiding citizen. People must go through background checks to purchase firearms, no problem there. We need to ensure criminals are not buying weapons. Those applying to buy a regulated firearm must also show proof of a gun safety class approved by the state (this is waived for certain classes of people like veterans of the armed forces). While it is not impossible to purchase a firearm, it is nearly impossible to get a permit to carry one. The governor of the state claims we have a process, which we do, but it is extremely restrictive. Unless one is politically connected one must have a reason to carry a weapon and that reason has to be deemed good enough by the State Police.
If a person carries large sums of money (like making bank deposits) or carries other valuables (such as jewels) or has documented threats then the police will decide if a person may carry a firearm. One must have a good reason before they will even consider it and if the permit is granted it usually comes with restrictions such as “may only carry when making bank deposits.”
Anyone who is not politically connected who applies for a permit to carry and does not have a “valid” reason will be denied. As a proponent of the Second Amendment I believe that clearly defined right is a good enough reason to issue a carry permit to a law abiding citizen.
But Maryland is not too keen on people exercising their rights.
One other group of people who can get a permit to carry is retired police officers. Once they retire they can apply for a permit and it is usually granted. The process is a mere formality.
What makes a retired cop or politically connected person or those who carry valuables any more worthy of a permit than any other law abiding citizen?
In Pimlico, the place most of America knows because of the Preakness (and where my family grew up and I spent the first 10 years of my life) a retired police officer was at a carry-out establishment when a would be robber tried to hold the place up. The retired officer drew his weapon and fired striking the robber and ending his ability to continue his illegal act.
If that retired officer had not been there it is unlikely, given Maryland’s restrictive gun law, that any other patron would have been armed. The robber would have been successful and might have injured or killed someone in the process.
In fact, if Maryland had a less restrictive (and Constitutional) carry law it is unlikely that the robber would have attempted to rob the carry-out in the first place. People who commit crimes do not do so in places where people are armed or are likely to be armed. If, on the other hand, they know that people are not likely to be in possession of firearms they will be less inhibited in what laws they break.
The nanny state of Maryland, a bastion of liberal stupidity, places people in danger because criminals have firearms because they do not obey the law. Places with oppressive gun laws have an armed criminal population.
This is why there are so many shootings in Baltimore. Despite the gun control exercised by the state, criminals get and use guns. And since the liberals in the state keep putting them back on the street, they continue to commit violent crimes.
It is time for Maryland to become a “shall issue” state where law abiding citizens shall be issued a permit if requested.
Remember, an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a disarmed population is enslaved to government.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: gun laws, liberals, Maryland, retired cop, robber shot
Gun Rights Drive Liberals Crazy
Jul 5, 2008 Second Amendment
Attention is drawn to more moonbattery with regard to the Second Amendment thanks to my friends at Red Maryland. Seems that a person named Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of University of California Irvine school of law (and supposed Constitutional scholar) is very upset with the decision of the Supreme Court that affirms our Individual right to keep and bear arms:
The Supreme Court’s invalidation of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, joined by the court’s four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.
If the terms “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.
Never before had the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government. Baltimore Sun
According to this so called scholar, upholding the Constitution is judicial activism. Despite Chemerinsky’s claims that the Court changed previous judicial rulings, that is not what happened. Since the Court has NEVER ruled on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right there is no way the Court changed history. However, even if it did what would be the problem? The Court is obligated to overturn any ruling that was in error. If a previous Court ruled on something and it turned out to be incorrect then the Court is obligated to fix it. If the Court were bound to uphold all previous decisions then we might still have slaves and the Dred Scott decision might not have invalidated by the Thirteenth Amendment. Interestingly, the Dred Scott decision provides us with the Court’s views on the Second Amendment even though the issue was not about gun rights.
In its opinion on the matter, the court stated that freeing a negro would cause several problems:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised[sic] as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. Cornell Law
Chemerinsky, in his liberal fantasy of a world, would have people believe that the Court has gone against previous rulings (despite the fact that it has never ruled on the matter) and would ignore the fact that the Court, in a statement during a ruling on a different matter, affirmed the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. The supporting statements in Court decisions hold weight. In the Scott case the Court affirmed the individual right even though that is not what they were asked to rule on.
Chemerinsky describes the 1939 US v. Miller decision (and others) as rulings ignored by the Court. What are those other cases? If this guy is the dean of a school of law then one would expect him to be able to come up with the names of the cases. Instead, he uses a reference to unnamed cases to give the reader the impression that many cases exist. In reality, very few cases involving the Second Amendment exist and Miller in 1939 discussed the type of weapon, not who was allowed to posses it.
It is also interesting to note that Chemerinsky states; “the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.” First of all, if the law was unconstitutional then it does not matter what precedent there was (none) and it does not matter that it was instituted by a popularly elected government. The Bush Administration is a popularly elected government but that has not stopped the left from filing suits and from the VERY SAME Supreme Court from ruling against the President. I guess to a liberal there is one standard for laws they like and one for laws they do not.
I also think it is interesting that when the popularly elected government of California enacted, through the vote of the people, a definition of marriage that was not good enough for a lower court. The court, in that case, ruled the law and legal definition of marriage unconstitutional and allowed gay marriage. How many people from Chemerinsky’s side hailed that ruling as a wonderful day in jurisprudence.
The fact is, regardless of what anti gun nuts say, the Supreme Court affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, the same thing the people who wrote the Amendment stated about it when they described what it meant. It is also a fact that more lawsuits will be filed in order to completely define exactly what that Amendment means and, when is all said and done, the left will be even more upset because we will finally have our rights appropriately defined and have protection against those who will usurp those rights.
Of course, the 5-4 decision should give all conservatives chills down their spines. There were four justices that were unable to see the meaning of the Amendment correctly despite the numerous writings describing it, written by the very people who authored the Amendment. We need to elect a president who will appoint justices who are able to interpret the Constitution the way it was written, using the words of the people who wrote it.
Now, if we could only get deans of law schools who understand the law…
Tags: constitution, gun laws, judicial activism, Second Amendment