 |
| Maryland gubernatorial candidate Doug Gansler speaks to reporters in Chevy Chase |
Former Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a Democratic candidate for governor, is calling for new legislation to restrict the right to carry a concealed firearm in designated areas. The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed concealed carry as a right under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In response to that decision in a New York case, NY Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation on July 1 that would place new barriers and hurdles to acquiring a concealed carry license in that state, and restrict the right to concealed carry in specified locations.
Gansler said he supports passing similar restrictions in Maryland, at a press conference at an early voting site in Chevy Chase Thursday. Areas where licensed citizens would still be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon in New York state include transit stations and vehicles, parks, theaters, stadiums, museums, bars, casinos, and "sensitive areas" such as Times Square.
Current Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) this past week ordered the Maryland State Police to comply with the Supreme Court directive, making the state a shall-issue jurisdiction. Gansler said Hogan had no choice but to follow the new law, but argued that he should have ensured Maryland had the type of limitations that New York now has.
“We need to have safeguards, because no one wants to have guns in schools, in libraries, on the Metro, on the bus, on playgrounds, at polling places, at places where alcohol is being served,” Gansler said outside the Jane E. Lawton Community Recreation Center, as early voting got underway. “Those are easy to do. For whatever reason, Governor Hogan decided not to do that. We need to have a groundswell of support to make sure that we have limitations in place to keep people safe.”
New York's new restrictions are expected to be challenged in court, as they would make it very difficult to exercise the right to concealed carry from a practical standpoint. The remaining areas where one could carry a firearm are few, and many of the designated areas are precisely where gun rights advocates say an individual would most want a self-defense capability. Gun rights advocates also note that concealed carry license holders have not been shown to be a major source of gun-related crimes in America. “You rarely hear of an instance where a CCL holder is using their firearm in an unlawful manner,” an Illinois State Police spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in 2018. “They’re generally law-abiding citizens, and they’ve gone to great lengths to get to where they’re at to have a CCL. And they’ve taken training to get there. And most of them, they understand what the requirements are to use force to defend themselves.”
Wisconsin’s 2011 CCW law and the resulting spike in gun violence makes perfectly clear what happens to a state when more and more of its citizens start walking around with guns, as if common sense didn't already make it obvious.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to see your data. Check out the UMD study in 2020. CCW does not increase violence.
DeleteI'm sure criminals wouldn't dare cross into a gun safe/free zone because that's the law that will stop them in their tracks.
ReplyDeleteAnother good idea brought to you by the ignorant and apathetic party.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html
ReplyDeleteMatters not. He doesn't have a chance in France
ReplyDeleteAll those DC criminals stealing your cars and burglarizing homes in Bethesda have guns
ReplyDeleteCriminals don’t care about gun laws
If someone is home invading me they will be met by my gun
Chicago has strictest gun laws
ReplyDeleteRest my case
Criminals don’t care about gun laws
All the pro 2A comments here are spot on and factually accurate. Don't tread on my rights. 2A rights don't end at your front door. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYOU WANT TO CONFISCATE (or limit) GUNS??
ReplyDeleteHOW ABOUT TAKING THEM FROM CRIMINALS FIRST??
You know, like a test run.
@9:53 AM So tell us Mr. Smarty McElephant, what bright new ideas are you hiding up that trunk of yours. You conservative whiners seem to always poo poo and suggestions, yet you have nothing better to offer but cheap whine.
ReplyDeleteSo 9:36 thinks that restricting law-abiding citizens makes everyone safer while at the same time releasing repeat offenders with little or no bail.
ReplyDeletePut your money where your mouth is and put anti-NRA and circle with a slash through it over a picture of a gun stickers on the back of all of your cars.
Liberals have one set of rules for themselves and another set for the rest of us but since you asked: Enforce ALL current laws regardless of political affiliation or social status, (Yes, this would mean you would no longer be able to harass SCOTUS judges at their homes or their children). Once there are actual consequences to illegal behavior crime will drop, period. This would actually mean getting rid of a majority the AG's in major cities across the US especially Garland. See how easy that was?
9:36, I'll give you a suggestion. How about stop trying to whittle down the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners every time some nut decides to kill people. How about, instead of teaching CRT and transgenderism in schools we teach kids some basic morality. That it is wrong to harm others. Oh, that's right that would be taking a brick out of the wall of separation between church and state. Never mind.
ReplyDeleteThe Bolsheviks are upset, yet my feeling is all their topped-off chutzpah won't help them or their minyons in the end. The Supreme Court has ruled against them. Any attempt to water down the Shall-issue will result in the court once again declaring it unconstitional.
ReplyDeleteI am so happy!!!
"Shall not be infringed" is strong wording, used only once in that hallowed document. There was a reason for that. The founding fathers felt very strongly about the tyranny of government and the need to defend against it.
Oh, and about "well regulated". Back in the late 1700's, that didn't mean what it might mean now to some people. The Bolsheviks always try to twist that meaning to suit their own goals, yet when that term's historical meaning is examined, it means nothing like what the Bolsheviks would like you to think it means.
So what did it mean? Back then, something that was well-regulated meant it worked well, nay, very well. A well regulated clock kept perfect time, or as close as was possible back then. A well regulated militia was a group of people, or even a single person, that worked as intended. Back then, the very notion of anything being controlled and regulated by the government was laughable. There was little government regulation of anything, aside from basic oversight of things like voting, currency, and postal conventions. The basics. Anything else, like building a house on your property, was left to common sense, of which there was a lot more back then.