Retired Cop Shows Value Of Armed Citizens

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.
Big Dog

Gunline

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.



Print This Post

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.

7 Responses to “Retired Cop Shows Value Of Armed Citizens”

  1. Texas Friend says:

    Big Dog,

    You have got it absolutely right. Keep up the good fight to change the laws in Maryland. If you ever decide it is hopeless there, we could use another strong conservative in the “shall issue” state of Texas.

  2. Blake says:

    Goes for me as well, BD- When I go out, I go with my pistol, because I like to exercise ALL of my rights, and this is unfortunately a dangerous world.
    I too would suggest Texas as a good fit for you- less snow, and more room, as well as people with more than a lick of common sense- (except perhaps in Austin, where the lemmings,er, liberals huddle up).

  3. Ogre says:

    This just goes to show that the Constitution is simply irrelevant today. There’s no way anyone can say that the Constitution, as written, allows the state to tell people they cannot carry weapons without permission.

    I just wish more people would understand.

    I open carry frequently, just because I can. I’ll be sure not to visit MD, because I’ll be jailed.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Texas Friend, glad to see you here. I hope all is well with the family and you had a wonderful Christmas.

    I thank you and Blake for the invite to the great state of Texas. I have spent time there and love it. If I did not have family roots here (as you TF well know) my wife and I would love to live there. If we ever get to retirement we might just move there…

    Ogre, don’t come here. Maryland is an absolutely beautiful state that offers much to people and all that is ruined by the liberal mentality of controlling our lives.

    • Ogre says:

      I think New Hampshire is a good option (Free State Project), but may end up heading out on the open seas, instead.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        Ogre, the constitution is irrelevant, or is it simply ignored?

        I live in a nation that bans hand-guns except to law and military. Shot guns and rifles can only be obtained by long and often fruitless classes and then, only for hunting.
        For example, the “test” that decides if one is qualified to bare a shot gun includes identification of the foot-print on every know land animal.
        Even one’s that belong to critters we will never see on this continent.

        In other words, it is a “non-statutory barrier” to owning a gun. Not they need them, but the entire point of the exercise is to keep normal people from having guns.

        And it works. Normal people don’t have guns, or any weapon to defend themselves, except baseball bats and kitchen knives.

        The abnormal people seem to find them, though. The criminals all have guns. Not Uzis, but in a populace with no guns, a .38 revolver commands attention, and the criminals can do as they please.

        Even the cops can’t stand against criminals with guns, because cops are not trained to address the potential of guns in the populace. They rarely experience it, outside TV drama shows.

        You see, criminals don’t attack cops. People, don’t give up your guns. It is not a smart move at all.

        • Blake says:

          Eoj, I never asked where you live, but it sounds like a very structured society, and not somewhere a Texan might like to live- but I could be wrong.
          The right to defend oneself is so basic, that I have a hard time even imagining not being able, without reprisal, to defend friends and family by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.