Mr. Woollard wins!? Good and substantial clause for handgun permits unconstitutional.

[Jeebus]

You referred to "the criminal".
How often do you "display" (your quotes, so I'm unsure of the meaning) your weapon when you're walking down the street. Must make quite an impression!

In most states, it is 100% perfectly legal to "open carry" your firearm.

You can walk right down main street without anyone getting shot, having people screaming and recoiling in horror, without drawing it, without having the police rolling up in SWAT vehicles to make a felony stop on you.

As most citizens in MD are unaware that pistols and revolvers can be used by legal law abiding citizens, it's conceivable that they don't understand how a weapon can protect you, as all they know about firearms is their use in criminal behavior by thugs, gangstas, and crack-slanging dope peddlers intent on protecting their turf, and the often violent confrontation robberies that they commit against innocent people to get the cash to supply their habit.

Yes, criminals, although mostly ignorant and stupid, will most likely prefer their chances of pulling a knife or making a strong-armed robbery on an unarmed person (or someone who they think is unarmed) rather than confront someone they KNOW is armed.

So yes, the mere presence of the firearm can be logically assumed to prevent crimes - how many is unknown.

[Mitchum]

That's not true. Look at the bulk of shootings in Baltimore. They re drug related. They know the person they are robbing more than likely is carrying a weapon and they still do it. There is no deterrence. If your theory was even remotely true than there would be no LEO's shot because they carry firearms too.

[MDvet]

I'm sure he'll be happy to meet you at the station

I will be also happy to sue the police for false arrest and get some money

[USP9]

Brandishing is a crime.

The word "brandish" appears nowhere in MD Code.

Next inaccuracy please.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

The word "brandish" appears nowhere in MD Code.

Next inaccuracy please.

Gee, was Mitchum playing fast and loose with the truth again? Say it ain't so!

[bmore_ken]

I will be also happy to sue the police for false arrest and get some money

Good luck convincing a jury that you deserve money because the police arrested you for threatening an unarmed person with a gun

[USP9]

Gee, was Mitchum playing fast and loose with the truth again? Say it ain't so!

Yes....imagine that. More lies from the master of lies and half truths.

[Mitchum]

The word "brandish" appears nowhere in MD Code.

Next inaccuracy please.

Tell it to this poor Schlub, Perry Mason.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...g-gun-at-umbc/

[Jeebus]

Tell it to this poor Schlub, Perry Mason.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...g-gun-at-umbc/

Still lying as usual Mitchum.

He was charged with 4 crimes - none of them "brandishing."

Count 1 - Handgun: Wear/Carry & Transport In Vehicle/Public Roads, Etc
Count 2 - Dangerous Weapon: On School Property
Count 3 - Dangerous Weapon: On School Property
Count 4 - Malicious Destruction Of Property/Value Less Than $500

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us...55&detailLoc=K

"Brandishing" not found.

You've been caught in another lie.

[USP9]

Tell it to this poor Schlub, Perry Mason.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...g-gun-at-umbc/

The.

Word.

Brandish.

Appears.

Nowhere.

In MD Code.

Clear enough?






BTW....you still want to talk about that whole insurance issue as it relates to conventions?

I thought not.

The liar gets caught once again.

[Jeebus]

Gee, was Mitchum playing fast and loose with the truth again? Say it ain't so!

Yes....imagine that. More lies from the master of lies and half truths.

Still lying as usual Mitchum.

The liar gets caught once again.

Tee hee, Mitchum will run away and hide from this thread.

As per his MO - lie, have the lie exposed, lie again with red herring link, have the lie exposed again, run away and hide never to revisit his lie as if it never happened.

Too easy.

[Mitchum]

LOL Tell it to the FBI, Matlock.

http://www.fbi.gov/baltimore/press-r...0/ba101210.htm

[Jeebus]

LOL Tell it to the FBI, Matlock.

http://www.fbi.gov/baltimore/press-r...0/ba101210.htm

Red Herring. Since when do "federal charges" = MD code?

You lied.

You were caught.

You are now attempting to scour the internet looking for some last ditch effort to "prove" something that doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as "brandishing" in the MD code, period.

Here's his entire rap sheet of Maryland charges - please point out the charge of "brandishing."

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us...e=&middleName=

You have been caught lying again. Keep digging that hole.

[Mitchum]

Really.

[regularguy]

There is no such thing as "brandishing" in the MD code, period.

So if someone brandishes a weapon in public with the intent intimidating another person, you're saying it isn't a violation of Maryland law?

[Jeebus]

So if someone brandishes a weapon in public with the intent intimidating another person, you're saying it isn't a violation of Maryland law?

Pick the law you feel it violates, and then try to find the word "brandishing" in the code.

[regularguy]

Pick the law you feel it violates, and then try to find the word "brandishing" in the code.

Not my point. (I'll bet the statute for murder doesn't mention "shooting" or "stabbing" either.)

If you do the actions that most people would define as "brandishing" - at least under certain circumstances - you would be violating a criminal law... a law that doesn't use the word "brandishing".

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Not my point. (I'll bet the statute for murder doesn't mention "shooting" or "stabbing" either.)

I'll bet the statute for murder does mention murder. That IS the point.

If you do the actions that most people would define as "brandishing" - at least under certain circumstances - you would be violating a criminal law... a law that doesn't use the word "brandishing".

A law such as.....

[regularguy]

A law such as.....

Assault.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Assault.

Well, you may be right. What does the law actually say?