I think that because my father was a Baltimore City police officer, I was taught a healthy respect for firearms in the fact that only those to uphold and protect the law should carry a gun. Many years later I took a course on how to fire a gun, but still to this day I do not own or want to own a gun. I do not see for now or for the future any need for a citizen to want to carry a gun. Todays world is too angry for anyone who is stressed out to be trusted to own or carry a gun. I don't care how many background checks one would have to go through before they could buy a gun, there's no way to really check what is on a potential criminals mind when they present themselves as sane.
If a gun owner doesn't renew a license then what is put in place to prevent that owner from continuing to carry the gun? Are there going to be police that will go around day-to-day, knocking on those owners doors to take the gun back? Will the owners be fined for every day that they do not renew the permit? How will these guns be tracked if they are stolen from the owner? Will there be a LoJack installed in them? Wait, did I just give the State an idea as to how to create an extra revenue? I hope so.
The word "random" to me has taken a whole new meaning. Such as random shootings in schools, post offices, hospitals, and churches. Can anyone really claim that they are sane enough to own a gun?

DC makes all the arguments I would make IN FAVOR of issuing permits to carry a concealed weapon to law-abiding citizens in the State of Maryland. In DC's post, he/she says, essentially, that the mental stability of a person is the primary determanent as to whether or not a permit should be issued. In fact, it is because a person is, as DC puts it, "stressed out" and might commit a violent criminal act, that the rest of us (DC excluded) SHOULD be able to carry a concealed weapon to protect ourselves. DC stated earlier in his/her post that he/she does not want to own or carry a firearm. That's fine with me because I don't want unqualifed people carrying firearms either. However, DC's lack of interest in protecting his/her own life cannot be allowed to trump my right to protect my life and that of my family from criminals who carry and use firearms every single day to commit crimes against law-abiding citizens.

Harry, you've missed the point of the gathering. Thay want to allow ANYBODY (law-abiding, whatever they think that means) to carry, concealed or open, without a permit. That's just what we all need. State Fair, 4th of July celebrations, Orioles games, everybody with a holstered gun on their hip.
Great, just great.

Bart, I think you're missing the bigger picture. If you check out the true statistics of those states where the carrying of a firearm is made easier than Maryland (either no permit or easier-to-get permits), you'll find that those states are BY FAR the states with the lower crime rates. Please don't be swayed by your fear of the unknown. By saying that "everyone [will have a] gun on their hip" is an extreme overstatement. There is a world of difference between everyone will be carrying versus everyone has the right to carry. There are many states where responsible residents are currently allowed to bring their arms to State Fairs, 4th of July celebrations and sporting events ... and also supermarkets, liquor stores and banks. If these responsible people were committing the crimes, wouldn't we be hearing about it, and very loudly so. Why would responsible Marylanders who carry arms commit crimes in different numbers than the responsible residents from other states? Respectful answers to this question are welcomed.

I just don't see the point. People argue that their their rights are being infringed upon because they can't...carry a gun with them at all times? How do you even logically get there? You're LUCKY if that's the only right you feel you've been denied. In a way it reminds me of when a child sees another kid with chocolate; they therefore immediately want chocolate. They didn't want it before, and they don't really need it, and they probably won't even eat it, but now all they want is that chocolate. And they want to tote that chocolate around everywhere...including and especially in their state's capital building (which is an argument I'll never fully understand). (Not an exact connection, but you get the point).

At what point would most of us even need a gun? Chances are if you were being mugged, you probably wouldn't use it for whatever reason (the mugger already has a gun, fear, no time, etc.).

Lastly, people are stupid. Not just criminals, but law abiding citizens as well. I'd venture to say at LEAST 50% of law-abiding citizens should be nowhere near a gun, and certainly shouldn't be trusted to carry it around. When I think about my time working in retail and how many incredibly dumb (not to mention rude) people I came across, I wince at the possibility that any of them would want to obtain a conceal/carry license. "Sorry sir, we're all out of that item" would become a lot more dangerous.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just giving my opinion.

We have two issues here. The first is we each possess an inalienable right to self-defense. How we implement that in practice should be up to us as individuals in a free society. The second concern is with respect to the law. Our inalienable right to self-protection is codified under law. DCMerkle advocates a firearm restricted model that is contrary to both our national constitution and our state constitution. Apparently the only thing DCMerkle learned from his police officer father is a healthy disregard for the law. Police officers cultivating such misguided notions of tyranny in their children further bolsters support for Constitutional Carry.

The whole myth about crime going down in "Shall Issue" states is a myth and was debunked a long time ago.
I agree with Sean. Do we really need a bunch of Frank Conaway's chasing Adam Meisters down the street with a gun??

I just Googled "Campaign For Liberty" to see what these group was about. They look like a bunch of Nutjobs.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php

Thanks for the plug Armstrong!

Campaign for Liberty espouses:
Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.

All are welcome. I extend a personal invitation to Mr. Armstrong. Our group is civil and open-minded Robert, I gather from your words that such meetings may be unfamiliar territory for you. Step out of your comfort zone and come by.

No, I don't want to be associated with a Ron Paul cult.

I just finished reading a NYT best seller entitled "Gun Rights" It lays all the famous gun v. crime studies out side by side. There is no correlation one way or the other between "Shall Issue" and crime. It doesn't really go down and it really doesn't go up. All those Lott and Mustard studies were horribly flawed.

According to Mr. Armstrong the NYT also supports 'Shall Issue' or 'Constitutional Carry'. As they came to a conclusion that more weapons in more hands doesn't increase crime. Looks like the 'Sky Is Falling' hysterics have nothing to worry about. Therefore, it's imperative we support fellow citizens in exercising their inalienable rights.

Come join us Wednesday night to join the discussion on this timely and relevant topic. I look forward to meeting old friends and some new.

You are a weirdo Rick. Are you going to talk about how income taxes are illegal too?

LOL MSI is gearing up for a Zombie attack. Is Dembowski going to tell us how we can defend against a Zombie attack?

@Sean, I believe I perceived your point-of-view on firearms correctly as one related to the immediacy of consequence. You're certainly not alone in holding such view. That's the nature of any implement used to inflict damage. It's true for knives, swords, arrows, machetes, firearms or baseball bats. It's also true for fists, feet and elbows. To deny a free citizen the right to use a device of their choosing to defend themselves or their belongings presents a moral hazard. You place them at the mercy of mobs and those of greater strength, speed and unarmed fighting ability. There's never any justification for doing this.

No law, however well intended or crafted, will ever prevent someone from doing another grave physical harm. Law enforcement has no obligation to protect you nor your property from damage. These truisms bolster the need for people to reclaim an obligation to defend themselves that they shouldn't have delegated to others.