Merlin
Ultimate Member
"A person who holds a permit may not wear, carry, or transport a handgun while the person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs". 5-314.
That's clear enough
"A person who holds a permit may not wear, carry, or transport a handgun while the person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs". 5-314.
If your DD is not transporting in compliance with 4-203 he has a problem. Best? Leave it at home
Best? Leave it at home
Oh absolutely. I'm of the firm opinion that alcohol and firearms are a really bad mix. (Just ask Dick Cheney.) If I know I'm going to be drinking, then I know I'm not going to be shooting.
But if I stop somewhere on the way back from the range? Then I might need someone to cart me home, which would be OK since the gun would be unloaded, and in the trunk. And it would (likely) stay there until I was sober.
Now, some might say that MD ordinances say I have to go straight from the range to home?
I wouldn't welcome the opportunity to argue that the law isn't that specific, but if push came to shove, I think it could be possible to win on those grounds. After all, that interpretation would preclude you from stopping to visit a restroorom, or get gas, either of which could prevent you from safely reaching your destination.
Q So your testimony, then, is that the definite-you have indicated that an acceptable level of danger to you, which would then-based on that, you would then issue a permit. That is more than what-you said, is more than an average person would encounter. That phrase is your own ․
A Yes.
Q ․ thinking, right?
A Uh-huh.
Q In other words, for lack of a better word, you made that up?
A Yes.
Oh absolutely. I'm of the firm opinion that alcohol and firearms are a really bad mix. (Just ask Dick Cheney.) If I know I'm going to be drinking, then I know I'm not going to be shooting.
But if I stop somewhere on the way back from the range? Then I might need someone to cart me home, which would be OK since the gun would be unloaded, and in the trunk. And it would (likely) stay there until I was sober.
Now, some might say that MD ordinances say I have to go straight from the range to home?
I wouldn't welcome the opportunity to argue that the law isn't that specific, but if push came to shove, I think it could be possible to win on those grounds. After all, that interpretation would preclude you from stopping to visit a restroom, or get gas, either of which could prevent you from safely reaching your destination.
Cautionary note about rankings
The ranks in some tables are based on estimates derived from a sample(s). Because of sampling and nonsampling errors associated with the estimates, the ranking of the estimates does not necessarily reflect the correct ranking of the unknown true values. Thus, caution should be used when making inferences or statements about the states' true values based on a ranking of the estimates. As an example, the estimated total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A may be larger than the estimates for all other states. This does not necessarily mean that the true total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A is larger than those for all other states. Such an inference typically depends on --among other factors-- the size of the difference(s) between the estimates in question, and the size of their associated standard errors.
In other tables, the ranks are based on a complete enumeration of the target population, or on complete administrative reporting from the population. In such cases, sampling is not used, and there is no sampling error component in the estimates. Still, care should still be taken when making inferences or statements based on the rankings. The table values may still exhibit nonsampling error originating from such sources as coverage problems (missing units or duplicates), nonresponse, misreporting, and others.
Last Revised: September 27, 2011 at 09:43:17 AM
Edit:
Oops! Missed this. (Can anyone figure out what this really says?)
WHAT???
Oops! Missed this. (Can anyone figure out what this really says?)
Just to raise some discussion.
Stumbling around on the website after looking at the link you provided, I found this. http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=29.03.02.12.htm
It appears to indicate training requirements.
I am just stirring the pot, anyone can chime in.
EDIT:
Also stumbled over this court case from 2004 while looking for what is Article 27, 36E.
Scherr Vs. Handgun Review Board.
Still looking for what Artcle 27, 36E is, which was reference in the link I originally posted.
People get themselves into trouble when they start splitting hairs over how much they can drink, when, where..yadda yadda.
Push the envelope, win stupid prizes.
People get themselves into trouble when they start splitting hairs over how much they can drink, when, where..yadda yadda.
Push the envelope, win stupid prizes.