SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

[Nobody]

Except LE doesn't need a LTCF so your point isn't valid.

And after Tonegrail stated that I said that I change my peramiter to "any politically connected person" instead of LEO. I can learn and am open to ideas....many others on here are not.

NOBODY

 

[mrjam2jab]

Sorry. 10,000 posts into this and everyone talks like we know WTF* is going on.

*WTF = "What The ..." (Nevermind)

"Why The Face?"

 

[dblas]

I change my person carrying to "Anyone of the elite" that is not a cop. Just like if you were doing 105 around the capital beltway you would have been locked up, yet a PG county council woman was let go w/o so much as a ticket.

Things will be level and above board.....BULL SH**

NOBODY

Ummm..She received two (2) tickets and the second one was delivered by Chief McGraw humself for reckless diving, good for 6 points and $500.00.

She also lost her county car and has to take a county mandated driver safety course.

DB

 

[MJD438]

Ummm..She received two (2) tickets and the second one was delivered by Chief McGraw humself for reckless diving, good for 6 points and $500.00.

She also lost her county car and has to take a county mandated driver safety course.

DB

Not until after a public outcry following the news story. Nice to see that she got the fines, lost her car, and had to take a remedial drivers course. However, if that had been on of us in the serfdom of the PDR of Maryland, we would have been arrested on the side of the road and spent time in a cell awaiting arraignment on multiple charges.

 

[Biggfoot44]

But until recently it would have only been an inside joke among PGPD , and there would have been no public outcry.

 

[GBMaryland]

But until recently it would have only been an inside joke among PGPD , and there would have been no public outcry.

One of my buddies is a retired PG County PD Officer... and even he's not amused by this stuff.

Also, because he didn't seek out a permit prior / when he retired... they won't just give him one.

So he's watching this case closely as well...

 

[Bikebreath]

Maybe not, Bigfoot, maybe not. Sometimes they can and do change when faced with an injunction. Them suits, well they be expensive and embarrassing ..

But I so love it when they are fools...

 

[ToneGrail]

I change my person carrying to "Anyone of the elite" that is not a cop. Just like if you were doing 105 around the capital beltway you would have been locked up, yet a PG county council woman was let go w/o so much as a ticket.

Things will be level and above board.....BULL SH**

NOBODY

Of course we all know that things like this will happen in this corrupt state that is build on political patronage. Frank Conaway didn't have any brandishing charges leveled against him, nor did that businessman who had the gun in his briefcase at the airport, while Williams languishes in jail.

I'm not saying that in practice the rules will apply equally, just that the non-le political elite won't be able to justify their infractions of the rules so blatantly, especially if something like that were to blow up in the press. The court of public opinion can have quite an effect a person's career and life. This alone would be somewhat of a deterrent to the Dem cronies from blatantly flaunting the rules.

While Charlie Rangel should be in jail but still holds office, Blagoyovich went to prison. So they don't always slip though the cracks.

 

[ToneGrail]

One of my buddies is a retired PG County PD Officer... and even he's not amused by this stuff.

Also, because he didn't seek out a permit prior / when he retired... they won't just give him one.

So he's watching this case closely as well...

Why doesn't he just qualify under LEOSA? I would think PGCounty is a large enough department that they would be a participant.

 

[Inigoes]

Of course we all know that things like this will happen in this corrupt state that is build on political patronage. Frank Conaway didn't have any brandishing charges leveled against him

There are no brandishing laws in MD, only Assault first degree. Any assault made with a firearm is first degree, and punishable by 25 years.

 

[ToneGrail]

There are no brandishing laws in MD, only Assault first degree. Any assault made with a firearm is first degree, and punishable by 25 years.

I stand corrected as I don't remember all the details of the case but I think that you get my point.

 

[Inigoes]

I stand corrected as I don't remember all the details of the case but I think that you get my point.

I do

Just trying to stop the brandishing myth

 

[eyesinpines]

There are no brandishing laws in MD, only Assault first degree. Any assault made with a firearm is first degree, and punishable by 25 years.

Can brandishing be consider an assault worthy of 25 years?

 

[esqappellate]

There are no brandishing laws in MD, only Assault first degree. Any assault made with a firearm is first degree, and punishable by 25 years.

This ^^ Don't pull it unless you intend to use it and don't use it unless your life or the life of another is in imminent jeopardy. Good faith is not enough -- you must be right in your assessment of the situation, viz., a reasonable person would have perceived a threat to their life and/or reasonably feared severe bodily harm.

 

[esqappellate]

Can brandishing be consider an assault worthy of 25 years?

Technically, yes. Would waving it around unjustifibly get you arrested for 1st degree assault. Oh YES. Would you get 25 years? Maybe not, but that depends on the judge. Good luck with that.

Here is the statute: MD Criminal Law Article Section 3-202:

§ 3-202. Assault in the first degree
Prohibited
(a)(1) A person may not intentionally cause or attempt to cause serious physical injury to another.
(2) A person may not commit an assault with a firearm, including:
(i) a handgun, antique firearm, rifle, shotgun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, as those terms
are defined in § 4-201 of this article;
(ii) an assault pistol, as defined in § 4-301 of this article;
(iii) a machine gun, as defined in § 4-401 of this article; and
(iv) a regulated firearm, as defined in § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article.
Penalty
(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of assault in the first degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 25 years.

And BTW, "assault" does not mean actually touching but also threatening. It is defined in Section 3-201:

(b) "Assault" means the crimes of assault, battery, and assault and battery, which retain their judicially determined meanings.

There are three forms of assault: the intent to frighten, an attempted battery, and a battery. Christian v. State, 405 Md. 306, 316–322, 951 A.2d 832 (2008) (analyzing the common law and statutory history of assault and battery in Maryland).

BTW: The elements of self-defense are well-settled in Maryland:
“(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
“(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
“(3) The accused claiming the right of self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; and
“(4) The force used must not have been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.”
State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 485–86, 483 A.2d 759, 764 (1984).

 

[eyesinpines]

Technically, yes. Would waving it around unjustifibly get you arrested for 1st degree assault. Oh YES. Would you get 25 years? Maybe not, but that depends on the judge. Good luck with that.

Here is the statute: MD Criminal Law Article Section 3-202:

§ 3-202. Assault in the first degree
Prohibited
(a)(1) A person may not intentionally cause or attempt to cause serious physical injury to another.
(2) A person may not commit an assault with a firearm, including:
(i) a handgun, antique firearm, rifle, shotgun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, as those terms
are defined in § 4-201 of this article;
(ii) an assault pistol, as defined in § 4-301 of this article;
(iii) a machine gun, as defined in § 4-401 of this article; and
(iv) a regulated firearm, as defined in § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article.
Penalty
(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of assault in the first degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 25 years.

And BTW, "assault" does not mean actually touching but also threatening. It is a defined in Section 3-201:

(b) "Assault" means the crimes of assault, battery, and assault and battery, which retain their judicially determined meanings.

As always....thank you.

 

[JMangle]

Maryland has had carry permits - including unrestricted permits - for decades and not required onerous TPMs. Why do we need one now?

That's my line and I'm sticking to it.

And they gave permits to 97% of the people who wanted them, so nothing has changed.

Cuz the great unwashed (and the politically unconnected) are going to get permits if Woollard wins, that's why!!

See above, they've been giving permits to people who bothered to apply.

If you can't tell, I really want to use that line of BS against them as much as possible.

While in theory you are correct, I HIGHLY doubt a OFF duty MSP or other cop would get busted for a TPM infraction the way a scrub like you or me would be.

NOBODY

All animals are equal, some more equal than others. I nearly got a speeding ticket for going 35 in a 40 (I kid you not, five under, and thank you lawyers for fighting that one) in College Park, MD but a drunk PGPD officer ran into a student with his patrol car and didn't even get a ticket until it hit the papers.

 

[Bob A]

“(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
“(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
“(3) The accused claiming the right of self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; and
“(4) The force used must not have been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.”

I have a personal interest in this, as I am 64 years old and on blood thinners, which renders me at risk for intracranial bleeding (and subsequent death) from a blow to the head.

In view of this risk, and my age, which seems, to me at least, to provide a basis for disparity of force, I'm wondering whether these factors would make a significant difference in the way I should view a possible encounter with a malefactor. While I'm in favor of defending my life and well-being, would the use (or threat of use) of deadly force in an encounter run afoul of point (4) above?

I feel it ought not to, but I can't help but wonder at how many expensive legal hoops I'd have to jump through before being (hopefully) exonerated.

 

[rambling_one]

“(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
“(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
“(3) The accused claiming the right of self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; and
“(4) The force used must not have been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.”

I have a personal interest in this, as I am 64 years old and on blood thinners, which renders me at risk for intracranial bleeding (and subsequent death) from a blow to the head.

In view of this risk, and my age, which seems, to me at least, to provide a basis for disparity of force, I'm wondering whether these factors would make a significant difference in the way I should view a possible encounter with a malefactor. While I'm in favor of defending my life and well-being, would the use (or threat of use) of deadly force in an encounter run afoul of point (4) above?

I feel it ought not to, but I can't help but wonder at how many expensive legal hoops I'd have to jump through before being (hopefully) exonerated.

Personal take: The test comes down to what a reasonable person would do under a similar situation; i.e., does the victim believe assailant(s) could inflict permanent injury or death.

 

[esqappellate]

“(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
“(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
“(3) The accused claiming the right of self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; and
“(4) The force used must not have been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.”

I have a personal interest in this, as I am 64 years old and on blood thinners, which renders me at risk for intracranial bleeding (and subsequent death) from a blow to the head.

In view of this risk, and my age, which seems, to me at least, to provide a basis for disparity of force, I'm wondering whether these factors would make a significant difference in the way I should view a possible encounter with a malefactor. While I'm in favor of defending my life and well-being, would the use (or threat of use) of deadly force in an encounter run afoul of point (4) above?
I feel it ought not to, but I can't help but wonder at how many expensive legal hoops I'd have to jump through before being (hopefully) exonerated.

I don't (can't) give specific legal advice like this. Generally, item 4 means that the application of force must stop when a reasonable man would have perceived that the threat to your life ended. You cannot use more force than necessary to defend yourself. For example, if he is on the ground and offers no resistence (has stopped attacking), you can't keep on shooting. Similarly, armed force is generally not available when the aggressor is unarmed, if a reasonable man in your position could have defended himself without using lethal means. Your medical condition is pertinent in assessing what a reasonable man *in your position* ("to believe himself") would feel to be a threat to your life, viz., items number 1 and 2. The life of an old guy (and I am 61) is more at risk than an 18 year old from some kinds of assault. As is apparent, self-defense is wholly dependent on the circumstances -- it is often a jury question. It is *very* difficult situation, which is best avoided if at all possible. In MD, for example, there is a requirement to retreat before using deadly force (no retreat required in the home or if retreat was not safely available)