- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,759
HPRB September 1, 2015 Meeting Thread
- Thread starter dblas
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Trying to get the agenda for this evening and not getting a response via email or phone from the admin.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Its a very good find..
Many here including myself have stopped dropping in on this thread..
With the understanding that we have no real voice at the hearing.. and the fact that I am so far behind I may never catch up..
I intend to try to make it and hope you will as well..
I forgot the time... is it 18:00..
Technically, you are correct, but there have been changes made from comments directed at board members and other officials in attendance. You may not have a formal venue to voice your opinions, but "they" are watching and listening.
Anyone who can lend a hand, I need more storage in my dropbox acct to host the HPRB meeting audio recordings. Please set up a dropbox acct and we will both get extra space. You must download the app and install on your mobile device or computer for us to benefit. You do not have to do anything else. Use the link below.
Thanks.
https://db.tt/kauqEKu1
Thanks.
https://db.tt/kauqEKu1
mxrider
Former MSI Treasurer
Same here
I think it is based on email address. No worries.
makijo
Active Member
I did this to help you out but I cannot run the installer here at work, I will have to do it when I get home tonight...this probably won't help tonight will it???
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,290
Were any of you actually alive in 1972 and remember the political climate at the time?
Yes... and my brother and I were childhood friends of Walter Weikers' son... I still run in to him occasionally...
ETA... Speak of the Devil... Look who posted ahead of me...
so in 1972 when the md ga passed wear and carry law, the original dangerous weapon law from 1874 stayed in effect for other dangerous weapons like knives and razors.
that means 1972 wear and carry law with "reasonable precaution" co existed at the same time as 1874 "reasonable precaution" and its definitions.
from 1972 though well into the 1990s anyone with a question about what "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" meant with regards to good and substantial could look the the reasons in the remaining dangerous weapons law of 1894.
here a 1991 case of a suspected drug dealer carring a.concealed razor knife that was overturned because no criminal intent was found
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1992754328Md426_1724/ANDERSON v. STATE
that means 1972 wear and carry law with "reasonable precaution" co existed at the same time as 1874 "reasonable precaution" and its definitions.
from 1972 though well into the 1990s anyone with a question about what "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" meant with regards to good and substantial could look the the reasons in the remaining dangerous weapons law of 1894.
here a 1991 case of a suspected drug dealer carring a.concealed razor knife that was overturned because no criminal intent was found
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1992754328Md426_1724/ANDERSON v. STATE
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
I have been at this from the very first meeting and in no way want to suggest folks not attend.. My point was to set expectations..
Lots of informal discussion.. but I don't think anyone should get the idea that they will have a chance to speak formally..
Still I hope everyone and anyone who can shows up every chance they get.
Yes it will
And I'm having difficulty following the logic of (5) in relation to (1-4) in anything this side of fantasy or delusion. Criminals aren't obeying current law, so we need more laws.
im reading another case right now. the confusion between the court and the appeals court is determining if the person has a criminal intent. is he carrying a weapon to protect himself or to rob someone? it seems it became difficult to prove intent until after a crime occurred.
"burden of proof in an affirmative defense"
people jumping through the hoops and background checks to get a permit arent doing it to turn around and commit street muggings. so anyone without a permit is carrying illegally to to more illegal stuff.
it almost kinda makes twisted sense.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
Was hoping to make it again tonight guys but I am still at my office. The show will be over by the time I could get there. 
mxrider
Former MSI Treasurer
Applicant #1 Armed security guard. Prohibited person. 4-0 vote to uphold msp denial
gunther v state (1962)
interesting case for sure dealing with reasonable precaution in 1962
Specifically, we think the court, instead of informing the jury that if the defendant prepared for and provoked the affray he could not assert the right of self-defense, should have advised the jury that if it believed that the defendant was not seeking a fight with his brother-in-law, but on the contrary was apprehensive that he might be attacked by him, then the defendant, under such circumstances, would have a right to arm himself in anticipation of the assault. See Perkins on Criminal Law, at p. 48, where the author, in citing State v. Bristol, 84 P.2d 757 (Wyo. 1938), says that "[o]ne who is not in any sense seeking an encounter, but has reason to fear an unlawful attack upon his life, does not forfeit his privilege of self-defense merely by arming himself in advance." See also Gourko v. United States, 153 U.S. 183 (1894); Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271 (1894); Hochheimer, Crimes and Criminal Procedure (2nd ed.), § 344; Wharton, The Law of Homicide (3rd ed.), § 324; 30 Corpus Juris, Homicide, §§ 222 and 223; and the cases cited in 40 C.J.S., Homicide, § 120, fn. 87. And see Code (1957), Art. 27, § 36 (b), where the carrying and wearing of a concealed weapon by any person "as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" is expressly excepted from the provisions of the statute regulating concealed weapons.
On the subsidiary point that the right of the defendant to go wherever he legally had a right to go was not abridged by the fact that he might be attacked, see Barnes v. State, 93 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1957). And cf. Torrez v. State, 204 S.W. 228 (Tex. Cr. 1918), and Lett v. State, 56 So. 5 (Ala. 1911). See also 26 Am. Jur., Homicide, § 148, where it is said that "[n]o generally recognized rule of law deprives one who expects an attack to be made upon him of going places where he otherwise has a legal right to go."
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1987893/gunther-v-state/
interesting case for sure dealing with reasonable precaution in 1962
Specifically, we think the court, instead of informing the jury that if the defendant prepared for and provoked the affray he could not assert the right of self-defense, should have advised the jury that if it believed that the defendant was not seeking a fight with his brother-in-law, but on the contrary was apprehensive that he might be attacked by him, then the defendant, under such circumstances, would have a right to arm himself in anticipation of the assault. See Perkins on Criminal Law, at p. 48, where the author, in citing State v. Bristol, 84 P.2d 757 (Wyo. 1938), says that "[o]ne who is not in any sense seeking an encounter, but has reason to fear an unlawful attack upon his life, does not forfeit his privilege of self-defense merely by arming himself in advance." See also Gourko v. United States, 153 U.S. 183 (1894); Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271 (1894); Hochheimer, Crimes and Criminal Procedure (2nd ed.), § 344; Wharton, The Law of Homicide (3rd ed.), § 324; 30 Corpus Juris, Homicide, §§ 222 and 223; and the cases cited in 40 C.J.S., Homicide, § 120, fn. 87. And see Code (1957), Art. 27, § 36 (b), where the carrying and wearing of a concealed weapon by any person "as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" is expressly excepted from the provisions of the statute regulating concealed weapons.
On the subsidiary point that the right of the defendant to go wherever he legally had a right to go was not abridged by the fact that he might be attacked, see Barnes v. State, 93 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1957). And cf. Torrez v. State, 204 S.W. 228 (Tex. Cr. 1918), and Lett v. State, 56 So. 5 (Ala. 1911). See also 26 Am. Jur., Homicide, § 148, where it is said that "[n]o generally recognized rule of law deprives one who expects an attack to be made upon him of going places where he otherwise has a legal right to go."
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1987893/gunther-v-state/
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
The Economic Impact of the Firearm and Ammunition Industry (3 Viewers)- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
