Last time they were posted before the next meeting. That's why I checked.
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:
Last time they were posted before the next meeting. That's why I checked.
mxrider
Former MSI Treasurer
And a little birdie might have pointed out that the minutes need to be approved by the committee as well as informing them that the voting needs to be done in public........
This is a shameless plug for two items I have on sale. However it is related to HPRB in that $20 discount for those who will come out to the HPRB tomorrow night to pick it up.
WTS Amazon Kindle Fire HDX, like new in box
WTS Amazon Fire Phone new in box
WTS Amazon Kindle Fire HDX, like new in box
WTS Amazon Fire Phone new in box
here's a little background on "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" from a 2013 court case on what the "confines" of a business with regards to where an employee may carry.
www.google.com/url?url=http://www.m...X8vCSU&usg=AFQjCNGyl85Wuukp1Dkok5yx4Qa5_ZRJKg
So from 1894 to 1972 was it up to the carrier to determine if they had apprehended danger, or up to the authorities to determine it after the fact if a crime occured?
was reasonable precaution that broad before 1972?
www.google.com/url?url=http://www.m...X8vCSU&usg=AFQjCNGyl85Wuukp1Dkok5yx4Qa5_ZRJKg
So from 1894 to 1972 was it up to the carrier to determine if they had apprehended danger, or up to the authorities to determine it after the fact if a crime occured?
was reasonable precaution that broad before 1972?
Nice find mister research.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Of course, this cuts against us, as the court recognizes that the 1972 law restricted the right beyond that reason. BTW, here is the citation to the case (Blue v. PG County, 434 Md. 681, 76 A.3d 1129 (2013))
so public safety 5-306 a 6 (ii) says
"has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."
so i guess my thinking is, if the "finding" of "reasonable precaution" was not up to the secretary before 1972, why is it after 1972?
meaning that if i say my reasoning is a "reasonable precaution" the secretary should accept it.
the general assembly of 1894 defined what a reasonable precaution was, ie carrying a concealed firearm, and what an apprehended danger is, ie "...those who travel in dangerous localities..." amoung others.
what was considered a "dangerous locality" in 1894?
and has the general assembly said anything since 1894 to change that?
i'd love to hear someone tear my reasoning apart.
"has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."
so i guess my thinking is, if the "finding" of "reasonable precaution" was not up to the secretary before 1972, why is it after 1972?
meaning that if i say my reasoning is a "reasonable precaution" the secretary should accept it.
the general assembly of 1894 defined what a reasonable precaution was, ie carrying a concealed firearm, and what an apprehended danger is, ie "...those who travel in dangerous localities..." amoung others.
what was considered a "dangerous locality" in 1894?
and has the general assembly said anything since 1894 to change that?
i'd love to hear someone tear my reasoning apart.
Chapter 547, Laws of Maryland 1894
CHAPTER 547.
AN ACT to amend and re-enact Section thirty (30), of Arti-
cle twenty-seven (27), of the Code of Public General Laws,
entitled "Crimes and Punishments," sub-title "Concealed
Weapons," and punishing the offense of carrying concealed
weapons.
WHEREAS, It is represented to this General Assembly that
the existing law in reference to the offense of carrying con-
cealed weapons does not make proper discrimination in favor
of those who travel in dangerous localities, or from other
imminent necessity, or prudent precaution in the presence of
threatened injury to their lives or persons, may reasonably
arm themselves for self -protection; and the law has been made
an instrument of injustice to those not deserving of punish-
ment; therefore,
Amendment.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of
Maryland, That section thirty (30), of article twenty-seven
(27) of the Code of Public General Laws, entitled "Crimes
,and Punishments," sub-title "Concealed Weapons," be and the
same is hereby amended and re-enacted so as to read as follows :
Carrying
concealed
weapons.
30. Every person not being a conservator of the peace en-
titled or required to carry such weapon as a part of his official
equipment, and not carrying such weapon as a reasonable pre-
caution against apprehended danger, who shall wear or carry
any pistol, dirk knife, bowie knife, slung shot, billy, sand club,
metal knuckles, razor or any other dangerous or deadly weapon
of any kind whatsoever (penknives excepted,) concealed upon
or about his person, and every person who shall carry or wear
any such weapon openly, with the intent or purpose of injur-
ing any person in any unlawful manner, and not for any pro-
Penalty.
per purpose of self-protection, shall, upon conviction thereof,
be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned
not more than two years in jail or in the house of correction ;
and the court or jury before whom any such case may be tried
shall in all cases have the right to judge of the reasonableness
of the carrying of any such weapon, and of the proper occa-
sion therefor, upon satisfactory proof; and in case, upon con-
viction of any offender, the court, in view of the evidence,
shall be of the opinion that such weapon was carried with the
deliberate purpose of inflicting grievous and unlawful injury
to the life or person of another, it shall in that case be the
duty of the court to impose the highest sentence of imprison-
ment hereinbefore prescribed.
Effective.
SEC. 2. And be it enacted, That this act shall take effect
from the date of its passage.
Approved April 6th, 1894.
it appears the court or jury determines the reasonableness of apprehended danger, after the fact. so shouldn't finding from courts from 1894-1972 be the guidelines the secretary uses in his "finding"?
would not any use deemed to be self defense in a court of law meet that standard?
this is the first legislative definition i've seen of reasonable precaution and apprehended danger that i've seen, and it held for 78 years. does anything redefine it better?
CHAPTER 547.
AN ACT to amend and re-enact Section thirty (30), of Arti-
cle twenty-seven (27), of the Code of Public General Laws,
entitled "Crimes and Punishments," sub-title "Concealed
Weapons," and punishing the offense of carrying concealed
weapons.
WHEREAS, It is represented to this General Assembly that
the existing law in reference to the offense of carrying con-
cealed weapons does not make proper discrimination in favor
of those who travel in dangerous localities, or from other
imminent necessity, or prudent precaution in the presence of
threatened injury to their lives or persons, may reasonably
arm themselves for self -protection; and the law has been made
an instrument of injustice to those not deserving of punish-
ment; therefore,
Amendment.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of
Maryland, That section thirty (30), of article twenty-seven
(27) of the Code of Public General Laws, entitled "Crimes
,and Punishments," sub-title "Concealed Weapons," be and the
same is hereby amended and re-enacted so as to read as follows :
Carrying
concealed
weapons.
30. Every person not being a conservator of the peace en-
titled or required to carry such weapon as a part of his official
equipment, and not carrying such weapon as a reasonable pre-
caution against apprehended danger, who shall wear or carry
any pistol, dirk knife, bowie knife, slung shot, billy, sand club,
metal knuckles, razor or any other dangerous or deadly weapon
of any kind whatsoever (penknives excepted,) concealed upon
or about his person, and every person who shall carry or wear
any such weapon openly, with the intent or purpose of injur-
ing any person in any unlawful manner, and not for any pro-
Penalty.
per purpose of self-protection, shall, upon conviction thereof,
be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned
not more than two years in jail or in the house of correction ;
and the court or jury before whom any such case may be tried
shall in all cases have the right to judge of the reasonableness
of the carrying of any such weapon, and of the proper occa-
sion therefor, upon satisfactory proof; and in case, upon con-
viction of any offender, the court, in view of the evidence,
shall be of the opinion that such weapon was carried with the
deliberate purpose of inflicting grievous and unlawful injury
to the life or person of another, it shall in that case be the
duty of the court to impose the highest sentence of imprison-
ment hereinbefore prescribed.
Effective.
SEC. 2. And be it enacted, That this act shall take effect
from the date of its passage.
Approved April 6th, 1894.
it appears the court or jury determines the reasonableness of apprehended danger, after the fact. so shouldn't finding from courts from 1894-1972 be the guidelines the secretary uses in his "finding"?
would not any use deemed to be self defense in a court of law meet that standard?
this is the first legislative definition i've seen of reasonable precaution and apprehended danger that i've seen, and it held for 78 years. does anything redefine it better?
today baltimore city police is taking a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger by cancelling all police leave on the days of the next two freddie grey hearings. it sounds like the entire city of baltinore may be a "dangerous locality". who travels there?
www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-open-meetings-board-20150829-story.html
open meetings compliance board is filled
open meetings compliance board is filled
scherr affirms snowden, but doesnt define "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger".
in snowden the plantiff argues that reasonable precaution should be view from the standpoint of the applicant. that was his mistake. 1894 criminal law clearly gives examples of "r.p.a.a.d.", like going to a dangerous locale, or reasons a judge or jury would acquit a defendant if he were to be charged under the statute. the only thing a judge or jury from 1894-1972 could convict for was intent to use that carried weapon for crime.
the legislature of 1972 had to know that when they chose the very specific and antiquated phrase "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" and recycled it into the new law, and since criminal "intent" still applies to other dangerous weapons in md, that should also still be a valid defense. ie "i am applying for a permit in compliance with the law, therefor my compliance shows i have no criminal intent".
i think the Secretary and board were meant to be a rubber stamp, unlike the board argues in s&s, existing only to put in place a speedbump between firearm carry and criminal intent, by developing a process where those willing to comply with laws (like laws barring carry with criminal intent) could be identified first, thereby labeling those carrying without permits as people with criminal intent.
prior to permitting, reasonale precaution or intent to crime was impossible to identify before a crime occured. a person with intent to crime could always use some excuse like "reasonable precaution". by making carry without a permit into a crime, no intemt needs to be proved. and those willingly complying with the law must have no criminal intent.
suddenly it makes perfect sense. but it appears, like anyone granted too much authority, over time that authority has been perverted. but if we can prove this, then we win.
anyone want to take a crack at this?
for the tl:dr crowd
my reading of the law in light of the 1894 and earlier versions, 1972 g&s was not put in place to make it hard for people to prove g&s and reasonable apprehension, but in order to make it easy to prove someone was carrying with intent to injure or unlawful activity. no permit automatically equals unlawful intent. the problem cited by the legislature and governor mandel in 1972 being handguns carried for unlawful intent, not easy access to concealed carry.
in snowden the plantiff argues that reasonable precaution should be view from the standpoint of the applicant. that was his mistake. 1894 criminal law clearly gives examples of "r.p.a.a.d.", like going to a dangerous locale, or reasons a judge or jury would acquit a defendant if he were to be charged under the statute. the only thing a judge or jury from 1894-1972 could convict for was intent to use that carried weapon for crime.
the legislature of 1972 had to know that when they chose the very specific and antiquated phrase "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" and recycled it into the new law, and since criminal "intent" still applies to other dangerous weapons in md, that should also still be a valid defense. ie "i am applying for a permit in compliance with the law, therefor my compliance shows i have no criminal intent".
i think the Secretary and board were meant to be a rubber stamp, unlike the board argues in s&s, existing only to put in place a speedbump between firearm carry and criminal intent, by developing a process where those willing to comply with laws (like laws barring carry with criminal intent) could be identified first, thereby labeling those carrying without permits as people with criminal intent.
prior to permitting, reasonale precaution or intent to crime was impossible to identify before a crime occured. a person with intent to crime could always use some excuse like "reasonable precaution". by making carry without a permit into a crime, no intemt needs to be proved. and those willingly complying with the law must have no criminal intent.
suddenly it makes perfect sense. but it appears, like anyone granted too much authority, over time that authority has been perverted. but if we can prove this, then we win.
anyone want to take a crack at this?
for the tl:dr crowd
my reading of the law in light of the 1894 and earlier versions, 1972 g&s was not put in place to make it hard for people to prove g&s and reasonable apprehension, but in order to make it easy to prove someone was carrying with intent to injure or unlawful activity. no permit automatically equals unlawful intent. the problem cited by the legislature and governor mandel in 1972 being handguns carried for unlawful intent, not easy access to concealed carry.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,252
But didn't the court of appeals then refer back to the "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" principle which is what negates the arguments the MSP have been using for denial? I am very confused!
blue vs prince Georges only deals with the difference between a business owner and property owned or leased, and authorized employees and what is the "confines of an establishment". i dont see blue vs prince as a negative towards permitting, only a reference to an obscure history of carry law that was previously lost to me.
mxrider
Former MSI Treasurer
Yup, I'll be at this one even though it is going to make it a rough day/night. Work from 7am-3:30pm, drive straight to meeting, meeting from 6-8ish, drive straight to work in Bethesda and work till 6am. Gonna be a fun one!
So basically the MSP has been pulling their process and application of the law out of their asses. How do we combat 40+ years of "precedence"?
in court?
with a 121 year older precedent and definition. this is something the members of the hprb could run with, and something the secretary of state police could cite. and they would be within their authority, and actually following the law for once.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Awareness/Mindset/Q&A get together with Bob "Ninja" Porras. Delta/CIA guy. Thursday April 18,2024 (2 Viewers)
- Latest: 4g64loser
-
-
-
