It is time for Maryland to become a “Shall Issue” State.

Deacon51 · Aug 16, 2007

Currently in Maryland, the law regarding the Issuance of a permit to carry a handgun states;

Maryland Code: Public Safety Article 5-306 said:
(5) based on an investigation:
(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and
(ii) 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.

Part (ii) that is in question here, the application for a handgun permit in Maryland clearly states that in order to meet this requirement;

application for a handgun permit said:
f) Personal Protection: There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by
official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.

I propose that the Maryland General Assembly strike section Part (ii) of 5-306 from the code in it’s entirety. My reasoning is that a canceled weapon in the possession of a citizen that has passed the required background checks has no mental defect, is, of and in the act of carrying a canceled weapon, at any time, in any place a reasonable precaution against danger.

Since, no one ever knows when or where they will become the victim of a crime, I also purpose that section;

§ 5-307. Scope of permit said:
(a) In general.- A permit is valid for each handgun legally in the possession of the person to whom the permit is issued.
(b) Limitations.- The Secretary may limit the geographic area, circumstances, or times of the day, week, month, or year in which a permit is effective.

needs to be amended to remove the limitations of paragraph (b).

With these simple changes, the Secretary of State Police has the responsibility of proving a citizen should not carry a firearm. Can you think of any other instance in American law or history where the Burden of proof is in the hands of the Citizen, and not the Police?

novus collectus · Aug 16, 2007

Deacon51 said:
... Can you think of any other instance in American law or history where the Burden of proof is in the hands of the Citizen, and not the Police?

First of all, I agree, but all that and the 2nd amendment right aside, let me be a geek for a second since you asked here is another example from state law.

(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a person who transports a handgun under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection transports the handgun knowingly.

Rebuttable presumption:

Both in common law and in civil law, a rebuttable presumption (in Latin, praesumptio iuris tantum) is an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. Rebuttable presumptions in criminal law are somewhat controversial in that they do effectively reverse the presumption of innocence in some cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption

K-Romulus · Aug 16, 2007

Didn't the MD Ct of Appeals strike down the "rebuttable presumption" part of the handgun law due to somewhat recent USSC caselaw on the presumption issue? I will have to double check . . . .

novus collectus · Aug 16, 2007

K-Romulus said:
Didn't the MD Ct of Appeals strike down the "rebuttable presumption" part of the handgun law due to somewhat recent USSC caselaw on the presumption issue? I will have to double check . . . .

Please do, I find that possibility intriguing as hell. I never liked the idea of "rebuttable presumption" since the first day I learned what it meant.

gtodave · Aug 16, 2007

I know there has been a lot of lobbying for this lately, but realisticly, is there a chance of it happening anytime soon?

novus collectus · Aug 16, 2007

gtodave said:
I know there has been a lot of lobbying for this lately, but realisticly, is there a chance of it happening anytime soon?

When Ehlrich was in office it used to be. With O'Malley, it might be another three years unless he gets re-elected.
But no reason to stop the effort though. A lot of public attitude can be changed in those three years and the right elected officials in the GA in the meantime will be priceless when it comes time again.
There is also the rare chance O'Malley might sign a shall issue too, but I don't plan on winning the Lotto this week either.

Deacon51 · Aug 16, 2007

I think a good grass root effort could do it. Even with the current political landscape. It's funny, but in this very politically anti-gun State, there seems to be, in my social circle anyway, a strong leaning towards 'Shall Issue' and the RTKBA.

jpk1md · Aug 16, 2007

Deacon51 said:
I think a good grass root effort could do it. Even with the current political landscape. It's funny, but in this very politically anti-gun State, there seems to be, in my social circle anyway, a strong leaning towards 'Shall Issue' and the RTKBA.

I agree that we need to keep pushing and gaining ground...particularly in the realm of popular support but the reality while the Teflon Leprecaun is in office is that there is not a good chance....he did afterall VETO a bill that would have saved the PD millions each year by allowing old service guns to be sent back to manufacturer for credit...the bill had passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Leg and he vetoed b/c he felt that Police Guns should not have the opportunity to make their way back into public hands once they were refurbed.

:mad54:

Doesn't look like he realizes that we can buy them new as is.......

ThatIsAFact · Aug 16, 2007

additional observations on Maryland law

It is sometimes not understood what broad discretion Public Safety Article Section 5-306 actually gives to the secretary of the Maryland State Police. As quoted above, the statute provides that "the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds . . . has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun . . ." [italics added for emphasis] Although the Secretary may not issue a permit to a person who falls under any of the specific disqualifications in the statute -- e.g., a prior conviction for certain crimes unless pardoned -- he has virtually unlimited authority to decide what constitutes a "good and substantial reason."

The statute actually does not require "a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." The law provides that as one example ("such as") what constitutes a "good and substantial reason," but there can be any number of other "good and substantial reason," as determined by the Secretary.

The current requirements for notarized statements, etc., are all administrative rules that have been developed under the sweeping authority granted to the Secretary by the statute -- they could be changed administratively without new legislation.

Other sections of the law provide that denial of an application by a Secretary can be overturned by the Handgun Permit Review Board -- I think this happens rarely. But if both Secretary and Board say "no," it is generally futile to go to court, because the courts read the statute and see that the General Assembly so clearly conferred on the Secretary (and the Board) such broad discretionary authority.

Deacon51 · Aug 16, 2007

That is a Fact, ThatIsAFact... and I for one would be happy if the Security of the State Police up and decided that since the police have no legal obligation to protect the individual citizen, was in deed a good and substantial reason for a citizen to carry a weapon.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening....

And as far as I know, the review board has never over turned the Securities recommendation.

NickZac · Aug 16, 2007

We may be closer to this than we often think. At some point, people have had enough of failing gun control laws, especially after they are victimized. 19 minutes is what it takes for a police response to an emergency...a lot can happen in 19 seconds, let alone 19 minutes. One thing about public opinion is that it can and does change.

gtodave · Aug 17, 2007

Deacon51 said:
I think a good grass root effort could do it. Even with the current political landscape. It's funny, but in this very politically anti-gun State, there seems to be, in my social circle anyway, a strong leaning towards 'Shall Issue' and the RTKBA.

The current "leadership" could actually help with this....sometimes an extreme negative helps people realize what they are missing in it's presence. O'Malley may actually break the status-quo (I am trying to see the glass half-full

)

haoleboy · Aug 17, 2007

It is funny that since the USSC ruled that police do not have a legal obligation to protect the private citizen. How is it possible that they can tell us how we can and can not protect ourselves. That is the biggest thorn in my side in this sad state of MD.

I guess this is exactly what Deacon said. lol

It is time for Maryland to become a “Shall Issue” State.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Deacon51

Active Member

novus collectus

Banned

K-Romulus

Suburban Commando

novus collectus

Banned

gtodave

Member

novus collectus

Banned

Deacon51

Active Member

jpk1md

Ultimate Member

ThatIsAFact

Active Member

Deacon51

Active Member

NickZac

Ultimate Member

gtodave

Member

haoleboy

1/2 Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page