It very well could be that the minutes need to be approved by r the committee before posting then online.
Last time they were posted before the next meeting. That's why I checked.
It very well could be that the minutes need to be approved by r the committee before posting then online.
Last time they were posted before the next meeting. That's why I checked.
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........
Legislative History of CR §4-203(b)(7) It appears that the State’s initial effort to regulate handgun possession was enacted in 1886. Chapter 375, Laws of Maryland 1886. That law flatly prohibited the wearing or carrying of concealed pistols by an individual who was not a “conservator of the peace,” as well as the open wearing or carrying of pistols with the intent to cause injury. The statute read:
"Every person not being a conservator of the peace entitled or required to carry such weapon as part of his official equipment, who shall wear or carry any pistol ... concealed upon or about his person, and every person who shall carry or wear any such weapon openly with the intent or purpose of injuring any person, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned not more than six months in jail or the House of Correction."
This strict prohibition did not last long, however. Eight years later, the General Assembly – noting that the law “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 selfprotection” – added a broad exception for carrying the weapon:
“as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”
Chapter 547, Laws of Maryland 1894.
That proviso persisted throughout the statute’s various iterations until 1972. In the early 1970s, handgun use resulting in death and serious injuries had risen to troubling levels in the State. In January 1972, the Governor [Marvin Mandel] submitted emergency legislation to curb “the widespread carrying of handguns on the streets and in vehicles by persons who have no legitimate reason to carry them.” Senate Bill 205 (1972); House Bill 277 (1972). The cross-filed bills proposed a permitting scheme with a variety of exceptions for groups or individuals with a legitimate need to carry handguns. An exception to the general ban was made for those holding a permit to carry a weapon, as issued by the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police according to certain criteria set forth in the statute. Other exceptions pertained to on-duty law enforcement, military, or correctional personnel; various sporting activities; and those possessing handguns in their home or place of business.
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?
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))
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!
It probably would be a good idea to RSVP to Ms. Street, too. They'll eventually pull the "You're not on the list" Jedi mind trick.
Amanda Street <astreet@dpscs.state.md.us>
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.
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?
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!
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?
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"?