MD HB-45 - Handgun Permits - Qualifications - Presumption and Burden of Proof

[ezliving]

MD HB-45 - Handgun Permits - Qualifications - Presumption and Burden of Proof

FOR the purpose of repealing the requirement that the Secretary of State Police base a finding that an applicant for a handgun permit has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun on an investigation; establishing a presumption that an applicant for a handgun permit has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun for the purposes of qualifying for a handgun permit; establishing that the Secretary has the burden of proving that an applicant for a handgun permit does not have a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun; and generally relating to the burden of proof for qualifications for a handgun permit.
​

http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/hb0045.htm

http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/hb/hb0045f.pdf

 

[Inigoes]

Believe it or not, this bill is a bad bill.

Delegate Smegiel's heart is in the right place, but this bill (if passed) would render Woollard moot.

The 2A needs to get away from the legislators, because they can legislate the right anyway they see fit, which is what got us in this mess in the first place.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Believe it or not, this bill is a bad bill.

Delegate Smegiel's heart is in the right place, but this bill (if passed) would render Woollard moot.

The 2A needs to get away from the legislators, because they can legislate the right anyway they see fit, which is what got us in this mess in the first place.

 

[Lightning]

Believe it or not, this bill is a bad bill.

Delegate Smegiel's heart is in the right place, but this bill (if passed) would render Woollard moot.

The 2A needs to get away from the legislators, because they can legislate the right anyway they see fit, which is what got us in this mess in the first place.

I agree totally!!!!! The Legislature is what got us into this mess...

 

[ffemtreed]

Its a step in the right direction.

I don't think it harms Woolard too much because even if the law is passed now, it doesn't change the fact that Woolards rights were violated in the past.

 

[Safetech]

Believe it or not, this bill is a bad bill.

Delegate Smegiel's heart is in the right place, but this bill (if passed) would render Woollard moot.

The 2A needs to get away from the legislators, because they can legislate the right anyway they see fit, which is what got us in this mess in the first place.

So should it be "killed"? Or should we try to "take what we can get", when ever we can get it?


(Serious question)

 

[Norton]

So should it be "killed"? Or should we try to "take what we can get", when ever we can get it?


(Serious question)

No need to get worked up over it right now. We're a looooonnng way from needing to give it any consideration.

Truthfully, this is just act one of the theater that is the general assembly.

 

[Klunatic]

Believe it or not, this bill is a bad bill.

Delegate Smegiel's heart is in the right place, but this bill (if passed) would render Woollard moot.

The 2A needs to get away from the legislators, because they can legislate the right anyway they see fit, which is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Snowballs chance in hell this would ever get past the desk drawer veto of our friend in the Senate anyway.

 

[Safetech]

Not worked up. Just curious.

 

[Inigoes]

Not worked up. Just curious.

We need a serious win in the courts.

Woollard will be the first..

Maryland will pay attention, when it pays damages for violating a civil right.

 

[EL1227]

We need a serious win in the courts.

Woollard will be the first..

Maryland will pay attention, when it pays damages for violating a civil right.

Money talks ... even when it eventually comes out of our own pockets. I think that there should be criminal penalties too, that way the polticos would REALLY pay attention.

 

[SkunkWerX]

We need a serious win in the courts.

Woollard will be the first..

Maryland will pay attention, when it pays damages for violating a civil right.

Agreed, we want a Right, not a privilege.

Whether it's the US Congress, or MD State House doing the legislating, what they giveth they can taketh away.

 

[ccmc]

What am I missing? Wouldn't language like this make Maryland shall issue?

 

[lasher9999]

What am I missing? Wouldn't language like this make Maryland shall issue?

Yes. But there are some who believe that because the right to carry is constitutional it should not require a license of any sort. Having a license or permit required is then an infringement of that right.

Unfortunately, that is even less likely to ever happen in Maryland than this bill under discussion. And this bill won't stand a chance unless the Woolard decision comes down in our favor. IMHO

 

[Elliotte]

What am I missing? Wouldn't language like this make Maryland shall issue?

I don't think so. From the way I read it (and the way I'm guessing the MSP and pols would read it) this just moves the "good and substantial reason" to the MSP. It doesn't eliminate the need for a "g&s reason", it just shifts it to the MSP to disprove, in which case they would hust say an applicabt doesn't do x, y, or z therefore they do nit have a g&s reason for a permit.

 

[mudskipper]

This bill isn't even to get out of committe anyway. They never do. Who cares?

There are exactly TWO ways that we are ever going to get carry in MD.

1) A win in the courts.

or

2) Naked bribery, a.k.a. massive campaign "donations" to various legislators from PG and B'more city. $20,000 or so each, spread around 18-20 democrats, WILL get us any carry bill we want. I am absolutely certain of this. It's even legal. $500,000 would get us carry in MD. That's 1,000 people giving $500 each. How badly do we want it? I'm in....

 

[Dogabutila]

Guys, don't call it a bad thing. Wollard has already been harmed, so this bill won't moot the case. If anything, passage of this would strengthen the argument. Multi-prong attack.

 

[Inigoes]

Guys, don't call it a bad thing. Wollard has already been harmed, so this bill won't moot the case. If anything, passage of this would strengthen the argument. Multi-prong attack.

When the legislature says it's okay, and then takes it away (which has already happened, with the current state of MD laws). Leaving the legislature/executive to say, Oops our bad!.

What needs to happen, the courts to tell the legislative/executive branches: "Hands off!"

 

[AvidRider]

What pisses me off the most is the fact that most of you won't settle for anything less than constitutional carry. Even if this bill was to pass, would our right still be infringed? Well, yes. But not to the extent that it is now. Would this bill passing make the Woollard case a moot point? Maybe. How do we know that the Woollard case is not the "Unsung Hero" that brought the legislators to consider this bill in the first place?

Even if we went to consititutional carry, they can still take away the right that we own. Nothing guarantees our country from pulling the same stunt that UK or other no longer gun toting countries have pulled in the past. (Not even our constitution) Nothing guarantees us that the government will not pull a Martial Law based on the presumption that the country has gotten out of hand.

If the legislators will give us Concealed Carry permits based on this bill, then I will take it. I much rather that the state tells me I have permission to carry for self defense, then to refuse my right because the state is legislating it.

 

[kalister1]

(Quote)Agreed, we want a Right, not a privilege.

Whether it's the US Congress, or MD State House doing the legislating, what they giveth they can taketh away.(Quote)

We all know the courts never change their minds, right? How many times does abortion come up?