history: "Reasonable precaution against apprehended danger"

[Jaybeez]

I am not a lawyer.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the meaning, history, and application of the phrase "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" in md law.

Everyone should be familiar with this phrase found in MD wear and carry permit law.

MD law public safety 5-306

(a) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds:

(6) based on an investigation:

(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.

MSP and a former HPRB stated in Snowden what they "think" (key word) reasonable precaution against apprehended danger means:

WeaponsPermits to carry guns For purposes of determining whether gun permit applicant has “good and substantial reason” to carry handgun, criterion of “apprehended danger” is not to be viewed from subjective standpoint of applicant. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36E(a).
The appellant suggests that the phrase “reasonable precaution against apprehended **298 danger” is the sole criterion for defining “good and substantial reason.” He urges that “apprehended danger” is to be viewed from the subjective standpoint of the applicant. Relying on that premise as true, he then states that since a reasonable mind “could not reasonably conclude that Mr. Snowden is not apprehensive of danger,” the Board lacked substantial evidence to deny a permit. If we accept Snowden's reasoning there would never be a time when a lawful person, fearful of his safety, would be denied a permit to carry a gun. Any vague threat would be sufficient to cause apprehension and, thus, the right to have a permit to carry a handgun. We think the phrase “good and substantial reason,” as used in Md.Ann.Code art. 27, s 36E(a)(6), means something more than personal anxiety over having one's name connected publicly with anti-drug and anti-crime activities. It means, we believe, something more than the concern the individual may have because he has been told by another, that she heard some unidentified men threatening to harm the applicant if he journeys to Meade Village. The statute makes clear that it is the Board not the applicant, that decides whether there is “apprehended danger” to the applicant. If the Act were read as Mr. Snowden would have the court read it, there would be no necessity for a review by the Board. Each person could decide for himself or herself that he or she was in danger. The State Police would become a “rubber stamp” agency for the purpose of handing out handgun permits. The carefully considered legislation would be rendered absolutely meaningless insofar as the control of handguns is concerned.

In Scherr

Scherr also maintains that the Review Board’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and not based on substantial evidence because, allegedly, the decision was based “largely . . . upon the testimony of Detective Sergeant Galloway,” who testified that he would issue a permit only if he thought the applicant faced a level of danger that was higher than the level “the average person would encounter.” According to Scherr, because Detective Sergeant Galloway admitted he had made up this “danger encountered by an average person” standard, the entire gun permit application process was arbitrary and capricious.

Neither of these cases truely addressed "reasonable precaution" and its history.

In 1886 the md legislature passed a law banning carry by anyone that wasnt a "conservator of the peace". that ban only lasted 8 years.

Chapter 375, Laws of Maryland 1886.
"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."

8 years later in 1894 the legislature revisited the law and coined the term "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger". the law gives a very specific reason for the change, and places "reasonable precaution" as an affirmative defense against the ban between the bookends of "travel to dangerous localities" and what would be found to be an unlawful use of a weapon by a judge or jury, ie lawful use.

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

reasonable precaution against apprehended danger remained a staple of md law for nearly a century. in 1972 the legislature stripped firearms from the dangerous weapon carry law and drafted the wear and carry permit law. they also recycled "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" into wear amd carry permit law, but it stayed an affirmative defense to carry a dangerous weapon other than a firearm in md law for almost another 20 years. the 1894 definition of and reasoning behind "reasonable precaution" co existed with wear and carry in md law. in 1973, the year after wear and carry was enacted, anyone with a question about what reasonable precaution meant, could see it plainly in the dangerous weapons law. Prior to 1972, it was defined by the 1894 law and i believe case law. everyone in the legislature in 1972 knew that reasonable precaution against apprehended danger had a very specific and legally defined meaning, and that it why it was recycled into the new law.

a little history on how the term reasonable precaution made it into the 1972 law, from a momentarily unnamed AAG letter

The handgun permit requirement was initially enacted by Chapter 13, Laws of Maryland 1972, as Article 27 , $ 368(a)(6), As introduced, on January Il ,1972, Senate Bill 205 required that an applicant for a handgun permit have "in the judgment of the Superintendent,l good and substantial reason to wear, carry) or transport a handgun," In a letter from Samuel Dash, Professor atLaw at Georgetown University dated January 21, 1972, the Task Force on the Administrative Justice expressed concern that the bill provided no real criteria to the Superintendent, and were vague enough to permit him to withhold or grant permits in a discriminatory manner. The Task Force expressly suggested that the Superintendent "be given more specific guidelines concerning who should be permitted to carry a handgun than is provided by the broad language of 'has good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun."'2
The Maryland and District of Columbia Rifle and Pistol Association also addressed the language of the provision, suggesting, in a letter dated February 2,I972, that if the broad discretion was to be retained, permits should be issued by the clerks of court based on an investigation by the State Police rather than by the Superintendent. They also recommended that the determination of a good and substantial reason be based on the "results of investigation," rather than the judgment of the Superintendent, and that the provision require, rather than permit, the issuance of the permit if the statutory requirements were met. The bill was reported out by the Judicial Proceedings Committee two days later with l7 amendments, one of which changed may to shall as requested, Amendment 14, Senate Journal at274. Amendment 15 added a requirement that the permit be issued "within a reasonable time." Id. The f,rnal relevant Senate amendment was a floor amendment from Senator Bauman, which added the phrase "provided, however, that the phrase 'good and substantial reason' as used herein shall be deemed to include the statement by any applicant under this section that such permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." Senate Journal at 439-440. Thus, in the third reader version of the bill as it was sent to the House, $ 36E(a)(6) provided: 36E(a) A permit to carry a handgun may SHALL be issued WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME by the Superintendent of the Maryland Stqte Police, upon application under oath therefor, îo any person whom he finds: (6) has in the judgment of the Superintendent good and substantial reason to wear, corry, or transport a handgzn, PROVIDED, HOV/EVER, THAT THE PHRASE "GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REASON" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE THE STATEMENT BY ANY APPLICANT UNDER THIS SECTION THAT SUCH A PE,RMIT IS NECESSARY AS A REASONABLE PRECAUTION AGAINST APPREHENDED DANGER. Had that language been retained, the provision would have dehned "good and substantial reason" to include any person who asserted a need for self-defense. The House, however, added two amendments to the paragraph, both of which were concurred in by the Senate. The first of these deleted the phrase "the statement by any applicant under this section," and replaced it with "a finding," Senate Journal at 1004, which would indicate that the intent was that an actual necessity must be shown, rather than a generalized desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The second struck the phrase "in the judgment of the Superintendent," and substituted "based on the results of investigation," as earlier requested by the Maryland and District of Columbia Rifle and Pistol Association. Senate Journal 1007. This provision also reflects the intent that the necessity of the

permit be examined as a factual matter Thus, as enacted, Article 27, $ 368(a)(6) provided: (a) A permit to carry a handgun may SHALL be issued WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME by the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, upon application under oath thereþr, to any person whom he finds: (6) has i , BASED ON THE RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION, good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun: , PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PHRASE "GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REASON" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED TO I}{CLUDE A FINDING THAT SUCH PERMIT IS NECESSARY AS A REASONABLE PRECAUTION AGAINST APPREHENDED DANGER. The current form of the provision is "new language derived without substantive change from former Article 27, $ 368(a)(l) through (6) and the hrst and third clauses of (a)." Revisor's Note to $ 5-306, Public Safety Article (2003 Volume). As a result, it is my view that the current language requires a showing of an actual need for a permit as opposed to a generalized desire for self-defense. This is the precise meaning that has been given to the provision by courts that have considered the issue.

it's only an opinion letter, and you know what they say about opinions... but it does explain a little history, and maybe digging into that record is something worthwhile. remember, "judgement of the superintendant" was struck and replaced with "a finding". "a finding" could be prior case law, or an investigation that the applicant falls somewhere between "dangerous localities" and "criminal intent"? either way, reasonable precaution remained defined at the time and had been clearly defined for 78 years.

finally i'm going to present the most recent pre 1972 case law that i can find that deals with reasonable precaution against apprehended danger, Gunther v State md 1962
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1987893/gunther-v-state/
Gunther decided to carry a rifle to his sister in laws house. He shot and killed his violent brother in law. his rifle was found to be a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

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.

 

[Jaybeez]

a new defintion for apprehended danger was released in a standard operating procedure document published by msp on 9/1/2015
http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organizati...essing of Handgun Permit Applications (1).pdf

.03 Definitions APPREHENDED DANGER/FEAR: an objectively established concern that the applicant’s life is in danger or that he/she is being targeted by individuals wishing to do him or her harm

snip

PERSONAL PROTECTION: a good and substantial reason for the wearing, carrying or transporting of a handgun for an individual who is at significant risk of danger from another individual(s) and where the individual’s apprehended fear of reprisal is based on more than his/her personal anxiety and beyond that of the average citizen that he is being targeted by individuals wishing to him harm.

snip

1. Personal Protection: Copies of documented evidence that the applicant’s life is in imminent danger or is currently being targeted by individuals wishing to do the applicant harm. Documents may include, but may not be limited to, police reports, sworn affidavit from third party individuals with first-hand knowledge of the threats, or Orders of Protection. Temporary Protective/Peace Orders are not, in of itself, sufficient documentation.

HPRB policy and procedure pdf:
https://www.dpscs.state.md.us/agencies/HPRBpoicyiesandprocedures.pdf

excerpts:

POLICIES & PROCEDURES OF THE HANDGUN PERMIT REVIEW BOARD The Review Board’s policies are established by Maryland statute, as interpreted by Maryland court decisions. The Board, comprised of five private citizens appointed by the Governor, is vested with authority to hear appeals and -- when appropriate -- to overrule the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police (the MSP) in instances where a permit to carry a handgun is denied or limited by the Superintendent. A quorum (3 members) is required to be present to hold a hearing. A majority of voting members present is required to take action on the decision of the MSP. Board Procedures Testimony is taken under oath, and the MSP bears the burden of proof. In each case, a representative of the MSP is called to testify to a) the type of permit applied for, b) the results of the MSP investigation, and c) the conclusions and ruling by the Superintendent. The applicant is permitted to question that witness with respect to the MSP findings of fact, and members of the Board may likewise ask questions.

Legal Standards. The principles which guide the MSP as well as the Board are established in Maryland law. Sections 5-301 through 5-314 of the Public Safety Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland state the basic requirements for a permit: namely, that the applicant must be 18 years of age, not convicted of a crime or drug offense, not an addict, etc. Additionally the statute requires that an applicant have a good and substantial reason to carry or transport a weapon and that the applicant has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may render him or her a danger to others. a) Required positive finding – Every applicant must prove a “good and substantial reason” for a handgun permit, including a “finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Interpretation of these statutory concepts by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Snowden vs. Handgun Permit Review Board, 45 Md. App. 464, 413 A.2d 295, cert. denied, 288 Md. 742 (1980) requires an objective rather than an individual or subjective, assessment of the risk. The discretion granted by the court requires the MSP, and the Board on appeal, to weigh that risk based on the facts of the case, seeking to determine whether the applicant’s reasonable “apprehension of danger” is substantially different from that experienced by other citizens in the same community. b) Negative finding warranting denial – The MSP is guided by the statutory provision which prohibits the granting of a permit to applicants exhibiting a propensity for violence or instability. Therefore, in the past, permits have been denied not only to persons with a criminal record, but also to applicants with a history of family or domestic violence, prior misuse of firearms, or documented breaches of the peace. However, each case is decided based on the facts of that specific case.

 

[BeoBill]

Good posting. I sincerely hope the MSP LD and HPRB see it.

 

[Jaybeez]

let me start with an easy question. what is a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger according to the 1894 law? What is not? And when and how and by whom did that definition change?

 

[BigT5g]

Great thread. Subscribed thank you!

 

[JamesH]

I've often wondered about this myself. It's interesting to see the history of the legislative intent in the phrase.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Our second amendment is really not hard to understand so somebody tell our wannabe rulers that we the people are the only ones who can decide when we have a “good and substantial reason” to carry a gun.

 

[BigT5g]

Our second amendment is really not hard to understand so somebody tell our wannabe rulers that we the people are the only ones who can decide when we have a “good and substantial reason” to carry a gun.

 

[Uncle Duke]

Our second amendment is really not hard to understand so somebody tell our wannabe rulers that we the people are the only ones who can decide when we have a “good and substantial reason” to carry a gun.

This^^^

"Good and substantial" needs to go. In addition, as that clause presently stands, anyone in a position of authority who would look at today's society and then suggest that there isn't good and substantial reason to carry is either a liar or a fool. I have no room for either when it comes to their desire to dictate my choices in this matter.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

The preamble to the 1894 amendment stated:
"WHEREAS, It is represented to this General Assembly that the existing law in reference to the offense of carrying concealed 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 punishment . . . ."Acts of 1894, ch. 547. Accordingly, those who carried weapons "as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" were excepted by the 1894 amendments. Id.; see Art. 27, § 36(d). The court or jury decides the reasonableness of carrying a weapon "under the evidence in the case."

Anderson v. State 328 Md 426 (1992) at page 432

Also see Crawford v. State 308 Md 683 (1987) that discusses the 1972 amendments:

A review of § 36B's history is essential. Prior to the section's enactment, prohibitions on the possession of a handgun were controlled by Maryland Code (1957, 1971 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 36. 2@ Section 36(a) prohibited any person from carrying a weapon, including a pistol, concealed on his person or openly with the intent to injure. Subsection (b) created an exception from the prohibition for officers of the government and persons carrying weapons "as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."
In 1972, the General Assembly enacted strong handgun control legislation. 1972 Md.Laws, ch. 13. The impetus for the reform was the legislature's recognition that there had been a dramatic increase in the number of crimes perpetrated with handguns and a concommitant increase in the number of deaths and injuries caused by persons carrying handguns on the streets who were "inclined to use them in criminal activity."@ Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 36B(a)(i)-(ii). As part of the more stringent regulation, the legislature removed the prohibition on carrying handguns from § 36(a) and placed it in the newly created § 36B(b). 3@ Section 36B(b) sets forth a blanket rule that prohibits any person from carrying, whether open or concealed, any handgun. Subsection (c) of § 36B specifically sets forth the exceptions to subsection (b). 4@ Individuals who may lawfully carry handguns include law enforcement personnel, persons with permits, persons transporting handgunsfor legitimate purposes, and persons on their own property. Conspicuously absent from subsection (c) is an exception for carrying a handgun "as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."@ The legislature did not carry over this exception from § 36(c) and instead created § 36E, 5 which requires any person wishing to carry a handgun to apply for a permit from the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. A permit will be issued when there is a "good and substantial reason," including when it "is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."@ Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 36E(a)(6).
It is clear that the 1972 handgun control legislation is designed to discourage and punish the possession of handguns on the streets and public ways. The legislature determined that if a citizen is apprehensive of impending danger, his recourse is not to immediately arm himself, but instead to seek help from the State -- by applying for a permit to carry a gun or, of course, by contacting the police for protection. Thus, by controlling the number of handguns in the public, and not permitting citizens to carry guns when there is time for alternative, safe action, the legislature sought to "preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens."@ Id. § 36B(a)(iv). As we see it, the 1972 handgun control legislation does not address the unexpected and sudden circumstance when an individual is threatened with present, impending danger to his life or limb and as a consequence has no time to seek other protection. Furthermore, we cannot accept the contention that, in such circumstances, the General Assembly intended that the individual should succumb to his attacker and possibly forfeit his life rather than take possession of a handgun and act in self-defense. We find it entirely reasonable and consistent with § 36B's legislative purpose to conclude that when an individual finds himself in sudden, imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm, or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such danger, and without preconceived design on his part a handgun comes into his possession, he may temporarily possess the weapon for a period no longer than the necessity or apparent necessity requires him to use it in self-defense. We therefore hold that necessity may be a defense to the charge of unlawful possession of a handgun.

So the definition of reasonable precaution as it was inserted into the permit statute is the same as the original reasonable precaution language from 1894 concealed weapons statute.

 

[Jaybeez]

charlie, i see from my research into cases that the main problem prior to 1972 was determining criminal intent prior to an actuall crime. after 1972, it became simple, carrying with out a permit became a crime, no need to prove further criminal intent.

actually committing a crime prior to 72, or committing a crime with a permit after 72, is still punishable by other laws.

the permit just removes discretion. no permit = criminal intent. permit = no criminal intent. that's how i understand the change.

so he subjectiveness of the secretary should be tossed out. if an applicant can provide a reason, and those reasons are not criminal, rpaad should apply. if the applicant goes on to commit a crime with the permit, he permit does not absolve them of that crime. if anything the new training requirement ensures applicants are knowledgeable in what is or is not a crime, since law is a major portuon of it. the secretary's only standard shoud be "is this reason criminal intent" or "is it something a judge or jury found to be criminal intent over the last 121 years"? the secretary takes the place of the judge and jury in a "pre crime" hearing, but the definition of what is a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger stays the same as 1894.

 

[Jaybeez]

crawford v state, wow

unexpected "necessity" being a defense is huge. unexpected "necessity" is an affirmative defense and falls under "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger", therefor "unexpected necessity" should be a g&s to the secretary.

boom. headshot. nice find charlie.

 

[redeemed.man]

Anderson v. State 328 Md 426 (1992) at page 432

Also see Crawford v. State 308 Md 683 (1987) that discusses the 1972 amendments:



So the definition of reasonable precaution as it was inserted into the permit statute is the same as the original reasonable precaution language from 1894 concealed weapons statute.

Want to do my hearing when I request a complete removal of my restrictions? PM me a fee, if you would beer interested. I would definitely be interested in going in with representation.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[dblas]

This^^^

"Good and substantial" needs to go. In addition, as that clause presently stands, anyone in a position of authority who would look at today's society and then suggest that there isn't good and substantial reason to carry is either a liar or a fool. I have no room for either when it comes to their desire to dictate my choices in this matter.

Please start reading what this thread is about, we are trying to crowdsource information on Reasonable Precaution Against Apprehended Danger. At some point in time after 1972, the definition has been perverted by MSP to one that they use today, as opposed to what it was meant to be in state statute.

There are plenty of other threads to bemoan G&S in, please do it there, and please try not to muck up this thread with useless banter that does not advance the discussion on RPAAD.

 

[mxrider]

crawford v state, wow

unexpected "necessity" being a defense is huge. unexpected "necessity" is an affirmative defense and falls under "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger", therefor "unexpected necessity" should be a g&s to the secretary.

boom. headshot. nice find charlie.

Not disagreeing, but think you need to include the full text of the opinion.

We find it entirely reasonable and consistent with § 36B's legislative purpose to conclude that when an individual finds himself in sudden, imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm, or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such danger, and without preconceived design on his part a handgun comes into his possession, he may temporarily possess the weapon for a period no longer than the necessity or apparent necessity requires him to use it in self-defense.

So with the above, you happen to come into possession of a handgun after the threat of imminent danger of loss of life, you may then use "Necessity" as a defense.

I truly like where this is heading, but need to be careful that we don't just take snippets of this out of context.

IANAL by any means! Just someone that is intrigued..

 

[Mike]

In the interest of trying to add some additional historical perspective, I believe the 1972 law change was a result of the George Wallace assassination attempt in May 1972. If correct, the GA sure did act fast to "curb gun violence on the streets of Maryland". = fail

 

[Mike]

Not disagreeing, but think you need to include the full text of the opinion.



So with the above, you happen to come into possession of a handgun after the threat of imminent danger of loss of life, you may then use "Necessity" as a defense.

I truly like where this is heading, but need to be careful that we don't just take snippets of this out of context.

IANAL by any means! Just someone that is intrigued..

How is the weapon going to materialize in your possession when needed, if you are not permitted to carry one any time you feel the need?

 

[vgplayer]

I am curious to what was the impetus for the Chapter 375, Laws of Maryland 1886.

 

[mxrider]

How is the weapon going to materialize in your possession when needed, if you are not permitted to carry one any time you feel the need?

and without preconceived design on his part a handgun comes into his possession,

I don't know, but that is what I read this to say. Such as a criminal drops a handgun and you end up with it in your possession????

 

[Brooklyn]

How is the weapon going to materialize in your possession when needed, if you are not permitted to carry one any time you feel the need?

How would you be charged with possesion based solely on reports of what occurred after the threat materialised?

Its a defense against possestion resulting from lawful use..nothing more as I see it.

But the indications for G&S are interesting.....