Raineman
On the 3rd box
For the record, the Dunkin Donut holes and coffee were provided by PTP training who testified on many bills today.
Thanks guys
Thanks guys
GUN BILL HEARINGS SCHEDULED - 2A MARYLAND - 2018 SESSION INFORMATION
- Thread starter 2A Maryland
- 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:
Job well done. Safe ride home for everyone.
Just got home and poured myself a glass of rye. It will have to take the place of supper.
It was indeed a long day, but worth every second. Very little is required of us as citizens, but doing this—standing up and defending our Constitution against all enemies—is one of them.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to be there today!
It was indeed a long day, but worth every second. Very little is required of us as citizens, but doing this—standing up and defending our Constitution against all enemies—is one of them.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to be there today!
Just got home as well.
It was my first time ever going to such a hearing and though I didn’t testify being there since 11:30am was very educational.
NRA-ILA, MSI, MSR&PA, AGC, and other pro-2A testimonials were fantastic to listen to. I am humbled by the speaking and reasoning skills of so many in this community who gave logical and rational arguments in support of pro-2A.
As the proceedings ended and people were making their way out, at least two delegates noted that I was in the gallery (and did not give spoken testimony) but thanked me for showing up all day and staying until the end.
That’s a strong lesson for me that our presence does matter and gets noticed.
It was my first time ever going to such a hearing and though I didn’t testify being there since 11:30am was very educational.
NRA-ILA, MSI, MSR&PA, AGC, and other pro-2A testimonials were fantastic to listen to. I am humbled by the speaking and reasoning skills of so many in this community who gave logical and rational arguments in support of pro-2A.
As the proceedings ended and people were making their way out, at least two delegates noted that I was in the gallery (and did not give spoken testimony) but thanked me for showing up all day and staying until the end.
That’s a strong lesson for me that our presence does matter and gets noticed.
- Dec 13, 2015
- 1,940
Felt there was no need to pile on. It seemed unfair, so I just sat up front and reminded them that the pro 2A folks were still here while the moms were already home in bed.
- Dec 13, 2015
- 1,940
- Dec 13, 2015
- 1,940
Fair enough. You sound like you've got some good ideas. You are welcome to join us at mission barbecue at 6pm on dock st in Annapolis this coming Monday evening. Have dinner with some lime minded individuals and learn what you can do for the 2A, then exercise your 1A rights for an hour near lawyers mall.
You can't miss us, we smell like patriots.
- Dec 13, 2015
- 1,940
Lime minded......
Well that IS how I feel after sitting for 14 hours.
Well that IS how I feel after sitting for 14 hours.
- Dec 13, 2015
- 1,940
Just got home and poured myself a glass of rye. It will have to take the place of supper.
It was indeed a long day, but worth every second. Very little is required of us as citizens, but doing this—standing up and defending our Constitution against all enemies—is one of them.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to be there today!
Thanks for stepping up natboh -- everyone else too.
I even got a chance to have civil words with moon and anderson in the hallway.
The time invested was well worth the effort to, if not change minds yet, at least get them to see that golly, maybe there's something to what those gun folks are saying.
Just got home. To recap, helped fight anti freedom bills, got to call a politician an idiot in a brand new way, got lectured by 3 people to play nice with idiots, stood alongside a fellow patriot as he got his 1st Amendment rights trampled by a peon with an overinflated sense of self worth and got kicked out of the hearing room.
Great day! To the new guys, come on out and join in the fun!
Great day! To the new guys, come on out and join in the fun!
Best testimony for removing G&S I've heard in 5 years.
I'm ok. Here's my full written testimony. It's got a little more than the 2 minute oral version.
HB 647
Public Safety - Permit to Carry, Wear, or Transport a Handgun - Qualifications
Clarifying that personal protection or self-defense can qualify as a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun for purposes of the issuance by the Secretary of State Police of a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun.
Sponsored by: Delegate Reilly
House Judiciary Hearing 3/06/2018 at 1:00 p.m
MD law public safety 5-306 (a) reads the following:
Quote:
“(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.”
What is a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger? To understand its meaning we must travel backward in MD law 123 years. In 1894 the legislature revisited MD law on carrying weapons and coined the term "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger". The law gives a very specific reason for the change, and places "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" as an affirmative defense to carry. It justifies overturning MD’s short lived complete ban on carrying arms, by stating the ban discriminated against those that travel to dangerous localities, and called the law "an instrument of injustice against those that may need to arm themselves" as a “prudent precaution in the presence of threatened injury to their lives or persons”, and that they “may reasonably arm themselves for self -protection;”. Or in layman's terms personal protection and self defense.
Furthermore,
Quote:
“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 proper 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.”
(Chapter 547, Laws of Maryland 1894 Approved April 6th, 1894)
So what does this mean? It means that reasonable precaution against apprehended danger has always been about self defense and personal protection, for all lawful purposes, and that reasonable precaution ended at criminal or deliberate intent to act unlawfully or commit a crime.
This interpretation of reasonable precaution against apprehended danger is still used today in MD law criminal 4-101 (b) 4 , providing that
“(4) an individual who carries the weapon [other than a handgun] as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger, subject to the right of the court in an action arising under this section to judge the reasonableness of the carrying of the weapon, and the proper occasion for carrying it, under the evidence in the case.”
This exempts a person from the prohibition on carrying a dangerous weapon as long as their conduct is lawful and for self defense or personal protection, and not a criminal or offensive purpose.
So what caused MD to change it’s law on carrying handguns in 1972, after 78 years? One factor may have been the passage of the federal gun control act of 1968, which prohibited the possession of firearms by anyone with a criminal record, or certain other prohibiting factors. And at that time the technology didn’t exist for law enforcement to instantly check a persons’ status via identification and a computerized records check.
Another factor was the MD legislature’s desire to pass a “stop and frisk” law. The package of bills proposed and passed in 1972 had 3 portions, the wear and carry law we are discussing today, sentencing for violation of carry law and repeat offenders, and a bill allowing police to “stop and frisk” anyone they suspected of illegally carrying a weapon. While debate in the committees generally focused on the wording of the wear and carry law, debate in the full house and senate bodies focused on the stop and frisk portion of the bill. In the end, md law criminal 4-203 carrying without a permit, and md law criminal 4-206 “stop and frisk” were passed together as emergency legislation. We can see today in Baltimore city what the consequence of this emergency legislation has become. It was called racist by the delegates of the day in 1972 (Washington Post, March 16 1972, “Handgun Control bill passed by Md. House), and just over a decade ago it was used in part to arrest and incarcerate over 100,000 city residents per year under Mayor O’Malley.
Making carry with out a permit illegal justified the stop and frisk searches. They couldn’t legalize stop and frisk without first criminalizing the once lawful behavior of carrying for self defense and personal protection.
What remained a component in the law, even through the debate in both committees and both chambers, was the phrase “reasonable precaution against apprehended danger” and its 78 years of case law and precedent. And according to the legislative archive, this phrase was debated heavily in committee, with several alternatives proposed. I contend that because of its historical of precedent, the lawmakers of the day decided to recycle that phrase into the new law. Being lawmakers and experts on the law themselves, reasonable precaution against apprehended danger was clear in meaning to them. Today that phrase in antiquated, and interpreted in a vastly different manner, or ignored completely.
An example of pre 1972 precedent dealing with reasonable precaution against apprehended danger is Gunther v State (md 1962). Gunther found that the defendant’s lawful desire for self defense and personal protection, and lack of intent to commit criminal activity, absolved him from criminal charges under the 1894 law.
“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.”
Even after the law was passed, the historical definition of reasonable precaution against apprehended danger was observed in use. In a Washington Post article Dated October 2nd 1972, titled “Maryland Gun Law Has Caused Little Stir in First 6 Months”, the trooper overseeing the permit department is quoted.
Quote
“ “Det. Sgt. Rocco Gabriel,, head of the state police-department’s handgun permit unit, said the most frequent reason applicants have been rejected is that they have not met the law’s requirement that they show a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a handgun.
The law also states that a person cannot qualify unless he considers a handgun “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”
Thus, Gabriel said someone frightened about carrying $50 with him might qualify to carry a handgun, while another person who calmly carrier a much larger amount of money would not. He added that one 6-foot-9, 350-pound applicant said he needed to carry a handgun because he’s “scared to death.” “
Clearly we can see personal protection and self defense being acceptable in applications in this statement, through the use of the phrase reasonable precaution against apprehended danger. We also see there is no distinction made between business owners and members of the general public, nor any reference to specific threats or assumed risk. Merely a reference to an applicant’s own articulation of fear, and a desire for personal protection and self defense.
In 1972 the state police licensing division had its hand’s full. An investigation of an applicant, as required by the law, was no easy feat. Fax machines didn’t exist at the time. Email was merely science fiction. Central records and computerized databases, where a trooper could find criminal records, hadn’t been conceived of yet. Troopers had to make phone calls, write letters, and conduct extensive interviews to even know where to inquire in an attempt to locate records. Today however, much of that research is accomplished with a few key strokes on state and federal databases. But as the job became easier via computers and records, investigators delved deeper in to tangential issues and unrelated circumstances. These investigations, unrelated to personal protection, self defense, or reasonable precaution against apprehended danger, have turned into “good and substantial” witch hunts, costing the state tens of thousands of man hours in valuable public safety research and investigation every year. The waste of resources investigating “good and substantial” reasons, while purposefully ignoring the historical definition of reasonable precaution against apprehended danger, and substituting a “made up” definition (Sherr v handgun review board), diverts resources away from actual criminal investigations, and on to investigations of law abiding citizens and their business records and professional licenses.
For the above reasons stated, personal protection and self defense are already part of the antiquated phrase “reasonable precaution against apprehended danger”, and were the legislative intent of the law in 1972. The language due to its age of 123 years needs to be updated for clarity, as no other gun law or regulation in MD has stood for 45 years, much less 128 years without being altered. I urge a favorable report on this bill.
Not so much a team sport as much as it is the ability to build off of each other's testimony while making your testimony as personal to you and your situation(s) as possible. We also work together to tear down the other side's arguments with stats and fact on the any-gun bills, by doing the same.
At a minimum, come on out and watch from the gallery seats in the committee room to get an even better feel for how things run.
Thank you for showing up and providing support for the cause, I am betting that you did provide testimony (though you didn't realize it) if you stood up in support of a couple of bills later in the night.
LOL, the only thing that would have made that better is if we could have gotten you together with Vinnie.
- Nov 6, 2015
- 236
No, because it's not a mass shooting when the good guy takes out the shooter and prevents Mass killing, right?
- Nov 6, 2015
- 236
No, because it's not a mass shooting when the good guy takes out the shooter and prevents Mass killing, right?
As long as you weren't rude, I approve of all your actions.
Kudos and huzzahs to all who 'ran the marathon' down in 'Infringementville' yesterday.
snakep
Ultimate Member
To all the folks who brought the fight directly to Annapolis...thank you...heroes all.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Looking for used guns, optics, and parts, give us a call!- Started by SandSGunsSOMD
- Replies: 0
-
Looking for used guns, optics, and parts, give us a call!
- Started by SandSGunsSOMD
- Replies: 0
-