MSI written testimony on Campus Carry Ban

MJD438 said:

Simple answer from my time in dealing with the MGA, per the current majority leadership, yes...the goal is to criminalize firearms possession in any way possible, thereby assuring that no one is allowed to have firearms.

Click to expand...

fidelity said:

I was playing this in the background earlier. I think Mark meant that he didn't want "illegal" guns on campus because he quickly made the point that the legislation would prevent people legally allowed to carry (law enforcement officers, federal agents off duty, CCP holders, etc) on campus and thus endanger students in case there was a rampage killer.

He left off the word "illegal" but I think it's what he meant based on the rest of his statement. He did however acknowledge that there are existing campus policies in MD that forbid students from bringing guns on campus - just none that are this broad and that result in federal penalties.

As a side note, aren't there shooting teams on various college campuses? How would this legislation affect these sports?

Click to expand...

hitwtom said:

Isn't it Federal property?

Click to expand...

montoya32 said:

This is not criticism aimed at anyone here, but this is why creating bills to solve a problem that does not exist is an issue. They inevitably have conflicts and cannot possible cover every scenario. Illegally possessing a firearm(prohibited person) is already a crime. Committing a crime with a firearm already carries an additional penalty. Colleges already have policy regarding the possession of firearms on their campuses.

If I tell you that you are not allowed to carry in my store and post it, you must leave or be charged with trespassing. Why do we need a law that states the same? Just to create another class of prohibited people?

Click to expand...

Norton said:

It's a college in Maryland. Is there a specific exception for it?

I'll admit that I haven't read this bill, but the previous versions of it that I testified in my official capacity made no specific exceptions.

Click to expand...

Norton said:

It's a college in Maryland. Is there a specific exception for it?

I'll admit that I haven't read this bill, but the previous versions of it that I testified in my official capacity made no specific exceptions.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Correct. Barnes (the bill's sponsor) was playing games. The question is not whether guns should be on campus as all MD colleges bar unauthorized possession. The question is whether you criminalize it and whether you also bar possession by LEOs and permit holders. Here is the letter I just sent to the Committee along those lines. I had to restrain myself.

Click to expand...

Dear Chair McIntosh:

The undersigned orally testified and submitted written testimony on House Bill 159 at the hearing conducted on January 31, 2017. A number of questions arose during the question and answer session that require further response.

First, the question posed by this Bill is not whether guns belong on campus. All Maryland institutions already bar the unauthorized possession of firearms on campus. Rather, the question is really whether the State should set aside the role of the college administrators and severely criminalize such possession without so much as imposing mens rea requirement as an element of the offense. Respectfully, this Committee’s expertise over educational matters does not extend to these fundamentally important questions of criminal law. See, e.g., Garnett v. State, 332 Md. 571, 577‐78, 632 A.2d 797, 800 (1993) (“The requirement that an accused have acted with a culpable mental state is an axiom of criminal jurisprudence.”).

Second, there was much discussion at the hearing about preventing suicides among young students. Yet, suicide is a mental health issue, not a criminal issue. Students with thoughts of suicide need help from college administrators and mental health professionals, not a criminal conviction punishable with three years in prison. In any event, this Bill does far more than ban possession by students. Rather, it bans possession by any “person” anywhere on any college “property” (including farms and commercial property). The Bill thus disarms off‐duty federal and state law enforcement officers and fully trained persons who have demonstrated to the Maryland State Police that they possess a good and substantial reason to be armed for purposes of Wear and Carry Permit. Disarming these individuals simply cannot be rationally justified as a means of preventing suicide by students. Indeed, such disarmament effectively will prevent these off‐duty law enforcement personnel from helping to protect college students, faculty and employees from violent crime while these officers may be on campus. That result is senseless. Federal and state law enforcement officers carry firearms off‐ duty for good reasons and those reasons are beyond the purview of this Committee.

Third, in response to questions, the sponsor of the Bill assured the Committee that convictions for otherwise innocent possessions would not be a problem because prosecutors will take that into account in deciding whether to bring charges. Respectfully, that response misapprehends the role of the prosecutor in our system of criminal justice. In deciding whether to bring charges, the prosecutor is ethnically required only to make a judgment whether the prosecution will result in a conviction, i.e., the prosecutor must “refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” ABA, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(a). A prosecutor’s job is not to second‐guess the wisdom or application of criminal laws enacted by the General Assembly.

Fourth, the sponsor was similarly mistaken in suggesting the punishment of innocent possession will not be an issue. The Committee should fully understand that a conviction of this offense is punishable with mandatory minimum prison sentence under MD Code, Criminal Law, 4‐ 203(c). The sponsor’s response also ignores the reality that a mere arrest will create a criminal record that can follow the individual for a lifetime and any conviction, regardless of the actual sentence, will impose a lifetime legal disability under federal law. See, e.g., Schrader v. Holder, 704 F.3d 980 (D.C. Cir. 2013). So the question before the Committee is really whether it wishes to promote legislation that imposes these severe legal consequences on otherwise innocent students, faculty members, employees, law enforcement officers and other persons. In our view, that question answers itself.

Sincerely,

Mark W. Pennak
President, Maryland Shall Issue

cc: Members of the Committee

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Correct. Barnes (the bill's sponsor) was playing games. The question is not whether guns should be on campus as all MD colleges bar unauthorized possession. The question is whether you criminalize it and whether you also bar possession by LEOs and permit holders. Here is the letter I just sent to the Committee along those lines. I had to restrain myself.

Click to expand...

fidelity said:

I think your letter was clear, nonetheless. I particularly liked the 3rd and 4th sections that rebutted their evasions of no harm being done to innocents.

For those that can't easily view PDFs on small mobile devices, I've taken the liberty to cut and paste text from the letter here ...



I'm going to take this opportunity to include a donation link for Maryland Shall Issue below. As many of you know, MSI is run through the efforts of volunteers, many of whom participate on MDS. MSI does raise funds to sponsor law suits to protect 2A rights in Maryland. One can donate through signing up for a membership, making a general donation, or donating specifically to the HQL suit using this link ...

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...=cbpaidsubscriptions&do=display_subscriptions

Click to expand...

Gryphon said:

good letter for the record

Click to expand...

fidelity said:

I think your letter was clear, nonetheless. I particularly liked the 3rd and 4th sections that rebutted their evasions of no harm being done to innocents.

{clip}

I'm going to take this opportunity to include a donation link for Maryland Shall Issue below. As many of you know, MSI is run through the efforts of volunteers, many of whom participate on MDS. MSI does raise funds to sponsor law suits to protect 2A rights in Maryland. One can donate through signing up for a membership, making a general donation, or donating specifically to the HQL suit using this link ...

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...=cbpaidsubscriptions&do=display_subscriptions

Click to expand...

JoeRinMD said:

Thanks for all that MSI does to reclaim our rights in this state. Renewing my membership has been one of those "round-to-its". The clarity of the testimony, as well as Fidelity's reminder, prompted me to finally take care of it. I just went to the site to renew my membership, including a donation towards the organization's continued work on our behalf.

JoeR

Click to expand...