At the state level, it was not illegal when the law was passed. But I believe that portion of the law was removed in the 80's, and it is definitely illegal at the federal level.
Stop and Frisk, Baltimore, the DOJ Report, and G&S
- Thread starter SPQM
- 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:
At the state level, it was not illegal when the law was passed. But I believe that portion of the law was removed in the 80's, and it is definitely illegal at the federal level.
I sure hope MSI is taking some notes on this.
I don't think anyone has remembered this, because this was all 40 years ago; and everyone involved is pretty much dead by now or in the nursing home, so the "corporate memory" of this phase of gun control was lost to the mists of time.
So uh...about that Stop and Frisk that DOJ talking about circa 2016 in regards to how BPD is racist...it's a crucial part of the "Good & Substantial" bill from 1972.
Working on it, since I was three years old and growing up in Ohio when all of this went down.
How would you like an appointment as MSI historian??
danb
dont be a dumbass
It is time to repeal MDs unconstitutional carry laws!!
See below for my favorite 4th circuit appellate court opinion, and quote!
The only question remains, whether people in MD will try more of the same failed policies. I predict yes.
See below for my favorite 4th circuit appellate court opinion, and quote!
The only question remains, whether people in MD will try more of the same failed policies. I predict yes.
mxrider
Former MSI Treasurer
To echo what others are stating about the illegal stop and Frisk, from the text of the bill you posted:
36D. Limited Search.
(a) Any law enforcement officer who, in the light of his observa-
tions, information, and experience, may have HAS a reasonable belief
that (i) a person may be wearing, carrying, or transporting a hand-
gun in violation of Section 36B of this article, (ii) by virtue of his
possession of a handgun, such person is or may be presently danger-
ous to the officer or to others, (iii) it is impracticable, under the cir-
cumstances, to obtain a search warrant; and (iv) it is necessary for
the officer's protection or the protection of others to take swift
measures to discover whether such person is, in fact, wearing, car-
rying, or transporting a handgun, such officer may
The key here is that the office must have reasonable belief that the person is carrying a firearm.
36D. Limited Search.
(a) Any law enforcement officer who, in the light of his observa-
tions, information, and experience, may have HAS a reasonable belief
that (i) a person may be wearing, carrying, or transporting a hand-
gun in violation of Section 36B of this article, (ii) by virtue of his
possession of a handgun, such person is or may be presently danger-
ous to the officer or to others, (iii) it is impracticable, under the cir-
cumstances, to obtain a search warrant; and (iv) it is necessary for
the officer's protection or the protection of others to take swift
measures to discover whether such person is, in fact, wearing, car-
rying, or transporting a handgun, such officer may
The key here is that the office must have reasonable belief that the person is carrying a firearm.
Sounds like they are going after guns... this seams to be a 2ndA violation.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
This is still effectively in MD law, recodified as MD Code, Criminal Law, § 4-206, Attached is the entire section.
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,458
Ok, I know the primary theme of this thread is the parallels between 1972 and 2016 about the practice and authority for stop and frisk. But I did take away some other interesting facts.
During debate, the MSP was expecting 50K applications for Carry Permits in first year. This would have been expected in light of recent experiences of various states that initiated a CCW process, or substantially ovehauled previous system. Instead, in six months MSP recieved 4800, of which few were from the 10,000 security related personnel with a different timeline. So to me, this sugguest a chilling effect discouraging applications from the start.
Adjust for the difference in overall population, and small representation from the security industry, that's a lot rate of issuence than in subsequent years up to present day. The catagories of persons seem similar to current, and the system of restrictions was vigorously applied from the start. But there would seem at least an indirect inference that within the privileged catagries there was more acceptance at face value.
In the beginning the HPRB did semi-regularly overturn MSP, but that didn't last very long. Would be interesting to see year by year data from the '70s to see when that changed.
During debate, the MSP was expecting 50K applications for Carry Permits in first year. This would have been expected in light of recent experiences of various states that initiated a CCW process, or substantially ovehauled previous system. Instead, in six months MSP recieved 4800, of which few were from the 10,000 security related personnel with a different timeline. So to me, this sugguest a chilling effect discouraging applications from the start.
Adjust for the difference in overall population, and small representation from the security industry, that's a lot rate of issuence than in subsequent years up to present day. The catagories of persons seem similar to current, and the system of restrictions was vigorously applied from the start. But there would seem at least an indirect inference that within the privileged catagries there was more acceptance at face value.
In the beginning the HPRB did semi-regularly overturn MSP, but that didn't last very long. Would be interesting to see year by year data from the '70s to see when that changed.
I was about to post that.
I found this at like 10 PM last night, but had to go to work
Basically in COMAR 2016 (http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mdcode/), it says:
I went and searched and found the 2002 Act repealing it:
Main Header
Reimplemented Here
This was also recent enough to show up in the Maryland Legislative System Online:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?tab=subject3&ys=2002rs/billfile/hb0011.htm
Sponsored by the Speaker of The House (Administration)
and:
Roll Call Votes (Legislative dates are shown):
House
February 15, 2002: Third Reading Passed (133-3)
Senate
March 31, 2002: Third Reading Passed (47-0)
Frosh voted for it, as did Mike Miller.
It's been legal since 1972; and was reauthorized by 133-3 (House) and 47-0 (Senate) votes in 2002.
To be honest, I don't really care about Stop N Frisk.
The only reason I'm going on about it is because it was specifically sold as an anti-gun crime measure in 1972 (and then again in 2002 when it was cleaned up legislatively), thus I'm more than happy enough to point out just WHO passed it and that all these frisks are legal under MD law thanks to Mike Miller and Brian Frosh.
On a more serious note; I'm tired of being on the defensive all the time. It's why I haven't sent any money to the NRA other than member dues, but gave $25 to MSI for the HQL lawsuit.
It's time, more than time enough that we started pushing back, and I'm more than happy enough to use their own playbook against them.
Name Taken
Ultimate Member
That is my point they weren't done legally. That also the DOJ's point.
The officer needs to have and show a reasonable suspicion based on more then a hunch that someone is armed and thus a danger.
Absent that the "stop and frisk" would be a bad search. Thats what the DOJ said the BPD is stopping and frisking on a whim and without articulating the person is or could be armed.
Welcome to the fight, brother!
As far as S&F, it's legal by MD law and if not done properly it's been under the leadership of Democrats for the last 50 years, either way, the Dems own this problem.....
That could be interpreted in the same way as "Good and Substantial" is. It depends entirely on which axe you have to grind.
Just sayin'...
Name Taken
Ultimate Member
That could be interpreted in the same way as "Good and Substantial" is. It depends entirely on which axe you have to grind.
Just sayin'...
True thats why there is case law on it. It shouldn't be a surprised to any officer who has MPTC certification.
It certainly isn't as open ended as it reads.
"violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Section 14141"
just because "its been on the books for 40+ years doesn't mean anything, it a violation of the Constitution and/or federal law. The laws of this country TRUMPS state laws, period. Want to see how many local/state laws that have been on the books since the 1800s but yet, a violation of the constitution? I'll give you the short answer, a lot and you don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out...just takes one to argue in court and thats the key. Local and states violates your rights and the only way to fight it, is to spend money, on a lawyer...thats willing to take the case. Swear THAT should be a violation of the constitution....
just because "its been on the books for 40+ years doesn't mean anything, it a violation of the Constitution and/or federal law. The laws of this country TRUMPS state laws, period. Want to see how many local/state laws that have been on the books since the 1800s but yet, a violation of the constitution? I'll give you the short answer, a lot and you don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out...just takes one to argue in court and thats the key. Local and states violates your rights and the only way to fight it, is to spend money, on a lawyer...thats willing to take the case. Swear THAT should be a violation of the constitution....
Hey "2A in MD" on facebook!
Here's a goodie for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/us/baltimore-justice-department-report-examples/
Why do I mention this?
Here's a goodie for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/us/baltimore-justice-department-report-examples/
Why do I mention this?
