Sneaky

UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 1163
E4 6lr2080
CF 6lr3307
____________________________________________________________________________________
By: Delegates Dwyer, Aumann, Bartlett, Bates, Boschert, Boteler, Cluster,
Costa, DeBoy, Eckardt, Edwards, Frank, Gilleland, Glassman, Hogan,
Impallaria, Jennings, Kach, Kohl, Krebs, Leopold, McComas, McConkey,
McDonough, McKee, Miller,Myers, O'Donnell, Parrott, Shank, Shewell,
Smigiel, Sossi, Stocksdale, Stull, Walkup, and Weldon
Introduced and read first time: February 10, 2006
Assigned to: Judiciary
_____________________________________________________________________________________
A BILL ENTITLED
1 AN ACT concerning
2 Public Safety - Handgun Permits - Repeal of Finding Requirement
3 FOR the purpose of repealing the requirement that the Secretary of State Police find
4 that a person has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a
5 handgun before issuing a certain handgun permit to the person; and generally
6 relating to the issuing of handgun permits by the Secretary of State Police.
7 BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
8 Article - Public Safety
9 Section 5-306
10 Annotated Code of Maryland
11 (2003 Volume and 2005 Supplement)
12 SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
13 MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
14 Article - Public Safety
15 5-306.
16 (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit
17 within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds:
18 (1) is an adult;
19 (2) (i) has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor for which
20 a sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year has been imposed; or
21 (ii) if convicted of a crime described in item (i) of this item, has been
22 pardoned or has been granted relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c);
2 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 1163
1 (3) has not been convicted of a crime involving the possession, use, or
2 distribution of a controlled dangerous substance;
3 (4) is not presently an alcoholic, addict, or habitual user of a controlled
4 dangerous substance unless the habitual use of the controlled dangerous substance is
5 under legitimate medical direction; and
6 (5) based on an investigation,[:
7 (i)] has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that
8 may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or
9 to another[; and
10 (ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a
11 handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution
12 against apprehended danger].
13 (b) An applicant under the age of 30 years is qualified only if the Secretary
14 finds that the applicant has not been:
15 (1) committed to a detention, training, or correctional institution for
16 juveniles for longer than 1 year after an adjudication of delinquency by a juvenile
17 court; or
18 (2) adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for:
19 (i) an act that would be a crime of violence if committed by an
20 adult;
21 (ii) an act that would be a felony in this State if committed by an
22 adult; or
23 (iii) an act that would be a misdemeanor in this State that carries a
24 statutory penalty of more than 2 years if committed by an adult.
25 SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
26 October 1, 2006.

Hmm, doesn't say that your "apprehended danger" need be eminent. Suppose I tell them I drive through an area of PG county every day that has one of the highest murder rates in the country? I feel pretty apprehensive. That's a good and substantial reason in my book.

The bill ELIMINATES this section:

10 (ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a
11 handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution
12 against apprehended danger].


Which means that anybody passing the background check should be issued a permit.

Spot77 said:

The bill ELIMINATES this section:

10 (ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a
11 handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution
12 against apprehended danger].


Which means that anybody passing the background check should be issued a permit.

Click to expand...

I thought that the text above would be the language of the new law if passed. The current code reads as follows:

"Has, 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 include a finding that such permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."

While the proposed code reads:

"based on an investigation,
...
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."

It appears to me that the change from "shall be deemed to include a finding" to "such as a finding" is subtle yet significant. The former makes a finding a requirement, while the latter mentions a finding just as an example of a reason to issue, but not a requirement.

Am I reading this correctly?

[EDIT] No I'm not. You are correct Spot77. My mistake was assuming that the MD code on packing.org was accurate. I was reading the actual text of the MD code on Lexis Nexis just now, and I found that the wording is identical to the wording in HB 1163...minus the brackets. I assume that the [...] brackets mean 'remove'? [/EDIT]

DD214,

Yeah, at the bottom of the first sheet of the copy I have, it says "EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW. [Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law."

So, 1163 removes the requirement of a good and substantial reason making MD Shall Issue!

http://www.marylandshallissue.org

Greg

My 2 Delegates are down as Sponsors