history: "Reasonable precaution against apprehended danger"

mxrider said:

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..

Click to expand...

reading even more of the text, it uses the word "impending" twice.
impending danger is not in any of the statutes. apprehended danger is.
two vastly different concepts.

impending danger would not allow anyone to qualify for a permit. and if it did, a 90 day wait would negate a permit's effectiveness.

but still, there are two different things posted in that excerpt. reasoning and a conclusion. the reasoning is a little off, but the conclusion is good.

Jaybeez said:

reading even more of the text, it uses the word "impending" twice.
impending danger is not in any of the statutes. apprehended danger is.
two vastly different concepts.

impending danger would not allow anyone to qualify for a permit. and if it did, a 90 day wait would negate a permit's effectiveness.

but still, there are two different things posted in that excerpt. reasoning and a conclusion. the reasoning is a little off, but the conclusion is good.

Click to expand...

The reasoning helps us even more...it basically says that it is absurd to hold that the legislative intend was to force folks to become victims because to hold as such is contray to the bills stated purpose... to preserve order and protect the public..

In short the law ,if enforced as written, is contrary to the public interest.

He is actually saying that only defacto shall issue is in the public interest... and that's before the 2a is incorporated..

I am no lawyer..but that sounds like an as applied challenge in a box..

Mike said:

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

Click to expand...

There was a lot going on just prior to 72. md had 2 major riots iirc. the civil right movements televised across the coutry and fear over groups like the black panthers marching while armed, (md added a no carry whike protesting clause), but the biggest thing in my mind was the Gun Control Act of 68. it prohibited felons and drug addicts, amoung other from possessing a firearm. But md law allowed anyone to carry with an affirmative defense. And from reading some complicated court cases, intent was difficult to prove before a crime was committed. keep in mind, an officer on the street couldnt just call in a criminal record check in 1972. there were no computers and centralized revords. a permit bg check could take 3 months.

the 1972 law was readopted in 2002. it included this statement of intent. i cannot find the 72 version of the law, just the 2002 adoption

Jaybeez said:

legislative finding (intent)
md law criminal 4-202
adopted 2002

The General Assembly finds that:
(1) the number of violent crimes committed in the State has increased alarmingly in recent years;
(2) a high percentage of violent crimes committed in the State involves the use of handguns;
(3) the result is a substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries largely traceable to the carrying of handguns in public places by criminals;
(4) current law has not been effective in curbing the more frequent use of handguns in committing crime; and
(5) additional regulations on the wearing, carrying, and transporting of handguns are necessary to preserve the peace and tranquility of the State and to protect the rights and liberties of the public.

Click to expand...

as cynics we read that and think "those liars". but what if that was really what they meant in 72?

1. crimes. lawful carry has never been allowed by those with criminal intent. so crimes are not caused by lawful carriers, they are caused by those without reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

2. see #1. and even if a permit holder commits a crime, the permit doesnt absolve the permit holder from prosecution, under a number of overlapping statutes.

3. mentions criminals specifically. the problem was not people carrying lawfully.

4. we need something more than proving criminal intent after the fact, when a criminal is caught carrying

5. make it unlawful for criminals to carry

None of that is directed at people with reasonable precaution against apprehended danger, or who travel to dangerous localities. its just saying that criminals commit crimes, we need to pull them out of the pool that can legally carry with an excuse, it does not say the pool needs to be smaller and more exclusive.

i think the secretary could pull examples from case law, and turn them into multiple choice questions, to reach a finding between criminal intent and reasonable precaution.

1. a man at a restaurant begins verbally arguing with you after you bump into him at the door. you are carrying concealed. do you?
a) shoot him in the heart and take his wallet
b) shoot him in the leg and take his cell phone
c) point your gun at him to show him who is boss
d) continue to argue
e) apologize and walk away

2. Someone makes a suggestive or sexually innappropraite comment to your significant other on the street. your partner did not like it. you are carrying. do you?
a) shoot him in the leg and yell "worldstar"
b) wait outside for him and shoot him in the back of the head when nobody is looking
c) start yelling at him
d) ask your significant other to leave the premises with you

3. you're drinking coffee outside wawa. the armoured car arrives to collect the day's deposits. you are carrying concealed. do you?
a) shoot the driver and steal the armoured truck
b) wait for the driver to come out of the business, shoot him and steal the deposits
c)continue to drink your coffee
d) open the door for him and say "here you go bud"

4. You are broke and rent is due tomorrow. you have a carry permit. do you?
a) rob someone on the street, get high with the $40 you stole
b) rob a liquor store, pay your bills and cash in the stolen scratch offs
c) rob a bank, pay your bill and puchase a kilo of coke to flip
d) pawn your gun
e) borrow money from a friend or family member without threatening them with bodily harm

1. A
2. A (I'm a geezer and don't know what "worldstar" is )
3. A
4. A

Can anyone find where and how the commonly understood and long held 1894-1971 meaning of "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" changed?

can anyone tell me why it means something different if you want to carry gun, then say something like pepper spray?

mxrider said:

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..

Click to expand...

Agreed all the way around, hence the starting of this thread to crowd source the info on the issue and subject, and work to either confirm the info, or poke huge holes in it.

Jaybeez said:

There was a lot going on just prior to 72. md had 2 major riots iirc. the civil right movements televised across the coutry and fear over groups like the black panthers marching while armed, (md added a no carry whike protesting clause), but the biggest thing in my mind was the Gun Control Act of 68. it prohibited felons and drug addicts, amoung other from possessing a firearm. But md law allowed anyone to carry with an affirmative defense. And from reading some complicated court cases, intent was difficult to prove before a crime was committed. keep in mind, an officer on the street couldnt just call in a criminal record check in 1972. there were no computers and centralized revords. a permit bg check could take 3 months.

the 1972 law was readopted in 2002. it included this statement of intent. i cannot find the 72 version of the law, just the 2002 adoption


as cynics we read that and think "those liars". but what if that was really what they meant in 72?

1. crimes. lawful carry has never been allowed by those with criminal intent. so crimes are not caused by lawful carriers, they are caused by those without reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

2. see #1. and even if a permit holder commits a crime, the permit doesnt absolve the permit holder from prosecution, under a number of overlapping statutes.

3. mentions criminals specifically. the problem was not people carrying lawfully.

4. we need something more than proving criminal intent after the fact, when a criminal is caught carrying

5. make it unlawful for criminals to carry

None of that is directed at people with reasonable precaution against apprehended danger, or who travel to dangerous localities. its just saying that criminals commit crimes, we need to pull them out of the pool that can legally carry with an excuse, it does not say the pool needs to be smaller and more exclusive.

Click to expand...

This is Criminal Law Article 4-203, HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36B(b), (c); 2002, ch. 26, § 2; 2003, ch. 17; ch. 21, § 1; 2004, ch. 25; 2005, ch. 482; 2010, ch. 712; 2011, ch. 65; 2013, ch. 427.

So no 1972 adoption, or amendments.

Likewise it would appear the same for Public Safety Article 5-306; HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36E(a); 2003, ch. 5, § 2; 2013, ch. 427.

Hmmmm, curiouser and curiouser

So I went back and looked Lexis Nexis at the Criminal Law Article title 4 subtitle 2 (Handguns) and could find no history of changes in 1972 to the original 1957 statute, like wise no 1972 changes for the Public Safety Article Title 5, subtitle 3 (Handgun Permits) and could find no 1972 changes to the original 1957 statute.


Hmmmmmmmmmm

searching

" maryland Code (1957), Art. 27, § 36 "

turns up lots of interesting cases on google

history and how to guide on the different volumes of the md annotated code over the years, and how to cross reference.

https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/researchguides/TMLLguide/9sec4.html

And the pieces of the puzzle slowly fall into place.

I will see what I can get with regards to the entire statute from day 1 (1886 ?) all the way through to the current writing by visiting the legislative law library in Annapolis.

It will take me a week or so to get there, but once I have everything, I will work to get it posted.

From the latest descripption of Apprehended Danger, quoted from post #2 above:

.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.

Click to expand...

Is this a basis to consider that there could exist a medical reason for apprehended danger, under circumstances such as the applicant's need to be medicated with anticoagulant drugs, which would render him/her susceptible to serious internal hemorrhage, possibly resulting in death, upon suffering a blow which would be relatively harmless to a person not in need of, and under the influence of, such a medication?

Jaybeez said:

reading even more of the text, it uses the word "impending" twice.
impending danger is not in any of the statutes. anticipated with uneasiness or fear of danger is.
two vastly different concepts.

impending danger would not allow anyone to qualify for a permit. and if it did, a 90 day wait would negate a permit's effectiveness.

but still, there are two different things posted in that excerpt. reasoning and a conclusion. the reasoning is a little off, but the conclusion is good.

Click to expand...

Translated for you

Bob A said:

From the latest descripption of Apprehended Danger, quoted from post #2 above:



Is this a basis to consider that there could exist a medical reason for apprehended danger, under circumstances such as the applicant's need to be medicated with anticoagulant drugs, which would render him/her susceptible to serious internal hemorrhage, possibly resulting in death, upon suffering a blow which would be relatively harmless to a person not in need of, and under the influence of, such a medication?

Click to expand...

what they have written there looks to be their justification for permits issued for credible and documented threats. however, all of that appears to be made up out of thin air, and has no basis in the law or history of reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

you see, if reasonable precaition against apprehended danger was a term that had just been made up in 1972 when the law was drafted, and had no long held definition and commonly known definition, msp would have some leeway in interpreting that phrase how they wish.

but, as i'm trying to prove, that very antiquated phrase was chosen for a reason. the reason being, it had a very specific meaning under the law and in 78 years of judicial precedent. a legislature comprised of lawyers and experts on the law on january 10th 1972 knew exactly what a reasonable precaution against appregended danger meant. so on january 11th 1972 when senate bill 205 was introduced lacking that phrase, a decision was made to add it for a very specific reason. they also chose to remove the phrase "in the judgement of the superintendant", and add the phrases "based on and investigation" and "a finding that a rpaad was a necessity". those have very specific meanings too, further defined by what they replaced.

as we sit and debate ways to either change current law or ways to work within the system, the idea that we cannot bend this law towards our point of view is a reoccuring theme. but what if this law was originally drafted to be closer to our point of view, than the way it is applied and interpretted (wrongly) today? what if its been bent and twisted so far from its original intent over the course of 40 years, that it is in essence no longer the same law that was written? where do all these extra interpretations come from? not the courts or legislature, as I am trying to prove with this thread. If i can prove it, is the administration, secretary of state police, the hprb, and licensing division totally justified in making drastic changes to the current (wrong) policies, interpretations, and definitions? i think so.

montoya32 said:

Translated for you

Click to expand...

i started a grammar and definition post 3 times yesterday. Just the definition of apprehended and the differences between transitive and intransitive verbs, and how i believe it further defines apprehended to mean fear and anxiety, which is then cancelled out by msp's mystery phrase "more than one's personal anxiety or fear", cancels out the entire word apprehended in the statute with no justification to do so, got to be way too long. I'd really like to know where that extra phrase came from, under what authority, and what justification.

There's also the definition of "apprehend" from Black's Law Dictionary to contend with: "To take hold of, whether with the mind, and so to conceive, believe, fear, dread, (Trogdon v. State, 133 Ind. I, 32 N. E. 725"

This is directly at odds with MSP's definition, which invents the idea that it must be objectively established.

JamesH said:

There's also the definition of "apprehend" from Black's Law Dictionary to contend with: "To take hold of, whether with the mind, and so to conceive, believe, fear, dread, (Trogdon v. State, 133 Ind. I, 32 N. E. 725"

This is directly at odds with MSP's definition, which invents the idea that it must be objectively established.

Click to expand...

It can be objectively established, not the way msp has been doing it for years, but by looking at case law dealing with maryland Code (1957), Art. 27, § 36, and Chapter 547, Laws of Maryland 1894, as was always required (and still is required for rpaad for weapons carried other than firearms). the secretary ofbstate police now takes the place of a judge or jury, but his "finding" must be based on the same reasoning. is the applicant's proposed precaution reasonable or more importantly is it criminal intent? if not, the permit "SHALL" be issued, as the statute commands.

interestingly, cases involving maryland Code (1957) Art. 27, § 36, make references to laws in other states regarding self defense. to me they suggest a definition of rpaad that is closer to common law self defense than any of us may have imagined before.

JamesH said:

There's also the definition of "apprehend" from Black's Law Dictionary to contend with: "To take hold of, whether with the mind, and so to conceive, believe, fear, dread, (Trogdon v. State, 133 Ind. I, 32 N. E. 725"

This is directly at odds with MSP's definition, which invents the idea that it must be objectively established.

Click to expand...

See, this is what happens when the ignorant and uneducated pretend to be able to interpret the law and use big words they don't understand. I used to describe them as "those who cannot understand anything that couldn't be hit with a nightstick."

Great thread. Understand why it is here (as the HPRB meeting threads are) as crowd sourcing opinions and disseminating these ideas are probably done most efficiently where publicly viewable, but wonder if it reciprocally helps those uninterested in rights (and are motivated to retain power/authority) to be better prepared to address how they've corrupted the law.

Meh I doubt it. No sense in being sissies and scared to say / post things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk