HB0342: Florida has all the ingredients for concealed carry disaster. Or Not

http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html

Florida has collected the most detailed information about the impact of the carry laws. Florida also provides a good test case for the possible negative impacts of carry reform. A high-crime state with heavy urbanization, a massively over-crowded prison system, and an extremely diverse (and often tense) ethnic mix of population, Florida has all the ingredients for concealed carry disaster.

Click to expand...

Sound familiar?

Coverage of the Florida reform in The Economist (a British newsweekly) typified most of the American national media's coverage. The magazine asserted that after taking a few hours of training, "Anyone who wants to carry a pistol may now do so." Apparently, the provisions about minimum age requirements, drug abuse, felony convictions, mental hospital commitment, and misdemeanor convictions, excluded no one in The Economist's eyes. The Florida media were sometimes hysterical, predicting that the law would increase lawlessness and death. Opposing legislators warned that Florida would become "the GUNshine state."

Click to expand...

Maryland DOES look like a pistol, lol. by the way, this was written 25 years ago! Have Maryland legislators learned anything?

Representative Ron Silver, the leading opponent of Florida's carry reform, graciously admitted in November 1990, "There are lots of people, including myself, who thought things would be a lot worse as far as that particular situation [carry reform] is concerned. I'm happy to say they're not." John Fuller, general counsel for the Florida Sheriffs Association, stated, "I haven't seen where we have had any instance of persons with permits causing violent crimes, and I'm constantly on the lookout."

Click to expand...

I dont think I will live to see the day Frosh admits he was wrong.

Accordingly, we now look at the overall trends in Florida murder rates. Of all the states that enacted concealed carry reform, Florida shows the most dramatic change. As the graph details, Florida's murder rate throughout the period 1975-1986 was between 118% and 157% of the murder rate elsewhere in America. After passage of Florida's law, the murder rate began declining, rapidly, dramatically, and consistently, at a time when the rest of the U.S. was experiencing an increase in murder rates. By 1991, Floridians were less likely to be murdered than people elsewhere in America. Only in 1992 did the murder rate percentage stop falling. Even then, this is because the U.S. murder rate fell more than 10% from 1991 to 1992, while the Florida murder rate fell "only" 5%.

Click to expand...

These quotes are from a paper written in 1994, by Kopel and Cramer. Funny how our legislators appear stuck in the 1960s hysteria about carry permits.

So, how exactly is Florida doing 32 years after they legalized carry in 1987?

Miami recorded 51 homicides [in 2018] according to statistics supplied by the city’s police department. That’s down from 59 in 2017 and its lowest yearly total since in 1967. And of those 51 homicides, only 39 were the result of gunfire.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article224083340.html#storylink=cpy

Click to expand...

Miami, 51. Baltimore 300+. If that were a Cricket score, Baltimore would be winning. Maryland is not winning! In fact, homicide rose 35% after the 2013 disaster MD legislators enacted.

Speaking of carry permits, these are the states that have legalized carry. Almost all of them have a lower crime rate than Maryland


https://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

oh yeah, and the last image are the places one's, ahem, FL non-resident permit is good. Which costs $97 plus $20 for fingerprints. My HQL should be my carry permit in MD.

Stop the hysteria and educate your legislator to support HB0342. If Bloomberg wants guns for his peeps at Hopkins, what is good for the billionaire is good for the rest of us.

HB0342:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0342&stab=01&ys=2019RS

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

Click to expand...

Awesome research.

I want to testify on this bill and tell the committee about my aunt, who was killed by her estranged husband in a murder suicide in Harford County. They owned several horses, and he called her on the phone and said he had stopped feeding her horses and they were close to dying. She dropped everything and rushed to their property to care for the horses and he walked up on her, shot her, and then shot himself. She owned several guns but because Maryland took away her right to carry one for self defense she's now dead. There is a memorial scholarship at Hopkins in her name. On their deathbeds, both my grandparents blamed Maryland for taking away her ability to defend herself.

Is there a 2A-friendly member of the committee who would read my testimony? I don't want it to go unread in the pile of testimony that will be submitted before the gun bill day.

In a sane world this would be all the evidence needed to fix shall issue nationwide and get reciprocity passed in DC. Alas, as looney liberals have taken to admitting recently they care more about emotion than fact...

HB 342 is poorly thought out....

Page 3 Lines 7-14 tie carry permits to mental health in the bill commentary:

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That it is the intent of the General 7 Assembly that the Governor include in the annual budget bill, for fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year thereafter, an amount representing the increase in General Fund revenues realized from the increased number of permits to carry, wear, or transport a handgun issued as a result of this Act and the payment of associated fees, less increased General Fund expenditures for the Department of State Police to process additional permit applications, to fund school mental health programs administered by the Maryland Department of Health.

While this language is not becoming law, it does connect guns to mental health issues where no connection exists.

Better choice is SB 115; same impact, no commentary language baggage.

If that language is what it takes to get er done, get er done. or not, whatever works. Who cares. I dont care what they spend the extra money on nor do I care much how its rationalized. They can spend it on a giant security blanket to keep them warm and cozy for all I care.

danb said:

If that language is what it takes to get er done, get er done. or not, whatever works. Who cares. I dont care what they spend the extra money on nor do I care much how its rationalized. They can spend it on a giant security blanket to keep them warm and cozy for all I care.

Click to expand...

What extra money? The cost to process a wear and carry permit far exceeds the fee charged by the MSP. Absent a massive increase in the permit fee, there is no "extra money" no matter how many permits are issued.

Hence, no incentive.

Since the 2018 elections, the Maryland General Assembly has more Democrats than before and they are even more to the left. The Maryland General Assembly has more in favor of gun control than ever before.

In 2018 I did a study of the posture of the last MGA based upon voting records. Click here to download the report and remember things are worse today.

Not being negative, nor am I saying we should not try; but, 31 years of experience in Annapolis politics has made me very pragmatic.

It is a credit to our 2A people that despite the odds, skewed playing field, and hostile governors, we have stopped so many of the bad bills over the years. To that I say a sincere "Well done!"

I see one major flaw with the proposed language, the word "can" vs. "does". "Can" implies there is still room for interpretation by the issuing authority.

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk

"an amount representing the increase in General Fund revenues realized from the increased number of permits to carry, wear, or transport a handgun issued as a result of this Act " implies that revenues > cost. Previous years fiscal analysis showed that the revenues from the fees were greater than the cost.

Regardless, people should educate their legislator to support this legislation.