MSP AT IT AGAIN! HOGAN NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.

TheNewGuy · Sep 22, 2016

hitwtom said:
I wouldn't want to be the test case.

Its already been used in a legal defense case. Man didn't have CCW for a different state he was going into to and luck would have it thats where the self defense senario went down. He was was prosecuted for both crimes but was acquitted for the murder charge but later prosecuted for illegal carry of a firearm. Did a year in prison but he is alive. Not saying to gamble with it but had they not used "competing harms" in his defense the guy would have been charged with both crimes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheNewGuy · Sep 22, 2016

DC-W said:
Look up Keyna Oduyoye.

Arrested in Baltimore in the summer of 2012 for illegally discharging, transporting, and carrying a legally owned and registered handgun after defending herself and husband while they were being robbed.

I will when i get some free time. Also not stating this is a get out of jail free card. It is a law (i think common) that may help in the after math of the shooting. Even in clear cut self defense shootings, don't expect cops to show up and high five you. With the civil suits from the family of the deceased or if the media gets involved your in for a hell of a ride.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

moojersey · Sep 22, 2016

Kman said:
We are truly blessed that the MSP are psychic.

Yup

They are judge, jury, and enforcer

fidelity said:
Yes, beats having an objective standard to quantify substantial risk. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Yup we wouldn't want that...

HRDWRK said:
Did she take the class with the Hagerstown company that can get everyone a Permit?

LMAO....

5.56blaster said:
Hogan is a let down and Maryland blows.

Hogan is a huge letdown. I'll stay home next time. I will not vote for him again. :sad20:

moojersey · Sep 22, 2016

BTW I can still see the original title under "New Threads" and also when I click the thread it still shows up in the windows explorer title bar.

I agree with the original thread title. Hogan has been nowhere to be seen.

Jaybeez · Sep 22, 2016

DC-W said:
She's in there -- a lot actually...

While she was given a PBJ for the carrying without a permit charge, I'm not sure what happened with the others.

Stupid autocorrect kept changing the first name to Kenya. Which turned up results, but no criminal charges.

That's typical of Baltimore gun charges, jeopardy for all the other add ons.

Muleskinner · Sep 26, 2016

DBLAS was suppose to have set up a meeting with Hogan to discuss 2A issues in Maryland...What happened? did that meeting ever take place?

moojersey · Sep 26, 2016

Muleskinner said:
DBLAS was suppose to have set up a meeting with Hogan to discuss 2A issues in Maryland...What happened? did that meeting ever take place?

I don't know. I know MSI did meet with some of his staffers at some point. I remember Dan mentioned at one point that they had been invited to an 'upstairs' meeting. I guess upstairs at the statehouse, which no previous governor had ever afforded the courtesy. I think that was during the last session, correct me if I am wrong.

Also MSI just recently had new elections. There is a new President, no longer dblas.

Thanks for all of your hard work Dan. You had a unique style that everyone did not always appreciate, but at the end of the day you always seemed very honest (to a fault I guess). :thumbsup:

mike_in_md · Sep 26, 2016

montoya32 said:
So I have been helping several people going through the wear and carry permitting process. One of which, who is female, was robbed at gun point in Baltimore.

She took the wear and carry course, completed all requirements and submitted her application back in August. Just today her interviewing trooper called her and scheduled the in person appt. Along with scheduling a date, she told my friend that MSP won't issue a permit based on the robbery, so she should bring her business info along. She is an employee, not the owner. The trooper also said that the robbery wasn't a "personal assault, just a crime of opportunity".

This infuriates me! I have done this with several people and I am f'ing tired of fighting this BS.

Edit: MSP also told this person to bring business owner paperwork and DEPOSIT SLIPS!!!!!!!

EDITTED TITLE

Green lives matter.

zoostation · Sep 26, 2016

TheNewGuy said:
There is actually a legal protection in this case that the Baltimore folks should know about. "The law of lesser harms" which has been phrased slightly different depending on your jurisdiction protects people who commit a crime in order to prevent a greater crime. Such as, carrying a handgun illegally to prevent your own murder. Im not a lawyer but i did read Massad Ayoob's book "Deadly Force" and it was a huge eye opener.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most courts are going to find that a heck of a stretch. I'm all for concealed carry but that legal reasoning isn't going to help most people in 99.999999% of the situations that will arise. You're really dealing with two different legal defenses, Necessity and Duress. These are concepts which are both traditionally applied to very immediate threats where the person has to show they had no reasonable alternative and engaged in brief violations of the law until they were able to contact and seek help from law enforcement.

The classic case of duress being someone having a gun held to their head being forced to commit a robbery or other crime. Or of necessity being the person who trespasses on someone's property in order to put out a fire they see there. Illegally carrying a handgun pre-emptively when not in a true and dire emergency situation and trying to use duress or necessity as a defense if caught is not going to hold up in court anywhere in this state, I don't think. I'm all for every law abiding person having the ability to carry concealed. But trying to use the defense you suggest as a basis for it on the reasoning that you were robbed and the bad guy might still be a threat out there somewhere (and indeed he might be) still isn't going to work. It will only result in the possible loss of one's gun rights after a conviction.

I am not a lawyer, maybe some of our resident attorneys would like to comment.

Biggfoot44 · Sep 26, 2016

The Doctrine of Competiting Harms is a real thing. It is a tool that is better for your lawyer to have in his quiver at your trial than to not have.

Don't count on it for get out of jail free. Don't make it your Plan A .

Doctor_M · Sep 26, 2016

Isn't there an exemption for carrying a concealed weapon against a reasonable apprehension of danger (I thought there was).... seems to be that being robbed or attacked would make that apprehension of danger self-evident.

BeoBill · Sep 26, 2016

Doctor_M said:
Isn't there an exemption for carrying a concealed weapon against a reasonable apprehension of danger (I thought there was).... seems to be that being robbed or attacked would make that apprehension of danger self-evident.

That has been interpreted to a null argument by the MSP LD (and the HPRB on occasion).

moojersey · Sep 26, 2016

Doctor_M said:
Isn't there an exemption for carrying a concealed weapon against a reasonable apprehension of danger (I thought there was).... seems to be that being robbed or attacked would make that apprehension of danger self-evident.

Yes .... a good and substanstial reasonable apprehension of danger greater than one's neighbors living in the same community

esqappellate · Sep 26, 2016

zoostation said:
I think most courts are going to find that a heck of a stretch. I'm all for concealed carry but that legal reasoning isn't going to help most people in 99.999999% of the situations that will arise. You're really dealing with two different legal defenses, Necessity and Duress. These are concepts which are both traditionally applied to very immediate threats where the person has to show they had no reasonable alternative and engaged in brief violations of the law until they were able to contact and seek help from law enforcement.

The classic case of duress being someone having a gun held to their head being forced to commit a robbery or other crime. Or of necessity being the person who trespasses on someone's property in order to put out a fire they see there. Illegally carrying a handgun pre-emptively when not in a true and dire emergency situation and trying to use duress or necessity as a defense if caught is not going to hold up in court anywhere in this state, I don't think. I'm all for every law abiding person having the ability to carry concealed. But trying to use the defense you suggest as a basis for it on the reasoning that you were robbed and the bad guy might still be a threat out there somewhere (and indeed he might be) still isn't going to work. It will only result in the possible loss of one's gun rights after a conviction.

I am not a lawyer, maybe some of our resident attorneys would like to comment.

Here is the good statement of the common law rule. Note, this is at common law, and it may not necessarily obtain every jurisdiction (states are free to override common law through legislation if they so wish):

Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged.

Note the emphasis on "urgency." A classic example is that a person may be innocent of the crime of trespass if the trespass is in a storm reasonably necessary to save their lives.

In the context of CCW, it were me, I would not rely in this doctrine to save you from prosecution. It might be available if you took the bad guy's gun from him and shot him with it to save your own life.

esqappellate · Sep 26, 2016

zoostation said:
I think most courts are going to find that a heck of a stretch. I'm all for concealed carry but that legal reasoning isn't going to help most people in 99.999999% of the situations that will arise. You're really dealing with two different legal defenses, Necessity and Duress. These are concepts which are both traditionally applied to very immediate threats where the person has to show they had no reasonable alternative and engaged in brief violations of the law until they were able to contact and seek help from law enforcement.

The classic case of duress being someone having a gun held to their head being forced to commit a robbery or other crime. Or of necessity being the person who trespasses on someone's property in order to put out a fire they see there. Illegally carrying a handgun pre-emptively when not in a true and dire emergency situation and trying to use duress or necessity as a defense if caught is not going to hold up in court anywhere in this state, I don't think. I'm all for every law abiding person having the ability to carry concealed. But trying to use the defense you suggest as a basis for it on the reasoning that you were robbed and the bad guy might still be a threat out there somewhere (and indeed he might be) still isn't going to work. It will only result in the possible loss of one's gun rights after a conviction.

I am not a lawyer, maybe some of our resident attorneys would like to comment.

Agreed! One need only look to the case of Bernhard Goetz. Recall that the first grand jury refused to indict Goetz on the more serious charges, voting indictments only for unlawful gun possession – one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, for carrying in public the loaded unlicensed gun used in the subway shooting, and two counts of possession in the fourth degree, for keeping two other unlicensed handguns in his home. The second grand jury indicated Goetz on charges of attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment and weapons possession. He was acquitted of the attempted murder and first-degree assault charges and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree – carrying a loaded, unlicensed weapon in a public place. He was sentenced to six months in jail, one year's psychiatric treatment, five years' probation, 200 hours community service, and a $5,000 fine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting#Perpetrator

IGOR455 · Sep 27, 2016

when i went through the baltimore police academy in early 1973 we were told and retold that you never trust the media, never trustr the feds and never trust the troopers . valid then and apparently still valid today
andi still cant type worth a damn
but being a street cop didnt worry about it too much

press1280 · Sep 27, 2016

Any ordinary citizen applying
for license could be "factually" denied a permit because no one had
actually threatened him. Thus, he would have no "need" to defend
himself. Similarly, if threatened, the permit could be denied on
the basis that the official police agencies were capable of
handling the matter so that he had no "need" to defend himself.

Schubert v. Debard

:sad20:

Jaybeez · Sep 27, 2016

esqappellate said:
Agreed! One need only look to the case of Bernhard Goetz. Recall that the first grand jury refused to indict Goetz on the more serious charges, voting indictments only for unlawful gun possession – one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, for carrying in public the loaded unlicensed gun used in the subway shooting, and two counts of possession in the fourth degree, for keeping two other unlicensed handguns in his home. The second grand jury indicated Goetz on charges of attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment and weapons possession. He was acquitted of the attempted murder and first-degree assault charges and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree – carrying a loaded, unlicensed weapon in a public place. He was sentenced to six months in jail, one year's psychiatric treatment, five years' probation, 200 hours community service, and a $5,000 fine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting#Perpetrator

That's NY, and i fail to see where that would invalidate MD's own precedent in Crawford v State 1987 which also examined the "necessity defense" from Sigma Reproductive Health Center v. State

"As we see it, the 1972 handgun control legislation does not address the unexpected and sudden circumstance when an individual is threatened with present, impending danger to his life or limb and as a consequence has no time to seek other protection. Furthermore, we cannot accept the contention that, in such circumstances, the General Assembly intended that the individual should succumb to his attacker and possibly forfeit his life rather than take possession of a handgun and act in self-defense. We find it entirely reasonable and consistent with § 36B's legislative purpose to conclude that when an individual finds himself in sudden, imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm, or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such danger, and without preconceived design on his part a handgun comes into his possession, he may temporarily possess the weapon for a period no longer than the necessity or apparent necessity requires him to use it in self-defense. We therefore hold that necessity may be a defense to the charge of unlawful possession of a handgun."

Maybe it hinges on "preconceived design"?

TheNewGuy · Sep 27, 2016

Biggfoot44 said:
The Doctrine of Competiting Harms is a real thing. It is a tool that is better for your lawyer to have in his quiver at your trial than to not have.

Don't count on it for get out of jail free. Don't make it your Plan A .

Exactly what i meant to impose.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheNewGuy · Sep 27, 2016

esqappellate said:
Agreed! One need only look to the case of Bernhard Goetz. Recall that the first grand jury refused to indict Goetz on the more serious charges, voting indictments only for unlawful gun possession – one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, for carrying in public the loaded unlicensed gun used in the subway shooting, and two counts of possession in the fourth degree, for keeping two other unlicensed handguns in his home. The second grand jury indicated Goetz on charges of attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment and weapons possession. He was acquitted of the attempted murder and first-degree assault charges and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree – carrying a loaded, unlicensed weapon in a public place. He was sentenced to six months in jail, one year's psychiatric treatment, five years' probation, 200 hours community service, and a $5,000 fine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting#Perpetrator

So basically what i was implying. Illegally possessed firearm. Used it. Acquitted in self defense but took jail time for illegal gun possession. I would take his punishment over the tombstone any day.

Not suggesting anyone carrying or possess a firearm illegally. Only know that the law system is very wise in its fullness and you only have to make the jury understand why you did what you did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MSP AT IT AGAIN! HOGAN NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Active Member

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Ultimate Member

, ,

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Crank in the Third Row

Sic Semper Tyrannis

President, MSI

President, MSI

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics