2023 New Wear and Carry Curriculum is released by MSPLD

[Mark75H]

https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Documents/Firearms%20Training%20Course%20Instructional%20Material.pdf

This is the new required and detailed curriculum as required by HB 824.


9/12/23 update: Curriculum is "updated"

 

[jr88]

The same ?? I thought it was going up in hours.

 

[smokey]

Oh goodie, new literacy tests and poll taxes are out.

 

[Mark75H]

Required hours remain the same. Renewal remains the same the only thing that changes are the subjects added and this explicit curriculum.

 

[Mark75H]

Oh goodie, new literacy tests and poll taxes are out.

There is no requirement that the students understand, only that the material is presented to them.

 

[Mark75H]

It does say that a projector PowerPoint presentation is required, which is insane, because they have only produced a PDF as far as I can tell.

 

[Occam]

Reading through this, I bumped into the “safe storage” section. How did I miss that after Oct 1, dealers may no longer sell new handguns that don’t have a built-in safety device that makes it inoperable unless deactivated? Which actually have such things - a few S&W revolvers? Ugh

 

[Blaster229]

Interesting. Page 7 when explaining Castle Doctrine and justifiable use of force.....

Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:
● A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable.[2

"Attempts to enter" So trying to bang down your door without actually entering. That's how I read it, but won't be the first recent test case.

 

[linkstate]

Reading through this, I bumped into the “safe storage” section. How did I miss that after Oct 1, dealers may no longer sell new handguns that don’t have a built-in safety device that makes it inoperable unless deactivated? Which actually have such things - a few S&W revolvers? Ugh

That isn’t new for this year. Bore locks covered firearms that didn’t come with an internal locking device from the manufacturer.

 

[Occam]

Interesting. Page 7 when explaining Castle Doctrine and justifiable use of force.....

Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:
● A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable.[2

"Attempts to enter" So trying to bang down your door without actually entering. That's how I read it, but won't be the first recent test case.

Yeah, but it's the "for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm" that will still get the homeowner jacked up. If the homeowner follows Joe Biden's advice and uses a shotgun to shoot them through that closed door, they'd have to affirmatively prove that the person they didn't even lay eyes on when they pulled the trigger was about to commit a felony ... as opposed to, say, being drunk and disorderly, or intending to steal a house plant worth five dollars (not felonies). Home owner still needs to have magic powers of discernment as to the intent and state of mind of the person beating down the door.

 

[Blaster229]

Yeah, but it's the "for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm" that will still get the homeowner jacked up. If the homeowner follows Joe Biden's advice and uses a shotgun to shoot them through that closed door, they'd have to affirmatively prove that the person they didn't even lay eyes on when they pulled the trigger was about to commit a felony ... as opposed to, say, being drunk and disorderly, or intending to steal a house plant worth five dollars (not felonies). Home owner still needs to have magic powers of discernment as to the intent and state of mind of the person beating down the door.

Yes, it basically explains it has to be MR&MRS LAMB felonies.

It says intent to commit a "felony within".

 

[JollyPedro]

Interesting. Page 7 when explaining Castle Doctrine and justifiable use of force.....

Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:
● A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable.[2

"Attempts to enter" So trying to bang down your door without actually entering. That's how I read it, but won't be the first recent test case.

I got into a debate about this very thing a few months back and im glad to get some clarification now.....Would still like to see more on it, but im sure this would help out someone on trial....

 

[smokey]

Looks like this wags the finger at the f^ckwad that chose to make the qualification more difficult for ego-reasons. It also looks like it provides clarity specifically for worth-a-shot that uses UTM NMRs in their shooting. It's interesting all shooting is done two-handed without a 1-handed component. That'll help a lot of people out.

 

[pbharvey]

Interesting. Page 7 when explaining Castle Doctrine and justifiable use of force.....

Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:
● A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable.[2

"Attempts to enter" So trying to bang down your door without actually entering. That's how I read it, but won't be the first recent test case.

Two things:

A lodger is someone spending the night there. Suppose I'm over at my neighbor's house having a cup of coffee and a crazy person tries to break in?

When does knocking become banging become the guy now in your foyer?

I don't really understand Castle doctrine vs. normal self defense.

 

[Blaster229]

I got into a debate about this very thing a few months back and im glad to get some clarification now.....Would still like to see more on it, but im sure this would help out someone on trial....

That being said, the only situation I would "shoot through the door", would be if someone is getting ready to lob a Molotov cocktail.
The thing about having them break the threshold getting in, it shows the threat's intention of doing something.

 

[Blaster229]

Two things:

A lodger is someone spending the night there. Suppose I'm over at my neighbor's house having a cup of coffee and a crazy person tries to break in?

When does knocking become banging become the guy now in your foyer?

I don't really understand Castle doctrine vs. normal self defense.

Well, retreat mostly. Or not having to.

 

[Occam]

I don't really understand Castle doctrine vs. normal self defense.

Loosely, you could legally kill someone who's in your house approaching you with intent to commit grievous bodily harm or worse ... but if that same person did it to you on a sidewalk, your first obligation is to run for it. If you COULD have run for it outdoors and you didn't, you're in trouble. Same doesn't apply in your house (Castle doctrine).

 

[JollyPedro]

That being said, the only situation I would "shoot through the door", would be if someone is getting ready to lob a Molotov cocktail.
The thing about having them break the threshold getting in, it shows the threat's intention of doing something.

1000000000000000000% agree with this.

 

[Blaster229]

Loosely, you could legally kill someone who's in your house approaching you with intent to commit grievous bodily harm or worse ... but if that same person did it to you on a sidewalk, your first obligation is to run for it. If you COULD have run for it outdoors and you didn't, you're in trouble. Same doesn't apply in your house (Castle doctrine).

It's your obligation if feasible. I am a fan of retreat if possible because if a threat keeps coming, they are satisfying the intent portion Means, Opportunity, and Intent.

 

[RennBaer]

Interesting. Page 7 when explaining Castle Doctrine and justifiable use of force.....

Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:
● A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable.[2

"Attempts to enter" So trying to bang down your door without actually entering. That's how I read it, but won't be the first recent test case.

An interesting recent case of this situation is the guy in Texas who shot through his closed apartment door at two individuals who were clearly armed (and who he identified as armed via his video doorbell) and attempting kick down the door and enter his apartment.