Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[pcfixer]

And counting.

Even though MoCo clearly outed itself and completely undermined its own arguments multiple times during the briefings/hearings, I'm preparing myself for disappointment given this Judge's allegiance to the "Party".

It'll be like Justice Roberts with Obamacare who called an audible and substituted an argument that was never made:

The Obamacare "Tax" That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still Unconstitutional

Tax bills have to originate in the House, but Obamacare began in the Senate.

www.forbes.com

This Judge will just make up some crap that wasn't argued and punt it for Appeal.

esqappellate said:
Fear not, we will post any order we get from the Court. I don't expect an order soon, given what the court said at the Feb. 6 hearing.

""Maybe by the end of the month, at best. ""The judge did say that he was focused on "getting it right"

 

[swinokur]

Don't worry, you didn't rain on any parade I was having. I was just throwing that out so no one decided to open carry at some diner outside the county council building.

But we will meet at Mission BBQ in Rockville to celebrate and rub their statist noses in it when MSI kicks their ass

 

[MikeofMD]

What happens with a carry permit if you get stopped for a traffic infraction in front of a place where you need to be within a hundred yards or whatever? I get a ticket and illegal carry within such a distance?

 

[Sundazes]

There is no duty to inform in MD. Don't be a dick to the officer.
Watch the Chris rock video.
IANAL.

 

[Occam]

What happens with a carry permit if you get stopped for a traffic infraction in front of a place where you need to be within a hundred yards or whatever? I get a ticket and illegal carry within such a distance?

You have no duty to disclose your concealed weapon unless asked. Presumably, you’ll get your traffic citation and carry on. There’s no indication that the MoCoPoPo or the handful of other small PDs in the county (or the Sheriff’s office) are enforcing this thing, at all. If you’re worried you’ll be the Guinea Pig, do what it requires of permit holders for now, and put it - unloaded - in a locked case while you traverse the MoCo minefield and await some judicial relief.

 

[Nobody]

You have no duty to disclose your concealed weapon unless asked.

Please cite your source for being required to disclose if asked.

Serious question

Nobody

 

[Sunrise]

Please cite your source for being required to disclose if asked.

Serious question

Nobody

There's no "Duty to Disclose" in MD:

See here: https://www.handgunlaw.us/states/maryland.pdf

Must Inform Officer Immediately on Contact By Law?

“NO”
Public Safety § 5-308. Possession of Permit Required Westlaw Link 5-308 A person to whom a permit is issued or renewed shall carry the permit in the person's possession whenever
the person carries, wears, or transports a handgun. 2003, ch. 5, § 2. Note: Must present it on demand.

See here: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/md-gun-laws/

"No. There is no duty to inform a law enforcement officer that you're carrying a concealed firearm in Maryland."

 

[Occam]

Please cite your source for being required to disclose if asked.

Serious question

Nobody

Sure you could play the “I have nothing illegal in my vehicle” card when directly asked by an officer if you have a weapon in the car. But in the scenario being asked about (being in a MoCoNoGo zone) that’s not really true unless it’s locked up.

The issue is: how will it play out in real life if you decline to answer the directly asked question, let alone lie about it during that stop?

 

[basscat]

If an officer ask if you have any weapons in the car then you must disclose it then. You can't lie. They ask all the time now. That's how they get around the no duty to inform.

 

[swinokur]

And saying I have nothing illegal in my car may or may not be sufficient

 

[teratos]

If an officer ask if you have any weapons in the car then you must disclose it then. You can't lie. They ask all the time now. That's how they get around the no duty to inform.

You don’t have to disclose shit.

“I don’t answer questions”.

5th Amendment.

 

[Sunrise]

You don’t have to disclose shit.

“I don’t answer questions”.

5th Amendment.

Wouldn't that lead to a "step out of the car sir" and a pat-down?

 

[teratos]

Wouldn't that lead to a "step out of the car sir" and a pat-down?

Do they have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime other than the traffic violation?

Terry v Ohio says the officer must:
1. Have reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is armed.
AND
2. There must be a reasonable and articulable basis to believe that the individual is a danger to the officer or others.

Both must be met to justify a pay down.

 

[Mister F]

Not “locked up”. Enclosed case. An zippered case with the slide locked back and a mag easy to insert. It’s not hard to comply, not that one likes it. Except the weight of it is a bit of a pain in the shoulder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sunrise]

Do they have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime other than the traffic violation?

Terry v Ohio says the officer must:
1. Have reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is armed.
AND
2. There must be a reasonable and articulable basis to believe that the individual is a danger to the officer or others.

Both must be met to justify a pay down.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

"Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The Court addressed Terry v. Ohio:

"Unlike in Terry v. Ohio, the initial "violation" of freedom was permissible because the driver was driving with an expired license plate in violation of the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles Code. The only thing to decide, besides the “pat down,” is whether the initial authorization by the officer to tell the respondent to exit the vehicle was allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court must focus on the violation resulting from the officer telling the respondent to exit the vehicle once it was legally stopped."

....

"The conclusion was that it was de minimis (low level of risk). The officer has already decided that the driver is to be detained for the traffic summons, now it is whether they should converse while the driver is sitting in the car or standing alongside it. The action to step out of the car is merely for the officers’ safety and is not a serious infraction in the liberty of the driver."

---> "Looks like you're printing sir."

 

[teratos]

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

"Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The Court addressed Terry v. Ohio:

"Unlike in Terry v. Ohio, the initial "violation" of freedom was permissible because the driver was driving with an expired license plate in violation of the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles Code. The only thing to decide, besides the “pat down,” is whether the initial authorization by the officer to tell the respondent to exit the vehicle was allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court must focus on the violation resulting from the officer telling the respondent to exit the vehicle once it was legally stopped."

In Mimms, the officer noted a bulge under the defendant’s jacket. He did not simply search him.

Even if you don’t answer questions and the officer sees a bulge, you are not violating any laws. What will he arrest you for?

 

[Sunrise]

In Mimms, the officer noted a bulge under the defendant’s jacket. He did not simply search him.

Was adding to my last comment to include this:

---> Looks like you're printing sir

 

[teratos]

Was adding to my last comment to include this:

---> Looks like you're printing sir

Nothing about that is illegal if you have a permit. You don’t have to say anything.


Maybe “you’re printing” is the new “I smell the odor of marijuana”.

 

[dblas]

But we will meet at Mission BBQ in Rockville to celebrate and rub their statist noses in it when MSI kicks their ass

OH, ABSOFREAKINLUTELY.

 

[Sunrise]

Nothing about that is illegal if you have a permit. You don’t have to say anything.


Maybe “you’re printing” is the new “I smell the odor of marijuana”.

Nothing about it is illegal if you have a MD permit, and if you're not violating MoCo Laws per the restrictions on the back side of it.

However, the issue here is MoCo Law under Bill 21-22... and you're technically in violation of your MD Permit rules if you're in violation of MoCo Law.

Yup. "You're printing" is the new "I smell the odor of marijuana".