URGENT NOTICE: HB1174 March 9th 2022!

[Texasgrillchef]

On March 9th 2022, 1pm the House Judiciary Committee will be meeting to hear testimony on HB1174.

This bill will make changes to the Wear and Carry permit and thus make Maryland a “Shall Issue” state and remove many of the burdens associated with getting a Maryland W&C permit.

Please contact the Judiciary commitwe as well as your state rep and state senator to show your support for this bill.

Remind them of two cases in our federal courts that will soon force this issue if they don’t pass this bill.

NYSPRA v Bruen, and MSI v Hogan. Both will receive a decesion by May or June

Here is the link to the Judiciary Committee members page so that you can email them.

https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/com/05jud.html

Here is the link to read the actual bill:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2022RS/bills/hb/hb1174F.pdf

 

[dblas]

If I may nit pick a bit.

If this bill passes, it won't make Maryland a Shall Issue state. Why?

Because personal protection is already an accepted G&S by MSP for a wear and carry permit. THE ISSUE is MSP's administrative over reach on what is required to prove the ned for personal protection. Until that issue is addressed, bills like this are just pandering by the legislator, to their constituents, so they can say "See, I tried" when they don't even understand the issue.

 

[Darkemp]

If I may nit pick a bit.

If this bill passes, it won't make Maryland a Shall Issue state. Why?

Because personal protection is already an accepted G&S by MSP for a wear and carry permit. THE ISSUE is MSP's administrative over reach on what is required to prove the ned for personal protection. Until that issue is addressed, bills like this are just pandering by the legislator, to their constituents, so they can say "See, I tried" when they don't even understand the issue.

IANAL but I think there’s also an issue with the Or in the language. Wouldn’t all permits just become Self Defense or Personal Protection at that point, why leave the door open on G&S at all?

 

[Bob A]

Still has G&S, still must complete 16 hrs(!) of training prior to application.

So, a nothingburger.

 

[DC-W]

Still has G&S, still must complete 16 hrs(!) of training prior to application.

So, a nothingburger.

It makes it so that declaring the permit is for self-defense is itself “good and substantial.” That would take the MSP’s subjective discretion out of the picture and allow anyone who otherwise satisfies the other requirements for a permit to get one.

It may all be moot in a few months with NYSRPA lingering.

MSI’s testimony for SB327, the senate cross file, explains it all. View attachment 334845

 

[dblas]

It makes it so that declaring the permit is for self-defense is itself “good and substantial.” That would take the MSP’s subjective discretion out of the picture and allow anyone who otherwise satisfies the other requirements for a permit to get one.

It may all be moot in a few months with NYSRPA lingering.

MSI’s testimony for SB327, the senate cross file, explains it all. View attachment 334845

Respectfully, no it won't.

MSP already accepts personal protection as G&S, what is subjective is what they require to confirm personal protection. This bill does NOTHING to clarify what the requirements are, which means MSP would be allowed to use the current requirements without issue.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

If I may nit pick a bit.

If this bill passes, it won't make Maryland a Shall Issue state. Why?

Because personal protection is already an accepted G&S by MSP for a wear and carry permit. THE ISSUE is MSP's administrative over reach on what is required to prove the ned for personal protection. Until that issue is addressed, bills like this are just pandering by the legislator, to their constituents, so they can say "See, I tried" when they don't even understand the issue.

For the most point I happen to agree with you.

However how one legally defines personal protection for self defense COULD possibly be defined by the Supreme Court when they issue their decision in May or June. In which case, it will be to our benefit.

Even if this passes they may still be required to change the law. It is still a step in the right direction.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I would like to point out that their is a comma before and after “Self Defense” making it a totally separate reason. Totally different then saying “Personal Protection for Self Defense”

Will they makes us prove We need it for Self Defense or Personal Protection? Personally I think will depend on How SCOTUS word their opinion in NYSPRA v Bruen as well as how the 3rd circuit issues their opinion based on SCOTUS as well.

Especially since this bill even if it passes won’t go into effect till 10/1/2022

ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a
2 3
4 5
handgun, such as PERSONAL PROTECTION, SELF–DEFENSE, OR a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

 

[dblas]

For the most point I happen to agree with you.

However how one legally defines personal protection for self defense COULD possibly be defined by the Supreme Court when they issue their decision in May or June. In which case, it will be to our benefit.

Even if this passes they may still be required to change the law. It is still a step in the right direction.

The issue before SCOTUS is G&S and the question was possibly reduced to the level of scrutiny used to determine 2A court cases. SCOTUS will NOT be defining personal protection. Further, defining personal protection still does nothing to define what is required to prove personal protection. Until what the administrative requirement of personal protection are set in state statute, MSP will continue to require proof of the need for personal protection regardless of how personal protection is defined in state law.

 

[dblas]

I would like to point out that their is a comma before and after “Self Defense” making it a totally separate reason. Totally different then saying “Personal Protection for Self Defense”

Will they makes us prove We need it for Self Defense or Personal Protection? Personally I think will depend on How SCOTUS word their opinion in NYSPRA v Bruen as well as how the 3rd circuit issues their opinion based on SCOTUS as well.

Especially since this bill even if it passes won’t go into effect till 10/1/2022

ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a
2 3
4 5
handgun, such as PERSONAL PROTECTION, SELF–DEFENSE, OR a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

Again, Bruen isn't defining Personal protection at SCOTUS, it wasn't even a part of the question.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

The point I was making is their is the reason of self defense. Which is different then personal protection. The two terms are spectated by commas. Defining them as two separate reasons.

So what your trying to say is that the law needs to state that one doesn’t have to prove self defense, or prove self protection for a state to actually become a shall issue state. Or MSP no longer requiring proof.

The MSI v Hogan case though is about G&S

 

[Texasgrillchef]

If I may nit pick a bit.

If this bill passes, it won't make Maryland a Shall Issue state. Why?

Because personal protection is already an accepted G&S by MSP for a wear and carry permit. THE ISSUE is MSP's administrative over reach on what is required to prove the ned for personal protection. Until that issue is addressed, bills like this are just pandering by the legislator, to their constituents, so they can say "See, I tried" when they don't even understand the issue.

I get that, and what about the reason of self defense, which is different then Sself protection.

 

[dblas]

I get that, and what about the reason of self defense, which is different then Sself protection.

In Maryland they are the same as far as MSP is concerned. And regardless of the G&S, MSP requires the applicant to provide proof of need for the G&S.

Personal protection - prove you ned it
Self defense - prove you need it
Business owner - prove you need it
Security clearance - prove you need it
The next G&S reason added to the law - prove you need it

It won't matter what the G&S reason is, until MSPs administrative over reach is removed, or until G&S is removed from the law, Maryland will continue to be a may issue state.

I tried to get legislators to understand this when I spent the entire session in Annapolis, but none of them wanted to hear. Here we are six sessions later and they still are playing the same damned games with our rights.

On a none 2A note, I may be out your way next week, Kilgore actually. If I get the time, meet for a beer?

 

[Raineman]

"can qualify as a good and substantial reason"

"CAN" is not "qualifies", and everyone knows that leaves it as an option as far as MSP is concerned.

Like dblas, I have spoken to everyone that has ever sponsored this (or even thought about it) that the wording "CAN QUALIFY" needs to be "QUALIFIES" to leave no interpretation to the MSP, but nobody ever listens. Add to that the fact that Dan is still right, over and above the wording.

This bill has a permanent drawer in its respective judiciary committees. Nobody in the House would petition it out of Committee when they had the numbers to do so, and for those that don't know, the Republicans were told by Speaker Busch (Bush?) that if they petitioned it, not a single Republican sponsored bill would ever sniff a hearing.

 

[rambling_one]

In Maryland they are the same as far as MSP is concerned. And regardless of the G&S, MSP requires the applicant to provide proof of need for the G&S.

Personal protection - prove you ned it
Self defense - prove you need it
Business owner - prove you need it
Security clearance - prove you need it
The next G&S reason added to the law - prove you need it

It won't matter what the G&S reason is, until MSPs administrative over reach is removed, or until G&S is removed from the law, Maryland will continue to be a may issue state.

I tried to get legislators to understand this when I spent the entire session in Annapolis, but none of them wanted to hear. Here we are six sessions later and they still are playing the same damned games with our rights.

On a none 2A note, I may be out your way next week, Kilgore actually. If I get the time, meet for a beer?

What then do you see coming out of the SCOTUS decision?

 

[dblas]

What then do you see coming out of the SCOTUS decision?

Clarification of the level of scrutiny used in federal 2A cases.

Maybe the removal of G&S reasoning to get a permit.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

"can qualify as a good and substantial reason"

"CAN" is not "qualifies", and everyone knows that leaves it as an option as far as MSP is concerned.

Like dblas, I have spoken to everyone that has ever sponsored this (or even thought about it) that the wording "CAN QUALIFY" needs to be "QUALIFIES" to leave no interpretation to the MSP, but nobody ever listens. Add to that the fact that Dan is still right, over and above the wording.

This bill has a permanent drawer in its respective judiciary committees. Nobody in the House would petition it out of Committee when they had the numbers to do so, and for those that don't know, the Republicans were told by Speaker Busch (Bush?) that if they petitioned it, not a single Republican sponsored bill would ever sniff a hearing.

What the democrats are to stupid to realize is that the NYSPRA case will effect all 8 May issue states.

Washington D.C. had to scramble when their LTC was enjoined, and Washington DC became constitutional carry for about a month. They had to scramble.

So if they don’t do something before SCOTUS rules, Maryland democrats will be scrambling possibly. But hey they don’t have the brain power to realize that. They still think they will win!

 

[DC-W]

Here’s the hearing for the Senate version SB327: https://youtu.be/CZ542C9gXdc?t=8219

JPR Chair Smith doesn’t appear thrilled that an opinion will likely drop after the General Assembly has adjourned in April.

 

[Allen65]

JPR Chair Smith doesn’t appear thrilled that an opinion will likely drop after the General Assembly has adjourned in April.

Well, he could have authored a bill years ago that would have made MD Shall Issue, but under the conditions he wanted. Now he'll likely see Shall Issue forced on him later this year by the Federal Judiciary in ways he won't like.

 

[DC-W]

Here he was last year, before the New York case had been granted.

https://youtu.be/FAxovUDkF3M