Delegate Michael Smigiel, a Republican from Cecil and a concealed-carry permit holder, is working with Delegate Tiffany Alston, a Democrat from Prince George’s, to clarify language in the state’s handgun carry law that Second Amendment advocates have long complained infringes on their rights.
At issue is a requirement to show a “good and substantial reason” to carry a gun, a cornerstone of Maryland’s law that forces applicants to establish a compelling need for the license.
When the General Assembly passed the state’s handgun carry law in 1972, giving state police discretion to award permits, it did not define what constitutes a good and substantial reason to carry a gun. As a result, state police have interpreted court decisions over the years to decide whether each applicant fits the criteria for a permit.
“The state police are enforcing a law they can’t define clearly,” said Alston, a lawyer. “The fact they’re using case law puts the ball back in our court. We need to go ahead and tackle the issue and get a definition.”
Almost annually, lawmakers file legislation aimed at repealing the good and substantial clause. Each has died in committee, including proposals filed in recent sessions by a former Harford County Democrat.
Smigiel and Alston are still weighing the possibility of filing legislation this session, though Friday marks the filing deadline for House bills to get a guaranteed hearing. In an attempt to avoid past failures, the two lawmakers will meet with Maryland State Police officials Tuesday to “try and get language we can all agree on,” Alston said.
But Smigiel, who grilled state police about handgun carry permits at a House committee hearing last month, said he doesn’t expect next week’s meeting to change anything.
“We won’t make any progress. The superintendent of state police takes his orders from the governor, and the governor is not about to do anything that changes the status quo in respect to issuing handgun permits,” Smigiel said. “Any change is going to have to come through the courts.”
The good and substantial clause is the basis for Maryland’s designation as a “may issue” state for concealed carry permits. It requires that Marylanders applying for a permit for “personal protection” must show “documented evidence of recent threats, robberies … or assaults,” that are supported by police reports and notarized statements from witnesses.
Other categories in the permit application, such as for business owners, have other requirements.
Gun-rights advocates argue Maryland’s law tramples on their Second Amendment rights and that state police arbitrarily award permits.
Maryland State Police officials defend the permitting process, saying each application is examined on a case-by-case basis. Without a definition, state police have been tasked to enforce the statute by developing formulas based on case law, Maryland State Police Lt. Jerry Beason told the House Judiciary Committee last month.
“The law has good and substantial reason. We have not been able to get a definition of that as of yet,” Beason said. “We would love to have that.”
If Smigiel had his way, the state would shift away from “may issue” standards and toward a “shall issue” system for handgun carry permits. That would require authorities to provide a license to applicants who meet specified criteria, generally a clear criminal and mental health background, without establishing a compelling reason.
Thirty-seven states are recognized as “shall issue,” according to the National Rifle Association. Three states — Vermont, Alaska and Arizona — don’t require a permit to tote a gun. Maryland is among eight states with “may issue” requirements, according to the NRA.
Making changes to the state’s concealed carry law has traditionally been an unpopular move among Democrats. But Delegate Luiz Simmons, a Democrat from Montgomery who favors gun control, said it might be time to give the good and substantial clause “some greater specificity” because the state police’s method for granting handgun permits is “loosey-goosey.”
“I think this standard is so loosey-goosey that I understand the frustration of people who work through the law and work through the system and get a response back and somebody says it wasn’t good and substantial,” said Simmons, a key member of the House Judiciary Committee, where gun bills are heard. “I am not unsympathetic.”
DAVID SALEH RAUF
Gren Whitman says
You’ve printed this non-story — why?
Delegate Smigiel himself admits that nothing will happen regarding his bill in the General Assembly (“We won’t make any progress. Any change is going to have to come through the courts.”), so why run this?
Anyway, the fact that the Maryland state police insist on “may” instead of “shall” when considering handgun permits makes our “Free State” a much safer state state as well, no matter what the armed-to-the-teeth crowd howls!
Ask yourself, with that stranger next to me, am I safer with him (or her) armed or not armed?
After all, I’m sure we can all agree that guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.
Joseph Mitchell says
What really scares me about this story is the revelation that Smigiel is a concealed-carry permit holder himself! But what did we expect? It’s the right wing politics of fear. They are obsessed with this gun toting culture, and won’t be satisfied until everyone carries one around on the street. And they are so proud of themselves, they have no idea we are the laughing stock of the world. I think it’s interesting that Egypt didn’t need a second amendment to carry off its changes. I hate to think of the Tea Party, armed to the teeth, in a similar situation. But there is no use debating the issue with them, these people are sick and they have absolutely no faith in their own country. Their brand of patriotism is anything but.
Laura D says
Not to worry…Smigiel introduces these bills to get campaign contributions from the gun people but he never gets them through the General Assembly. He has his own videographer, who is on the taxpayers’ payroll, recording all his foaming at the mouth to put videos on Facebook, Youtube, etc. so all his gun-toting friends can fulminate along with him.
He has another bill that would give residents of Va., W.Va, PA, and Delaware the right to carry concealed handguns in Maryland– even if their states’ have very weak rules for concealed carry permits. (Which they do.) So someone who is denied a permit from Maryland State Police could go get one in those states and Smigiel’s bill would put his stamp of approval on evading Maryland law! Makes you wonder why 36th District taxpayers are paying his salary since he is more interested iin representing out of state and non-local interests.
Will Blake says
If guns really kept us safe, the US would be the safest nation in the world with our 270 million firearms. However, guns are used to kills more than 30,000 and injure 70,000 per year. The U.S. has the highest rate of firearms deaths among 25 high-income nations and overall fire-related death among U.S. children under the age of 15 is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized nations combined. Aside from the blather about keeping guns in the household to keep us safe, multiple studies indicate that it is more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, assault or suicide attempt than used for self-defense.
Doesn’t Cecil county face the same unemployment issues as the rest of the nation? Doesn’t Delegate Smigiel have something better to do than update his membership in the Merchants of Death Club?
doneitall says
It’s amusing to read all of the comments from so many frightened, helpless people. For all that you know, I carry every day and walk among you. BOO!
John Seidel says
I see a few numbers quoted above, but consider the following statistics, which tell a somewhat different story.
First, gun ownership. The best estimates for gun ownership in the United States indicate that somewhere between 40-45 million Americans own handguns (17-19%) and 40-45% of households own some type of gun. So that’s close to half of the country that is “sick ,” either in person or by family association. Why do they own guns? Many hunt or shoot at targets for recreation. Perhaps you don’t find this “recreational.” Fine – I don’t knit, sky-dive, or collect butterflies, but I don’t pass judgment on those who do so.
People also own guns for self-defense. A 2005 Gallup poll revealed that of 67% of gunowners owned firearms for protection against crime. You can call it blather, but statistics suggest that they’re not wrong – a study for the Justice Dept. found that 34 percent of felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and 40 percent had not committed crimes, fearing victims were armed. A 1993 nationwide survey indicated that private citizens (not law enforcement, security guards, military, etc.) used guns for self-protection something like 162,000 times during the year, so this is not a hypothetical or imagined threat. An earlier 1991 survey by the CDC found that American homeowners used guns to scare off intruders breaking into their homes an astounding 498,000 times per year. If these numbers are even close to correct, that’s a substantial amount of crime averted because of guns. And an analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey data suggests that robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.
Regarding handguns, since 1991, 24 states adopted “shall issue” laws and the number of privately owned guns has risen by about 90 million. Scary, right? But at the same time, through 2008 the nation’s murder rate decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low. Is there a correlation? Not necessarily, but the numbers certainly don’t suggest that relaxing carry laws or growing gun ownership resulted in a rise in crime.
In fact, county-by-county studies in the US indicate that when right to carry, concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent. Since Florida enacted its right-to-carry law, the murder ate has averaged 36% lower, while the national rate has declined 15%. National surveys of police show that they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin. There is not a single academic study I’m aware of claiming that right-to-carry laws have increased state crime rates.
Are we a laughing stock because of our crime rate and ”lax” gun laws? That depends upon who you talk to and how you look at the numbers. If you look just at gun-related crime or death, I guess you might conclude that you’re safer in a in the UK or somewhere with tough gun laws. But you might be wrong. The homicide rate in Britain, with its rigorous gun control laws, has averaged 52% higher since the 1968 gun control law was put in place and 15% higher since the 1997 handgun ban was enacted. Government reports in 2009 recorded 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in the U.K., compared to 430 per 100,000 in the US (and Bureau of Justice statistics showed a narrowing of the gap between US and UK murder rates from 1981-1996). Other countries having higher rates of violent crime are: Austria (1,677/100,000), Sweden (1,123), Belgium (1,006), Canada (935), Finland (738), Netherlands (676), Luxembourg (565) and France (504). All of these countries have stricter gun control laws than the US and higher rates of violent crime.
So much for the numbers…
I usually keep my mouth shut on these issues, for fear that someone won’t talk to me next time I walk into Sam’s. I have no doubt that it will happen, but for the record, I’m not “armed to the teeth,” “sick,” a right-winger, in the Tea Party, or even in the NRA. But I do support the right of responsible individuals to own guns and don’t see any compelling arguments in the comments above. Characterizing legislators as foaming at the mouth and supporters as sick and unpatriotic frankly isn’t very convincing.
By the way, regarding the recent Egyptian revolution: one important reason that the Egyptian people succeeded is that the guys with the guns – the army – were on their side.
Joseph Mitchell says
Well gee John. I guess I owe you an apology, and perhaps a thank you for keeping this country so safe. I think you’re on the right track with those statistics…the logic of your argument makes a compelling case for everyone to own a gun…why not?…think of it, imagine how much safer and wonderful the country would be then.
Oh, but there is just one thing. Did you notice the above comment from Doneitall ? Now’s there’s an example of a responsible gun owner! Maybe you ought to be lecturing some of your fellow travelers instead of those of us who don’t walk around town like that cowboy with his six gun and an attitude ! You might be a supporter of gun owners John, but watch out for him ! Having an attitude when you’re knitting, sky diving, or collecting butterflies is one thing, but feeling a little on edge as you’re running around town “carrying” like a two-holster rip roaring cowboy buckaroo… well that’s something else entirely….. Isn’t it ?……John?
Gren Whitman says
Because Prof. Seidel cites unattributed statistics to show that with more guns around, we’re safer, I’m free to offer one of my own, to wit: More family members are shot than burglars in houses with a firearm.
Sorry, John, but plain, everyday logic tells me that if there are fewer firearms, it’s less likely I’ll be shot.
Keith Thompson says
Gren, you’re right that if there are fewer firearms, it’s less likely that you’ll be shot. However, thanks to 200 plus years of American history, the guns are already here and therefore have to be dealt with in the most pragmatic way possible. Gun control is a moot argument if the guns are already here.
Gren Whitman says
I don’t seek a ban on guns willynilly. With 283 million firearms owned by civilians in U.S. (approx. 1/3 of them handguns), that would be impractical.
But it’s not impractical to enact laws to protect ourselves, our families, and our neighbors from needless injury and death from others using firearms stupidly, irresponsibly, and inappropriately.
Such measures can include (1) background checks (see Tucson shootings), (2) banning large magazines (again, see Tucson), (3) banning assault weapons, (4) banning concealed “carry,” and (5) microstamping bullets.
Keith Thompson’s remarks just above are 100% appropriate.
John Seidel says
I did not clog my already long comment above with citations, but not all of the statistics were unattributed, to wit: Gallup, Department of Justice, Centers for Disease Control, National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice. If you really want references, we can talk offline.
Gren, I can provide an attribution for your assertion regarding firearms in the home, or at least the most commonly cited source. That is a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine (314:1557-60) article by Kellarman and Reay. Despite the prominence of the journal, their data collection methods, analysis and reasoning were deeply flawed. The article and the more general argument have been thoroughly debunked by Kleck (1997 – Targeting Guns; 1998 in Journal of the American Medical Association) and many others (see Kate, Schaffer et al. 1994 Tenn Law Review 513-596 for a statistical critique of similar arguments). This claim is so commonly cited as to have become an article of faith among many, but repetition doesn’t make it so.
To be more explicit about the point underlying my earlier comment on this article – most of the arguments above seem based heavily on emotion, rather than on logic and data, and that’s a bad way to make policy and write law. This will be my last comment on this topic, lest I incite Joseph (who frankly seems more on edge than Doneitall) to more sarcasm in support of his position.
“Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.” ~ Lewis Carroll
Gren Whitman says
To add to this statistical “food fight,” here are some stats compiled by the Brady (*) Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to augment our common sense.
Where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths. Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center).
In a study year, 31,224 Americans died from gun violence and 66,769 survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes 12,632 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack; 17,352 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun; 613 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally, but survived.
Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated (Childrens’ Defense Fund). U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates, and the firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher. Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80 percent of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States. Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, costs of the criminal justice system, security precautions such as metal detectors, and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. TEA PARTY BUDGET CUTTERS TAKE NOTICE: These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 BILLION annually.
(*) Jim Brady is, of course, the Sainted Ron Reagan’s former press secretary who was also shot by the saint’s would-be assassin!
Luis Rodriguez says
Hmm, I wonder how many of these crimes were commited by licensed gun owners