2024 MD Legislative Session Video 1 & HQL Litigation Update
Duane Urban:
Andre, is the HQ L gone? Have we won?
Andre McDonald:
Not yet.
Duane Urban:
Welcome to the Urban Defense Podcast. I'm Dwayne Urban, along with Andrew Saller, the managing partner of Ser Lord ERNs Berger and Inslee. And in today's episode we'll be talking about the 2024 Maryland legislative session, as well as an update on the HQL litigation. This is the first video in our series on the 2024 Maryland legislative session. Our returning guest today is Andre McDonald from the McDonald Law Firm. Andre is extremely dialed in on farms legislation and litigation both locally and nationally. And he'll help us to break down the proposed laws and litigation as well as understand any challenges that they may encounter. So Andre, welcome back.
Andre McDonald :
Oh, thank you for having me back, Dwayne, and a happy new year to you both to you and Andrew.
Duane Urban :
Yeah, thank you for coming back and happy new year to you Andre. Thank you so much for dressing up. So nice for tonight. I really appreciate it.
Andre McDonald:
Andre, you look beautiful. Look at those socks. Appreciate it man. Yeah, matching socks. Who makes that tie there? I have no clue
Duane Urban:
Coming right from the office, I assume.
Andre McDonald:
No, I actually had court today in Montgomery County. Very
Duane Urban:
Good, very good. Okay, well thank you for being here. So can you tell the audience a little bit about who you are and your background and how you stay so dialed in on these laws?
Andre McDonald:
Well recently the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal has granted an ENNC review, which is a review of the entire fourth circuit will take a look at the case now. So some procedural history on the case. This case has been around almost what, 10 plus years now. The original case was brought at, I want to say 2016.
Duane Urban:
2016.
Andre McDonald:
Okay. And it was dismissed on some procedural grounds, legalese like standing. The original petitioners did not have standing. They appeal the fourth circuit, reversed the district court and sent the case back to be actually reviewed on the merits. Thus district court ruled against the petitioners in that case and they finally filed an appeal on the merits. And the fourth circuit recently ruled on a two to one decision that the requirements of the Maryland HQL violates the second amendment under the Bruin standard previously. Lemme just backtrack a bit. When Maryland shall issue brought the case originally, this was prior to the brewing decision and when the district court ruled on the merits, they ruled that it did not violate the second because they were analyzing it under the Heller standards and such. They were basically using what a means, test a means ends test and post brewing that test went away. So under the brewing standard, you have to look now. And is this a type of regulation throughout the history and tradition of the nation? Was this a type of regulation that was enacted and was not offensive to the Second Amendment? To lack of a better word.
Andrew Saller:
Can you point to a historical analogy of requiring an HQL?
Andre McDonald:
No.
Andrew Saller:
And then just so everyone understands, for an en banc appeal, how many judges then are going to hear it For the fourth circuit?
Andre McDonald:
It's all the judges that sit in the circuit. It's the entire circuit.
Andrew Saller:
So we're going to be going from three judges to 15. Yes.
Duane Urban:
So why is that? Why did only three here at initially and now we're at 15 for the average person?
Andre McDonald:
Well, when Congress set up the system, procedurally you have the district court where you have a single judge and then you have the first leg of the court of circuit courts of appeals where all cases are heard by a three judge panel. Randomly these three judges are picked and they sit and they hear cases. The arm banc review is not a mandatory review, whereas your review from your district court ruling the losing party always have a right to review, file, an appeal with the circuit court, which is a mandatory review. D ONG is discretionary. Likewise, petition to the Supreme Court for review is also discretionary. The court does not, most cases the Supreme Court does not have to take because it's not mandatory.
Duane Urban:
So the judges on that fourth circuit, then they have to agree to hear that case
Andre McDonald:
In the AMBON review? Yes, but the initial mandatory appeal, your mandatory appeal rights that you have as a litigant, it's a three judge panel.
Andrew Saller:
So the appeal of Right, the three judges are going to be randomly assigned and hear it, but all 15 have agreed, not all 15, but a majority of the 15 agreed to hear this on bonk.
Andre McDonald:
Correct? That is correct.
Andrew Saller:
So all 15 will hear it. So just because we were victorious two to one on the direct appeal does not mean we will win this on bonk, unfortunately.
Andre McDonald:
Correct? That is correct. But I brought for some reading for Dwayne and I've read this opinion and it's pretty solid. The reasoning, the legal reasoning is pretty solid and I think we have a chance in sustaining affirming this decision.
Andrew Saller:
So let's just talk about the timeline real quick. I know we have people whose HQLs are coming up for renewal and they're going to say, ah, I don't need to bother renewing them. Now I don't feel that's a wise course of action currently, but I want to hear from you, Andre, how long is this going to take? You
Andre McDonald:
Are correct. Let me just put it out there right now. Status quo. If you're trying to purchase a firearm in Maryland today, you still will be required to have DHQL. This could be, I would say probably early summer we should have a decision. It is going to take a few months and the decision does not mean that's the end of it because the losing party still has the ability to petition the US Supreme Court for review.
Andrew Saller:
We're going to take it all the way to the Supreme
Andre McDonald:
Court Court. Supreme Court, yes. And that's a discretionary review on the court's behalf. And if the Supreme Court grants a review, that likely that case will not come up for hearing until the next session, which starts October one of this year.
Andrew Saller:
And in all likelihood, it wouldn't be until October 1st, 2025, correct?
Andre McDonald:
Probably. And a decision will not come probably till the following summer. So
Andrew Saller:
2026.
Andre McDonald:
Exactly.
Andrew Saller:
So anyone who's watching, listening and anticipating saving money on their HQL renewal,
Andre McDonald:
No, unfortunately no. You still have to go out and get that HQL. If you're a first time purchasing a firearm, you still need to go get it. And if yours about to expire, you need to renew it. Yeah,
Duane Urban:
I couldn't tell you how many calls I've received from people saying, Hey, I heard that you don't have to have an HQ L anymore. And I'm like, well, that's not true. And then you explain it to them and they don't know what quite to make of it.
Andrew Saller:
Mutual friends of ours who all want to sign up for a class action lawsuit to sue the state. Not ripe yet. Not ripe.
Duane Urban:
Okay. So any more on the HQL front or should we move on?
Andre McDonald:
Well, stay tuned. Stay tuned. I'm hopeful in the reading that opinion. I think if everyone has a chance to look at the summary of it, it is Marilyn Shall issue versus Westmore Moore. It was substituted somewhere online. You may see it as Marilyn Shall issue versus Hogan. Who's that? That's the former governor. Don't know
Andrew Saller:
That guy.
Andre McDonald:
Once his term was over, he left. He was
Duane Urban:
A Democrat, wasn't
Andre McDonald:
He? What was he really? Yeah, I have no clue.
Duane Urban:
I don't think he does either. So
Andrew Saller:
No labels gentlemen, labels, no
Andre McDonald:
Labels. So they had to substituted and place Westmore as the defendant for the state. So if you look it up, it's Maryland Shall issue versus Westmore. And it's the logic reason by the majority in the case it's pretty solid. And looking at the history and tradition, Maryland argued two prominent issues that why the HQL requirement should stand one, that the requirement is there to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals. The court easily dispatched of that. It was like we have other laws that do that. If you're, we have federal law that says if you're prohibited already, you are prohibited.
Andrew Saller:
I just don't show up and show my HQL don't have to bother filing a 77 R. I can just show the HQ L and walk out with a firearm Now in Maryland
Andre McDonald:
Gun
Duane Urban:
Show loophole.
Andre McDonald:
No, we're not there yet. We're not there yet. And then the court looked at, even if you're a law abiding citizen and you jump through all the hoops that the state has put in front of you, all those hurdles, you still cannot obtain a firearm. You still have to wait 30 days. And in one of the footnotes, the majority went on to say 30 days is just a minimum because it's not including the time you have to take to be fingerprinted. You have to get a class. Usually these classes filled up pretty quickly. You have to get the range time to do the range component, then you have to fill out and submit the application and you still have to pay the fee and wait the 30 days. If you're successful at every interval, you receive the HQL and now you walk into a BC gun store, you cannot purchase the firearm and leave, still have the waiting period, still have to wait another waiting period. Astounding. So while the court in this opinion did not rule on those other peripheral issue in the legal field, we call it indictor, they touched on it, they just brushed over it and say, we'll take that on another time. So stay tuned.
Andrew Saller:
So Dwayne, we're still going to need to take some classes from you to get our HQLs.
Duane Urban:
Well happy to provide those. So for those who watched previously that we covered a bunch of legislation in the 2023 Maryland legislative session, it was something like 49 bills, give or take, many of which we discussed compared to this year where we're really only talking, I think about six or seven bills at least. These are the main ones that would affect most of you. There were some things in there about capturing data, reporting data and law enforcement stuff that doesn't really apply to many of you. So we stuck to the ones we thought were going to be most relevant guys, why the stark difference in the number of bills this year versus last year? Is there any rhyme or reason to this or what's going on?
Andrew Saller:
The state is broke. Maryland is out of money. The cities are out of money. The counties are out of money. Every municipality is out of money and they are down in Annapolis like cats in a bag fighting over who gets caught and whose taxes are going to get raised.
Duane Urban:
Got it. Andre,
Andre McDonald:
I take a different approach from Andrew. Maybe he's more dialed into Annapolis than I am. But I would like to say specifically with regards to legislation on the second amendment front, I think the district court ruling in SB one was a really that up and in fastball and you brush it back off the plate, it probably just pushed them back a bit.
Duane Urban:
It may have. I mean it was a big deal.
Andre McDonald:
Yeah, they just went all in after brewing, came down and just basically said, we're not going to stand for this. And federal courts just pushed back.
Andrew Saller:
I hope you're correct, Andre. I know these people, they want your guns yesterday.
Andre McDonald:
Thank God for the Second Amendment
Andrew Saller:
From my cold dead hands. Yes,
Duane Urban:
Yes. So with these bills that we're seeing, these six or seven, whatever we're going to be talking about, is this all that we can expect for the viewers out there? Is there any cutoff or could we expect somebody to throw something in after today?
Andrew Saller:
They have plenty of time still to introduce more legislation. The session just began, goes for 90 days. They still have ample time to introduce new bills. Crossover day is still going to be weeks away. So anything that could still be introduced in the coming weeks could certainly move to the other chamber and move forward and become a
Duane Urban:
Law. So new bills could in fact appear. This wasn't the last day for filing everything. They could still put something in.
Andrew Saller:
Absolutely.
Duane Urban:
Okay.
Andrew Saller:
Don't count our chickens before they
Duane Urban:
Hatch. So in that same vein, maybe for the benefit of the viewers, Andrew, could you maybe go over how a bill gets introduced, how it works its way through the colon of Annapolis and then comes out of where to become a Maryland law?
Andrew Saller:
So either the Senate or the House, one of our fine legislators would have to introduce a bill. It would be referred to a committee. It would have to be voted out of that committee, successfully have to go to the house floor all throughout this process subject to amendments, survive amendments on the house floor or the Senate floor. Pass a third reading, which is the final time, no more amendments after that. And then it would cross over to the other chamber and then it would have to go through a committee there. Once again, be read up to three times subject to amendments. And then if the two bills are identical sent to the governor, if they're not identical, it needs to be sent back to the originating chamber to resolve any differences between the two. Eventually it's sent to the governor and he has the opportunity to either sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.
Duane Urban:
Okay, and how does that happen? He just abstains from signing, but he just does nothing and it becomes law.
Andrew Saller:
He, for Governor Hogan was famous for doing this for policy proposals that he did not agree with, but the Democrats have a super majority here in the Maryland legislature. They were going to override his veto. He would just allow certain things to become law rather than veto them and have his veto be overwritten.
Duane Urban:
Okay.
Andrew Saller:
Yeah. Pocket veto, except it's the opposite. A pocket pass. A pocket pass.
Duane Urban:
No labels.
Andrew Saller:
No labels.
Duane Urban:
Alright, so with that said, let's go ahead and get into it. So in no particular order, let's go ahead and start with House Bill 21 straw purchase participant. This is sponsored by Delegate Dahlia Atar. No.
Andrew Saller:
Yeah.
Duane Urban:
Was that right? Okay. They gave me a hard time about saying the names. I want to make sure I got it right. So Dahlia Atar, Democrat, Baltimore City. This was introduced last session 2023, regular session as House bill 1 59. So Andrew, do you want to tell us about that?
Andrew Saller:
This bill, it's designed for a very specific purpose. If you commit a straw purchase, a police officer cannot arrest you unless you do these straw purses in front of them because it's a misdemeanor not committed in their presence. They would have to currently under the law go and get a warrant from a district court commissioner before they could arrest you. This adds a straw purchase to a very small list of crimes that an officer, they are misdemeanors and an officer can arrest you for even if it did not occur in their presence. If they have probable cause to believe it occurred, I am not sure how many people would be charged under this section. And how much, is there a call for this? How many officers are encountering straw purchases and they say, darn, I would arrest the guy, but instead I'm going to have to go to the district court commissioner and chase him down?
Duane Urban:
Well generally if there's a straw purchase taking place, and let's say the girlfriend is buying it for the boyfriend because the boyfriend is a prohibited person. The moment she gives that gun to that person and he possesses it, he's in violation. So I don't know what usefulness this has.
Andrew Saller:
Well, and once again, this doesn't make the straw purchase illegal. This just allows a police officer to arrest you without obtaining a warrant first. And it does increase the penalties. It does do that to 10 years and a $25,000 fine. But currently the list of crimes that an officer can arrest you for misdemeanors that did not occur in his or her presence, include manslaughter of by a motor vehicle, malicious burning, malicious mischief, theft, the crime of giving or causing to give a false alarm of fire indecent exposure, a crime relating to controlled dangerous substances, the wearing, carrying or transporting of a handgun, carrying or wearing a concealed weapon, prostitution violation of a condition of pretrial or post-trial release and potentially adding knowingly being a participant in a straw purchase of a regulated firearm.
Duane Urban:
Okay. Moving on house Bill 41, violent firearms of Offender Act of 2024. This is sponsored by Delegate Nino Mangione, Republican Baltimore County. This was also introduced in a prior setting or prior session, rather, 2023 regular session as House Bill 9 52. Andrew,
Andrew Saller:
This bill increases a lot of criminal penalties and removes the discretion of a district court commissioner to release certain people that are charged with certain offenses. I am not saying this is a good or bad piece of legislation, but it has a snowball's chance in hell of getting actually passed chiefly because of who the sponsor is. Key things amounted even for a first offense, a district court commissioner could not release someone who's charged under this provision. It would increase the mandatory minimums under certain sections here. And it's a very hard on crime type of bill that is rather unpopular in Annapolis in the current setting.
Andre McDonald:
I concur counselor.
Duane Urban:
So not much chance of that one. So now what's interesting, and Andre, you and I spoke about this over the phone as we move into Senate Bill 28, also called the Violent Firearms Offenders Act of 2024. This one sponsored by Senator William Foden, Republican Frederick County and 12 other Republicans also was introduced last session as Senate Bill 7 44. Why these two similar bills, Andrew
Andrew Saller:
Dwayne, one's coming out of the house and they're not identical, they're not cross-filed and one's coming out of the Senate. Very similar subject matters very similar approaches, both target people who steal firearms, both target people increasing mandatory mandatory minimums for misuse of a firearm and a crime. But once again, the current political climate in Annapolis is not supporting increasing mandatory minimums or increasing penalties on a wide range of offenses.
Duane Urban:
So could these both pass and then become law similarly named or would they have to be joined in some way?
Andrew Saller:
Eventually the differences between the two would have to be reconciled by either the House or the Senate and made identical.
Duane Urban:
Okay. Andre, thoughts on that one?
Andre McDonald:
Well, I'm with Andrew with the current political climate is less likely that increased punishment penalties are going to be enacted.
Andrew Saller:
I would support putting criminals who steal firearms in prison.
Duane Urban:
Absolutely. And with that said, that puts us to Senate Bill 39, the Gun Theft Felony Act of 2024, sponsored by another Republican, Justin Reedy, Republican, Frederick and Carroll County and 12 other Republicans. And again, just like the previous two, this one had been previously introduced in the last session but went nowhere.
Andrew Saller:
It's been introduced every year since 2018 and it has never gone anywhere.
Duane Urban:
So what does it do? What does it say? What is it proposing?
Andrew Saller:
It makes the theft of firearms a felony and establishes minimum sentences that if you are convicted of stealing a firearm, you're in trouble.
Duane Urban:
So interestingly enough you mean that the stealing of a firearm isn't a felony? Come on
Andrew Saller:
Man. No, depending on its value. It's like any other piece of property.
Duane Urban:
Okay, Andre, thoughts on that? You think it'll see the light today?
Andre McDonald:
How long it's been introduced and how many years now?
Duane Urban: 2024 MD Legislative Session Video 1 & HQL Litigation Update
2018?
Andre McDonald:
Yeah,
Andrew Saller:
This will be the year. This is going to be the year we're going to get it this year. Yeah,
Andre McDonald:
You know the old saying first you don't succeed.
Duane Urban:
Yeah. Try, try again.
Andre McDonald:
Well try, try, try, try, try, try again.
Duane Urban:
Maybe this'll be the year.
Andrew Saller:
Yeah, right Now as long as you were stealing a firearm that was worth less than $1,500, it would only be a misdemeanor facing a maximum of 18 months
Andre McDonald:
Incarceration. Let me say this, if this couldn't make it into SSB one last year when everyone in Annapolis was ready to go get something passed.
Duane Urban:
Well I think they were more concerned about you carrying guns as opposed to stealing them.
Andre McDonald:
Well, in order to get the votes, you just have to pile stuff in there. You want my support on your bill here? You have to take my amendment, attach it to yours.
Andrew Saller:
Yeah. I don't think they needed any help though. If
Andre McDonald:
You remember it.
Duane Urban:
It's a what? It's a five to one majority or something. What is the majority in Annapolis? Some ridiculous number I'm sure
Andrew Saller:
Right now in the Maryland
Duane Urban:
Producer. Jimmy, you going to grab that for us?
Andrew Saller:
Yeah. What are the numbers of how many Republican state senators and how many Republicans in the Maryland House of Delegates
Duane Urban:
Versus the Democrats?
Andrew Saller:
And I am sure it's not going to be a pretty number. I distinctly remember in 2022 the Republicans lost state Senate seats and several house seats.
Duane Urban:
Right Now it wasn't very good to be before
Andrew Saller:
That. No, no. And it only got worse.
Duane Urban:
Okay, so while he's looking that up, let's move on to the next one. And again, it's going to sound very similar. Senate Bill 1 79, the violent firearm owners, or I'm sorry, violent firearms offender act of 2024 sponsored by Senator Ron Watson, Democrat, PG County, and one other Democrat and one Republican again introduced in the prior session. What is it? What does it mean, Andrew?
Andrew Saller:
This one is a little bit more complicated than a lot of these bills. This establishes that a violation of probation or parole that involves the use or possession of a firearm is not a technical violation. Now a normal person's going to go, what the heck does any of that mean? In Maryland under the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act, technical violations are capped at a maximum of 15 days of incarceration. So I really would struggle to envision a scenario where you would use a firearm and violate your probation, but it would be a technical violation. Technical violations are you had a missed reporting with your probation or parole agent, or you had a dirty urinalysis with your probation or parole agent, something substantive such as shooting someone or being in possession of a firearm. Those would not be covered as technical violations to begin with. So I'm unsure where there's the need for this.
Andre McDonald:
Again, a solution looking for a problem.
Duane Urban:
Exactly. Exactly. So then what's the purpose? Just to try and throw something in there and say, Hey, we're doing something. I mean,
Andrew Saller:
It's got some other elements too. It requires the commissioner of correction to provide inmates with reentry kits to assist them in obtaining Medicaid benefits, things of that nature. I'm not so sure. This is a catchall bill and you see it does have Democrat and Republican support to go after people that are using firearms improperly in the community.
Andre McDonald: But let me ask this, Andrew, but by definition, if you're on parole on both state and federal law, you are prohibited. You're a prohibited person.
Andrew Saller: It would be very difficult to find a situation where a parolee would be eligible to purchase or possess a firearm. It would be very difficult. I cannot imagine one off the top of my head. And then a standard condition of probation is that one will not possess firearms without the court's approval.
Duane Urban: So again,
Andre McDonald: Solution looking for
Duane Urban: A problem like you said,
Andre McDonald: No, because I know this is a discussion for a different video, but there are cases litigation around the country that are trying under brewing that are trying to get to some of these issues.
Andrew Saller: Absolutely. Those though have generally, as I understand it, you tell me though, more focused on the rights of people who are prohibited persons due to aged and decayed convictions for crimes such like tax fraud who are now prohibited to have their rights restored.
Andre McDonald: Yes, those are part of it. But there is a case, the circuit is slipping me right now where it's an actual domestic violence issue where the party, the petitioner in the case is arguing that on Bruin basically was at a ladenburg amendment, it should not apply.
Andrew Saller: He got the protective order against him and then became a prohibited person during the period of it. Yes.
Andre McDonald: So these cases, they're making their way. They got out of the district court and they got it. Some of them are into the circuit courts and a lot of the district court rulings are basically, some of them are, in fact some are stayed while the litigation proceed. The next year is going to be a, I want to say a watershed moment for a lot of these thorny issues with regards to whether or not certain prohibited individuals or individuals who become prohibited can they be in possession of a firearm.
Andrew Saller: I'm going to hold you to that, Andre.
Andre McDonald: I'm an eternal optimist.
Duane Urban: Alright, so moving along to Senate Bill 3 24 handgun permits, accidental discharge and training requirements, this being called the Firearm Safety Act of 2024, sponsored by Senator Corey McCray, Democrat Baltimore City.
Andrew Saller: This bill, if you have some would call it an accidental discharge. Others call it a negligent discharge. If this occurs, you would have to take additional training or you would lose your permit under this proposed piece of legislation. The state police would have to maintain a program to both inform you that this occurred and then give you 90 days to get into compliance. Yes. To get into compliance within six months of the incident.
Andre McDonald: Now, Andrew, throughout the history and tradition in the regulation of firearms, have we ever seen anything like this?
Andrew Saller: I am unaware of it. I will admit, I am unaware of the policies regarding negligent discharges at the ratification of the Second Amendment or the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Duane Urban: So unlikely to have good standing.
Andre McDonald: Well, as I usually say to my clients is that the legislature is going to do what the legislator does. They're going to enact a law. Then it is up to litigants to challenge it. And we have to basically bring a case saying that this particular section of the statute violates my second amendment and let the federal courts decide.
Andrew Saller: Well, and in order to do that, you're going to need though the perfect plaintiff who has a negligent discharge, doesn't do anything criminal during the course of the negligent discharge, doesn't hit anybody or anything of any value because they're going to get sued into oblivion and receives this letter from the state police and then challenges it. Is that a fair concern, Andre?
Andre McDonald: Generally speaking, that's how standing, that's how you have a very ripe case. But it's Yes, that is, you have a very ripe case, a clear controversy for those are viewers out there. Federal courts are not in the business of giving advisory opinions. You need to have a clear case and controversy in order for the courts to move
Andrew Saller: Forward. You have to have a real plaintiff that has something to gain or lose by this. Not just, I don't like this law and I want to challenge it. Correct.
Andre McDonald: Yes.
Andrew Saller: So this situation we're describing, we would really struggle to find a good plaintiff. Is that a fair statement?
Andre McDonald: I'm not going to go that far. Okay. Because knowing Dwayne, and since Dwayne and I have been working together, some of the things that he has shown me and I I've seen it's You'll believe that finding a good plaintiff, it will be difficult, but I don't think
Andrew Saller: So. Okay. Well the real solution here, ladies and gentlemen, avoid negligent discharges.
Duane Urban: Yeah. Trigger finger discipline. Know your well. I mean obviously you want to have a safe direction, but certainly trigger finger discipline and making sure that we don't have those negligence
Andre McDonald: Discharges. No. Get trained up at urban defense.
Duane Urban: Yeah. I mean, look, get good quality training. We do provide that. But that is the thing that I see in classes more often than not, other than just general fundamental issues, is going to be where people, they want to put that finger on the trigger and you try to teach them that high touch point and they understand that they shouldn't be doing that. They shouldn't be putting their finger on the trigger, but for whatever reason, you turn your back and boom, they're right back on that trigger.
Andrew Saller: Dwayne, do you not like the movies?
Duane Urban: I get it that many of the people that come to us have their formal training from Hollywood.
Andrew Saller: I've watched Rambo.
Duane Urban: I mean not Alec Baldwin, but Oh yeah. I mean that was a good firearms safety lesson there.
Andrew Saller: So are you saying that if I was to be practicing drawing a firearm and pointing it and pulling the trigger, I should maybe check to make sure it's unloaded
Duane Urban: First? I think that would be well advised. And I also think that aiming it at another person that you don't intend to actually shoot probably would not be a good idea as well. I mean it seems like common sense, but again, common sense isn't so common. And Andre's right, we've shared a lot of stories about different things that I've seen or that he's seen over the years and I get to see a lot of it. I get to deal with a lot of different folks in these classes and people of all different backgrounds and you don't know what you don't know until you know it. And we learn about things from different sources in our life. Maybe it's our grandfather, our uncle Hollywood, like you said, the movies or the internet these days, internet videos, YouTube and things. And it's difficult to break people of those things. So you've established muscle memory, you're used to putting your finger on the trigger because that's just what you do. And now I'm telling you, some guy in a class somewhere is telling you don't do that anymore. You've been doing it for 30 years. And it's a lot more older folks than it is younger folks. People that have traditional firearms experience, they want to put that finger on the trigger. So it's something that you've got to break 'em of. It's a training scar that they've created. But yeah, absolutely.
Andrew Saller:
Are you insinuating that the couple that was outside of their home with the AR 15 and the wife with the pistol and she's got her finger on the trigger, that may not have been the best trigger discipline with the mob right there?
Duane Urban:
I would say there was a lot wrong going on there. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to protect themselves, but yeah, she came out of the house looking like she had never held a handgun before in her life, holding it up over her head in some weird way. At least in the photos and videos that I saw. That's obviously not going to work out well. And God forbid they would've needed to use those firearms to protect themselves or someone else from serious bodily injury or death. I think they would've been in big trouble. I think they would've been way in over their heads.
Andrew Saller:
With the finger right on the trigger when she's got it above her head. Absolutely.
Duane Urban:
Yeah. And again, it's easy enough, well maybe not in Maryland to go and get the licensing and to go and get the gun and then to take the gun. And we talked about it in the last video. You take the gun and you buy some ammo and you put it in the closet or wherever you put it or in the safe and then you do nothing for years. And what have you done? You've trained yourself for failure because what are you doing to continue your education? What are you doing to reinvigorate these perishable skills? You're not doing anything. And if the time comes and it's life bad things happen. If the time comes that you need to use that firearm, that's not a good time for on-the-job training. So you better hope that things go your way or it'll end very badly.
Andrew Saller:
I can certainly agree with everything you just said and we can all agree negligent discharges are no fun.
Duane Urban:
They are not. And this law will take care of that apparently. They will stop immediately, overnight,
Andrew Saller:
Rest in peace, negligent
Duane Urban:
Discharges just like the drug laws stopped all the drugs. Alright. And that leads us then to the final bill, unless either of you have something else you want to talk about as far as Bills Senate Bill 3 26, questioning of a juvenile crime of violence or crime involving a firearm. This is sponsored by Senator Mary Osa. Did I say that right, Andrew? Yes. Oh, very good. Somerset or as they may say, Worcester.
Andrew Saller:
Worcester.
Duane Urban:
Worcester. Okay. And Wicomico counties as
Andrew Saller:
Well. Also,
Duane Urban:
Is that how some people say it?
Andrew Saller:
First time I got called out when first time I was there. You're not from around here, are you? This is Wco County. Yeah,
Duane Urban:
That sounds a little interesting. But yeah, Somerset, Wooster and Wicomico counties as well as two Democrats and two Republicans. So what is it
Andrew Saller:
In Maryland? This is a very hot topic this session, both on the Democratic and Republican side. Producer. Did we figure out how many Republicans are in the
Duane Urban:
Republicans and Democrats? How many Republicans versus Democrats in the
Andrew Saller:
Maryland General Assembly?
Duane Urban:
You were supposed to be looking that up. What'd you do? Start around over there, Jack over there?
Andrew Saller:
Prett. Come
Speaker 4:
On man.
Duane Urban:
Just
Andrew Saller:
General assembly.
Duane Urban:
Maryland general assembly breakdown. Yeah. Give me
Andrew Saller:
Some numbers
Duane Urban:
Here. Down. Breakdown Democrats versus Republicans.
Andrew Saller:
Delegates. There we go. Awesome.
Duane Urban:
141 total in the House of Delegates. 102 Democrats to 39 Republicans. Correct. Alright, what about the other side? Alright, so 34 Democrat state senators to how many Republicans? 13.
Andrew Saller:
That sounds right. A little lopsided. 34 to 13 in the state Senate.
Duane Urban:
Okay, well there's our answer. I don't have the exact percentages, but that's good enough.
Andrew Saller:
So it's very controversial. The previous session they passed a law that dealt with juvenile interrogations. Now, if the police arrest a juvenile for could be a lot of things, they are not allowed to interrogate that juvenile until an attorney has spoken with them. As a result of that, Republicans are kicking and screaming that we have all these juvenile law breakers and the police are not able to interrogate them to develop additional evidence, develop co-conspirators and assist the prosecution of crimes. Other people from the more liberal side are saying, this is wonderful, we're protecting these children. But at the same time, they are getting some pushback from their constituents with the numbers of carjackings that are occurring in the Baltimore metropolitan area burglaries. And there was just the scandal that a large majority of the youth that were being intaked in the city of Baltimore were being improperly released when they should have been held as a result of all this. People are agreeing, there may need to be reform. Just there is a huge debate as to what, if anything should be done about this. This bill is aimed to add exceptions to the general prohibition about interrogating children. That you could interrogate them about certain firearms crimes without having a lawyer present or their parents.
Andre McDonald:
But let me, I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a bit. If this bill goes through and becomes law and any interrogation these juveniles still have as all Americans do, if fifth the amendment right to counsel, you'll still have to mirandize them, correct?
Andrew Saller:
Absolutely.
Andre McDonald:
And they will have the ability whether or not to invoke that, right?
Andrew Saller:
Absolutely.
Andre McDonald:
And the question becomes, does a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old have the wherewithal say, I'm going to invoke this right? What does it mean to invoke my right to counsel? That's your area of expertise these days. But I think a blanket immunity that okay, you cannot interrogate at all. I think it's going a bit too far because the government still has, they still need the ability to solve crimes. And at times you may need a cooperation of a witness.
Andrew Saller:
Well what if I say I want a lawyer, dog
Andre McDonald:
Lawyer?
Duane Urban:
Do you have to bring them a lawyer and a dog?
Andrew Saller:
This was a famous case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court where they started interrogating any other man and he said, I want a lawyer dog.
Duane Urban:
And what did they do? Did they bring him a
Andrew Saller:
Dog? They did not bring him a dog because then
Duane Urban:
They could have brought him both and they would've been in
Andrew Saller:
Compliance. Yes. And they ended up determining, I believe that some people viewed that he was saying dog as a pronoun for a fellow male like my dog. Other people felt that he was asking for a lawyer who happened to be a canine.
Duane Urban:
I do believe that's the Miranda and Baxter clause that they referring to.
Andrew Saller:
So this went up on appeal and the latter impression was what the court went with that he was asking I think may not have been the case, but asking for a lawyer who happened to be a dog.
Duane Urban:
Is that what they determined?
Andrew Saller:
Yes. And so they felt that that was not a proper invocation of the sixth Amendment and they allowed his confession to come in. Ah,
Duane Urban:
Okay. Alright. So final thoughts on the 2024 Maryland legislative session. I know we went over a lot of things tonight, not nearly as many bills as last time for maybe a number of different reasons that we previously discussed. Any other thoughts or takeaways as a final thought?
Andre McDonald:
I would say in comparison to last session, we can have a bit of a breeder maybe until next
Andrew Saller:
Guard your pocketbooks, they're coming for 'em. Your guns might be safe this year, but your wallets, your paychecks, they are not.
Duane Urban:
So what you're saying is we won't be able to dress up in fancy suits after that happens.
Andrew Saller:
Correct. We won't be able to afford to buy new firearms after
Andre McDonald:
This.
Duane Urban:
As we wrap up, I want to thank you for tuning in. Remember to share, like, comment, and subscribe and stay tuned for our next episodes. So for the Urban Defense Podcast, I'm Dwayne Urban, along with Andrew Ser and Andre McDonald. Remember, train, fight and win.
Credit: Urban Defense LLC Firearms Training, https://urbandefense.org/
Also read How to get your Maryland concealed (HGP) carry permit (Updated) by Kevin Michalowski