BALTIMORE — With less than a month left to reshape Maryland’s gun regulations, state lawmakers have advanced bills with differing approaches as they grapple with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively struck down the state’s requirements for a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
The court in June issued its decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which rendered the concealed-carry policies in New York, Maryland and five other states unconstitutional.
Maryland’s policy had required applicants to demonstrate they hadn’t displayed a predisposition for violent behavior. They also had to provide a legal, established reason for their desire to carry a firearm.
Following the ruling, then-Gov. Larry Hogan ordered the Maryland State Police in July to suspend the mandate, resulting an explosion in the number of wear-and-carry applications.
As a result, since the General Assembly session began in January, Democratic legislators have searched for ways to restrict the number of guns carried in public. Senators in the party are pursuing limits on where guns can be carried. Democratic delegates wants to create parameters on who can have a gun.
Legislation on both approaches advanced this week closer to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore’s desk.
Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Judicial Proceedings Committee Vice Chair Jeff Waldstreicher of Montgomery County, seeks to limit where people can carry guns in public. Firearm owners would be prohibited from carrying them in what he called “sensitive” places, including schools, camps and health care facilities, government and critical infrastructure facilities, public universities, polling places, any business that sells cannabis or alcohol for on-site consumption, stadiums, museums, performance venues and carnivals.
The legislation provides exceptions for certain people, including law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces who are on duty or traveling to and from duty, ROTC members participating in their programs, and correctional officers, sheriffs or deputies. Off-duty police and retired law enforcement officials with valid wear-and-carry licenses could carry guns. Also, the proposed law wouldn’t apply on private property where an owner has armed security guards.
The Senate passed the bill Monday evening on a vote of 31-16.
Republican lawmakers were displeased with what they described as a continued crackdown on legal gun ownership. Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready of Carroll County said before the bill passed that he anticipates that, if signed by the governor, this legislation is “going to meet a fiery end by the court.”
“Find me a notable crime committed in Maryland by someone with a concealed carry permit,” Ready challenged his fellow senators. “I’d love to see one, but you won’t find it.”
Rather than address where firearms can be carried, House Judiciary Committee Chair Luke Clippinger sponsored a bill regulating who can get a wear and carry permit.
House Bill 824 would withhold permits from people on supervised probation after being convicted of a crime with a penalty of more than a year in prison, those caught driving while impaired or under the influence, and those who violate a protective order. Anyone suffering from mental illness with a history of violent behavior, who has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for over a month, or is subject to a protective order also would be barred from owning a gun.
Owners found to have improperly stored firearms in places where children or people prohibited from accessing guns can get to them would lose the ability to own a firearm for five years. Any subsequent offense, or if a child uses the gun to harm or kill another person, would result in a lifetime ban on gun ownership.
In addition to limiting who may carry guns in public, Clippinger’s bill would increase the initial application fee to receive a permit from $75 to $150. License renewal fees would go up from $50 to $100.
The House gave the bill little debate Wednesday.
The only amendment offered on the floor was from House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy of Frederick County. He wanted to do away with the measure that would increase application and renewal fees.
“In Maryland now, you have an opportunity for self-protection … and it is my belief that those fees should stay affordable,” Pippy argued.
Clippinger replied that fees for wear-and-carry licenses have not been adjusted since 1992. Pippy’s amendment failed on a vote of 40-92.
The House gave preliminary approval Wednesday to Clippinger’s bill and is expected to officially pass it later this week.
____
