Lawrence v. State - Md. Crim. Law § 4-203(a)(1)(i) is a Strict Liability Crime

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/counselor-s-corner/265-the-dangers-of-maryland-s-carry-laws

    On August 12, 2021, Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that a violation of Md. Criminal Law § 4-203(a)(1)(i) is a strict liability crime. Put simply, if one has a handgun on or about them and is not authorized to do so, they are guilty of violating the law. The case is Lawrence v. State, 471 Md. 101 (2021).

    Section 4-203 is the statute that broadly prohibits the wear, carry, or transport of handguns within the State. Specifically, § 4-203(a)(1)(i) states:

    (a) (1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
    (i) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person;

    There are a few exceptions to this ban (found in subsection (b) of Section 4-203), such as one having a Maryland Wear and Carry Permit, possession in the home or business (by the business owner), or when transporting an unloaded handgun (kept in an enclosed case or enclosed holster) between a gun shop and one's residence or from their residence to a gun range. But, outside these sharply limited exceptions set out in subsection (b), the passage above otherwise broadly criminalizes having a pistol on (or about) the person.

    Lawrence should still give pause to every Marylander who owns a handgun or is considering it. The court rejected Lawrence's argument that the statute should be understood to contain the requirement that the State had to prove that the defendant was knowingly in possession of the handgun. The court held that a defendant would be in violation of the statute even if he didn't even know that the gun was in the car as long as the handgun was "on or about" the person. And, in so holding, the court endorsed the rule that the term "on or about" meant "within his reach" even if the defendant did not even know that the gun was present "within his reach" (for example, in the center console or under the seat). The penalties for violating 4-203 are quite stiff (three years prison time for a first offense) and it does not matter whether a violator is carrying a handgun for their own protection, or whether they simply forgot they had a pistol in their backpack or even if the gun was possessed by someone else (in their backpack) but was still "within reach" of the defendant. Even someone with a carry permit who failed to notice that their permit had expired is treated just the same as someone with no permit at all.

    Thought of because of a story related to Baltimore lawmakers seeking to shut down "The Block" at 10pm. In it is a story about a man from out of state who was caught by a police surveilance camera holstering a firearm after leaving a club and getting back into his vehicle. He's from Louisiana and is permitted there, however, as many of you know, Maryland doesn't recognize out-of-state permits for members of the general public. He's charged with violating § 4-203 and faces up to three years in jail. He has no prior record. An honest mistake won't prevent an arrest, nor does it necessarily prevent prosecution, nor will it necessarily receive mercy from a judge or jury. That's how rough Maryland's carry law is.

    Bruen is promising and we are mere months away from an opinion in that case. Supposing they do indeed find that 'good cause' requirements are unenforceable, and perhaps what else they say could provide relief for others that have been jacked up this way. There's a situation just like that out of Washington D.C. since their laws were deemed unconstitutional in Wrenn v. D.C.. See Smith v. Government of the District of Columbia.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,108
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom