HB 730: doctor's note needed to buy gun

twinoaks207

Having Fun!
I was just made aware of the contents of HB 730, currently before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee.

In a nutshell, if you have been treated for anything contained in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) with the past five years, you will not be able to purchase a firearm, unless you have a doctor's note.

So, all of you folks who go see a doctor for the following are basically S.O.L. for purchasing a gun:

  • anorexia
  • bulimia
  • nicotine withdrawal
  • caffeine-related disorder
  • stuttering
  • male erectile disorder
  • eating disorder
  • sleeping disorder
etc., etc., etc.

Seriously, guys, I am NOT making this shiat up! go read the bill! (and then email Joe Vallario, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.)
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
You live in Maryland. :shrug:

Next question: will they revoke current permits if you have been treated for said disorders?
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
There does appear to be one more condition:
A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person:
(6) suffers from a mental disorder as defined in § 10–101(f)(2) of the 2 Health – General Article and has a history of violent behavior against the person or 3 another, unless the person has a physician’s certificate that the person is capable of 4 possessing a regulated firearm without undue danger to the person or to another...​
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I was just made aware of the contents of HB 730, currently before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee.

In a nutshell, if you have been treated for anything contained in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) with the past five years, you will not be able to purchase a firearm, unless you have a doctor's note.

So, all of you folks who go see a doctor for the following are basically S.O.L. for purchasing a gun:

  • anorexia
  • bulimia
  • nicotine withdrawal
  • caffeine-related disorder
  • stuttering
  • male erectile disorder
  • eating disorder
  • sleeping disorder
etc., etc., etc.

Seriously, guys, I am NOT making this shiat up! go read the bill! (and then email Joe Vallario, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.)
Maybe I am reading it wrong, but doesn't the bill say that one must have been institutionalized for 30 consecutive days for one of those disorders before the bar kicks in. Additionally, mental disorder is defined as "includes a mental illness that so substantially impairs the mental or emotional functioning of an individual as to make care or treatment necessary or advisable for the welfare of the individual or for the safety of the person or property of another." How many people have been institutionalized for more than 30 days for a limp willy?
 

twinoaks207

Having Fun!
Maybe I am reading it wrong, but doesn't the bill say that one must have been institutionalized for 30 consecutive days for one of those disorders before the bar kicks in. Additionally, mental disorder is defined as "includes a mental illness that so substantially impairs the mental or emotional functioning of an individual as to make care or treatment necessary or advisable for the welfare of the individual or for the safety of the person or property of another." How many people have been institutionalized for more than 30 days for a limp willy?

The part about the 30 days is what is contained in the existing law. The bolded, all caps part is the proposed change to the existing law, hence my concern. They don't institutionalize or commit people for the things that I mentioned -- that was my point. If it's serious enough for you to be "committed", then it is serious enough for you not to have access to a firearm as someone's safety may be at risk.

This new proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction so legislators can say "hey, we fixed it so mentally ill people can't get guns and shoot innocent people". It is not well thought out and is poorly written. And the sad thing is that it might sneak in if people aren't paying attention.
 
The part about the 30 days is what is contained in the existing law. The bolded, all caps part is the proposed change to the existing law, hence my concern. They don't institutionalize or commit people for the things that I mentioned -- that was my point. If it's serious enough for you to be "committed", then it is serious enough for you not to have access to a firearm as someone's safety may be at risk.

This new proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction so legislators can say "hey, we fixed it so mentally ill people can't get guns and shoot innocent people". It is not well thought out and is poorly written. And the sad thing is that it might sneak in if people aren't paying attention.

B-b-b-b but they left out P-p-p-pms!
 

Vince

......
The part about the 30 days is what is contained in the existing law. The bolded, all caps part is the proposed change to the existing law, hence my concern. They don't institutionalize or commit people for the things that I mentioned -- that was my point. If it's serious enough for you to be "committed", then it is serious enough for you not to have access to a firearm as someone's safety may be at risk.

This new proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction so legislators can say "hey, we fixed it so mentally ill people can't get guns and shoot innocent people". It is not well thought out and is poorly written. And the sad thing is that it might sneak in if people aren't paying attention.
Maryland tends to do a lot of that knee jerk reaction when it comes to gun laws. They love to put more crap in there so sooner or later you won't be able to own a gun in Maryland. And yet with all their gun laws, Maryland is still in the top 5 in the country for the State with the most gun crime.
 

Pushrod

Patriot
Join Maryland Shall Issue (Maryland Shall Issue), a local organization that fights for all of our Second Amendment rights. There is a whole slew of new legislation on the table that seriously impinges on our Rights to Keep and Bear Arms and we need to stand together to defeat them.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The part about the 30 days is what is contained in the existing law. The bolded, all caps part is the proposed change to the existing law, hence my concern. They don't institutionalize or commit people for the things that I mentioned -- that was my point. If it's serious enough for you to be "committed", then it is serious enough for you not to have access to a firearm as someone's safety may be at risk.

This new proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction so legislators can say "hey, we fixed it so mentally ill people can't get guns and shoot innocent people". It is not well thought out and is poorly written. And the sad thing is that it might sneak in if people aren't paying attention.
Like I said, I might be reading it wrong and I was.

So are you going to the State House today for the hearing on this bill?
 

Inkd

Active Member
I read the bill posted on the link and the 30 consecutive days in a medical institution part, if I read it correctly, is in the existing law and will be removed if the new law is passed. The new law requirements is for anyone treated within the last 5 years, needs to have doctors notes saying they are not a danger to themselves and others.

It referenced mental health disorders as defined in the diagnosis manual that is current at the time the application is submitted. I may have gotten some of it wrong though, I'm going from memory.

I have no idea what mental health disorders are diagnosed as, depression, anxiety, panic attacks? I think what has me a little disturbed is the fact that it says "treated within the last 5 years". The previous law is more cut and dry, "if you had spent more than 30 consecutive days in a medical institution for treatment of a mental disorder" you had to have a doctors certification.

Another knee jerk reaction like the ballistic fingerprinting requirement that was pushed through because of the beltway sniper
 

dachsom

New Member
We'll just keep going to VA to purchase our guns until MD gets their heads out of their----well, you know.
 

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
We'll just keep going to VA to purchase our guns until MD gets their heads out of their----well, you know.

GREAT.....not only can we Marylander's not carry a firearm; now the "lawmakers" are gonna make it tougher to buy a gun?
Uh oh.....I took Tylenol last night. I guess I can't buy a gun.

When is this paranoid bunch gonna realize that an armed society is a polite society?

The solution is SO simple!!
Grant every law abiding citizen; who passes a criminal background check, a CCW and our having one of the highest crime rates in the country WILL drop.

If the lawmakers want to make laws; make one that requires a medical history be included; but in doing that; DON'T make MSP the sole decision maker in wether or not someone is eligible for a CCW; include medical expertise in the background check; but use common sense before denying someone.

I'll bet if the majority of us walked around with baseball bats strapped to our backs, they'd pass a law requiring background checks to buy a d*mn bat.
 

Mongo53

New Member
We'll just keep going to VA to purchase our guns until MD gets their heads out of their----well, you know.
How do you do that, I thought that was illegal, at least for Regulated Firearms, i.e. pistols and anything that used to be on the AWB list?

I know when I bought an AR-15 lower receiver (the actual part considered the registered firearm, if you going to buy it piece by piece and build it yourself) in Pennsylvania, I wisely left it with a friend instead of bringing it into the state. The FFL I got up with, said I would have broken the law if I had brought it into the state and he would have to report me if I had done so. I couldn't get it shipped into the state without having my friend bring it back to an FFL in PA, the FFL ship it himself to my Maryland FFL, all for $70 worht of fees and shipping and handling costs.
 

dachsom

New Member
How do you do that, I thought that was illegal, at least for Regulated Firearms, i.e. pistols and anything that used to be on the AWB list?

I know when I bought an AR-15 lower receiver (the actual part considered the registered firearm, if you going to buy it piece by piece and build it yourself) in Pennsylvania, I wisely left it with a friend instead of bringing it into the state. The FFL I got up with, said I would have broken the law if I had brought it into the state and he would have to report me if I had done so. I couldn't get it shipped into the state without having my friend bring it back to an FFL in PA, the FFL ship it himself to my Maryland FFL, all for $70 worht of fees and shipping and handling costs.



We still have to go through all the checks, etc., but I believe as long as you buy through a reputable dealer and they submit all of the paperwork, all is legit. We have bought in VA, NC and PA with no problems in the last 15 years.
 

Mongo53

New Member
We still have to go through all the checks, etc., but I believe as long as you buy through a reputable dealer and they submit all of the paperwork, all is legit. We have bought in VA, NC and PA with no problems in the last 15 years.
So they have to ship the weapon to you, through an FFL? OR is that just for Regulated Firearms?

That may be where I went wrong, I was a good hour over the border into PA, and the FFL didn't know what to do about MD, he was happy to let me take the weapon and leave. Not being on the border, he didn't get too many out of state folks looking to purchase weapons.

I'm guessing you're going to tell me, a good FFL in VA, NC or PA will know the MD laws as well, have the MD paper work and just do all the MD paper work there and let you pick up the weapon and drive it home once all the laws are met for MD, like the mandatory waiting period.
 
Top