PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

[Speaker2Wolves]

Originally Posted by LCPIWB

If you are not approved, you are______?

In legal limbo. I'm not arguing that the MSP is justified. I'm just trying to think why they are handling it this way. And I don't think some PR fluff about how many applications they grant is the reason for returning people's money.

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Speaker2Wolves

In legal limbo. I'm not arguing that the MSP is justified. I'm just trying to think why they are handling it this way. And I don't think some PR fluff about how many applications they grant is the reason for returning people's money.

The reason is to get rid of the apps without the expense of processing and to deter and discourage folks from applying in the first place. It also helps their "approved" % number. Which is BS since they refuse to process and return all the apps without a facial G&S reason.

[gprimr1]

Originally Posted by Speaker2Wolves

In legal limbo. I'm not arguing that the MSP is justified. I'm just trying to think why they are handling it this way. And I don't think some PR fluff about how many applications they grant is the reason for returning people's money.

It's not PR fluff. It's a consistent point every time they testify in Annapolis on the shall issue bills.

They testify that the law is working perfectly because 97% of people who apply are approved.

[mr h]

Originally Posted by Speaker2Wolves

In legal limbo. I'm not arguing that the MSP is justified. I'm just trying to think why they are handling it this way. And I don't think some PR fluff about how many applications they grant is the reason for returning people's money.

Keep in mind that (AFAIK) MSP has not said one word as to "why" other than the content of the letter.

[Speaker2Wolves]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

It also helps their "approved" % number. Which is BS since they refuse to process and return all the apps without a facial G&S reason.

So, are you saying past practice is the same as current practice? That is, the fee was returned and the application was NOT processed if found to lack G&S reason in their eyes? (No wonder Woollard sued.)

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Speaker2Wolves

So, are you saying past practice is the same as current practice? That is, the fee was returned and the application was NOT processed if found to lack G&S reason in their eyes? (No wonder Woollard sued.)

No direct personal knowledge, but that's my understanding..... As to Woollard, he sued because they *did* process his renewal application and then found his G&S reasons insufficient.

[Speaker2Wolves]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

No direct personal knowledge, but that's my understanding.....

Then why can't anyone who got a returned application sue for some kind of breach of duty? If you don't process my application, I don't have standing to even appeal the decision, because no decision was made. That's not how government is supposed to work.

[Jim Sr]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

I am quite certain that the state will pay the fees and costs if Woollard ultimately prevails on the state's appeal.

You think "Omalley" will pay with state funds?
I seriously don’t see it Happening.
He has a built-in scape goat!
`

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Inigoes

Managerial/funding issues are not written into the law. Sucks to be them

It's law § 5-312 for the 90 days.

I know. But they will still use it as an excuse and they will not get hurt for doing it. It sucks being us with them in charge. But maybe that all will change.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

No direct personal knowledge, but that's my understanding..... As to Woollard, he sued because they *did* process his renewal application and then found his G&S reasons insufficient.

esqappellate,

If/when we prevail, I'm guessing it will not go very well for the first person with a CCW that may get involved in anything questionable involving there CCW. I can only imagine this AG will see to it that NO ONE will get the benefit of the doubt as they look for anything they can to prove CCW are a bad idea.

Your thoughts?

Thanks...

[mvee]

Originally Posted by Speaker2Wolves

So, are you saying past practice is the same as current practice? That is, the fee was returned and the application was NOT processed if found to lack G&S reason in their eyes? (No wonder Woollard sued.)

Prior to this lawsuit, the mdsp would often offer the applicant his check back after they determined there was no G&S. If you look on this website you will see where this has happened to some of our members.

I wonder what would happen if you included a letter with you application packet that states that you wish the application to be considered according to COMAR, (even though you probably have no G&S)

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by PJDiesel

You would be considered a wise man (IMHO) for doing so. They want NOTHING more than these folks to go away quietly, I and bet a vast majority will do just that.

This BS of "who was in before or after the decision, stay, etc" is nonsense. I don't see how they can change their policy (dictated by MD law) based on when they got your app in their hands.

We don't know why they are doing it. But there must be something to the dates because they are still setting up FtoF with the app's before the stay and returning the app's after the stay all with the same answer for 9a.

[Merlin]

And how pissed you figure the troopers are? They went from writing a few reports a month to writing a 1000 a month. I bet the troopers that offer to come to your house just want to get out of the office. This seems like duty the troopers getting disciplined would get. Troopers like to run the roads and be seen, not do reports like this.

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Jim Sr

You think "Omalley" will pay with state funds?
I seriously don’t see it Happening.
He has a built-in scape goat!
`

Honestly yes. I do think he won't have any real choice. The state statute was struck down on its face. The injunction runs against board members and the sec of the MSP in their official capacities. The state will pay just as DC paid Gura in Heller

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Merlin

esqappellate,

If/when we prevail, I'm guessing it will not go very well for the first person with a CCW that may get involved in anything questionable involving there CCW. I can only imagine this AG will see to it that NO ONE will get the benefit of the doubt as they look for anything they can to prove CCW are a bad idea.

Your thoughts?

Thanks...

I think the state will comply. No one wants to risk going into contempt. The state GA will try and restrict the right as much as they can ala HB579. That's the next fight

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Speaker2Wolves

Then why can't anyone who got a returned application sue for some kind of breach of duty? If you don't process my application, I don't have standing to even appeal the decision, because no decision was made. That's not how government is supposed to work.

Take it to the Board under 5-312. After that you can sue. Hopefully the stay will be gone before the board rules

[Mark75H]

They returned the aps and checks to try to trick people into not demanding their constitutional right. Its as simple as that. If you can't win honestly, you try trickery.

I'm pretty sure the down side is it creates still another group that may possibly have some standing of some sort in the long future of this story. If you got your check back and do nothing, you have opted out of this group.


I'm thinking that applicants who had their checks cashed are sitting in the catbird's seat ... much better off than those who got them back.

If the stay is lifted, you guys will be the first to receive your CCW permits. If the state tries some kooky snit, your legal standing is probably better than anyone else without the nifty paperwork in hand.

[esqappellate]

Originally Posted by Mark75H

They returned the aps and checks to try to trick people into not demanding their constitutional right. Its as simple as that. If you can't win honestly, you try trickery.

I'm pretty sure the down side is it creates still another group that may possibly have some standing of some sort in the long future of this story. If you got your check back and do nothing, you have opted out of this group.


I'm thinking that applicants who had their checks cashed are sitting in the catbird's seat ... much better off than those who got them back.

If the stay is lifted, you guys will be the first to receive your CCW permits. If the state tries some kooky snit, your legal standing is probably better than anyone else without the nifty paperwork in hand.

Not a bad analysis. I'm sitting with the catbirds right now on my app (pre-stay) but there are no guarantees here. For sure if you do nothing to preserve your rights you lose legal standing

[Biggfoot44]

For our Legal Eagles I have a question about the semantics of the *Non-Denial Denial* and the Stay.

Is the MSP. OBLIGATED to refuse on G&S grounds , or simply PERMITTED to do so ?

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by esqappellate

I am quite certain that the state will pay the fees and costs if Woollard ultimately prevails on the state's appeal.

I guess the board members were acting as agents of/for the state when they turned Woollard down that got this ball rolling. So unless they were acting inappropriate or doing something the state did not want them to do, I think they are safe.

I also guess even if the board members were acting inappropriate or doing something the state did not want them to do, they are still the states responsibility because they are representing the state in state business.