PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

Brooksy · Apr 12, 2012

Doesn't this action violate the adopted regulations in COMAR?

29.03.02.03 "Upon receipt of the application and the supporting material described, the Secretary shall cause an investigation of the applicant to be conducted for the purpose of determining whether the applicant possesses the qualifications for a permit as required by Public Safety Article, §5-306, Annotated Code of Maryland." http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=29.03.02.03.htm

AND

29.03.02.06 "Upon the completion of the investigation, the Secretary of State Police shall notify the applicant by letter either that the permit has been issued or that it has been denied . http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=29.03.02.06.htm

Emphasis Mine. Doesn't seem that leaves room to return an application before processing it.

BUFF7MM · Apr 12, 2012

buff7mm said:
But he kinda has proof that he started the process as stated earlier, he had to do the livescan prints and that had to leave some kind of paper trail.

teratos said:
Good point. This gets interesting.

Also the OP says he got a letter stating that they said he did not have a G&S reason, how can they say that if they did not start the process of an investigation. They had to look at something to say he didn't have a G&S reason.

teratos · Apr 12, 2012

buff7mm said:
Also the OP says he got a letter stating that they said he did not have a G&S reason, how can they say that if they did not start the process of an investigation. They had to look at something to say he didn't have a G&S reason.

Probably the reason, I assume: "Self-defense and all lawful purposes".

That isn't good enough. :mad54:

OnTarget · Apr 12, 2012

Patrick said:
Absolutely not true.

The state refused to provide a permit to a (presumably) lawful individual because that person did not provide a Good and Substantial reason to receive that permit.

Refusing to process a lawful application is a denial.

This was dumb of them.

Working...

EXACTLY I think that the MSP "shot themselves in the foot" on this one, to use an expression.

Patrick · Apr 12, 2012

They are trying to be cute and deny without denying. They think they can say "no harm" because they didn't cash the check. Not so. Denial of a right is harm in and of itself. It doesn't matter how you cause the harm; it is still harm.

Again: dumb.

jfox · Apr 12, 2012

One more thought to go with my last post...

I think the path the state is taking should serve as a good reminder to be sure to document and retain everything. The obvious (date app submitted, proof of delivery if you have it, cancelled check, trooper names, questions asked, answers, and happy correspondence like this one).

Even if you don't intend to sue, I'm not so sure that others won't find this useful.

I think keeping the apps alive is smart. Voluntarily giving up, stopping it, etc.only helps the state.

BUFF7MM · Apr 12, 2012

teratos said:
Probably the reason, I assume: "Self-defense and all lawful purposes".

That isn't good enough.

And that goes to say, they looked at the permit and to me that is starting the process.

Inigoes · Apr 12, 2012

Patrick said:
They are trying to be cute and deny without denying. They think they can say "no harm" because they didn't cash the check. Not so. Denial of a right is harm in and of itself. It doesn't matter how you cause the harm; it is still harm.

Again: dumb.

It would be interesting to get a freedom of information act on the number of CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM handgun permit livescans were conducted by month for this year.

teratos · Apr 12, 2012

buff7mm said:
And that goes to say, they looked at the permit and to me that is starting the process.

The State is just doing you a favor, you know how MD wants to keep your money where it belongs......in your pocket. :innocent0

JMangle · Apr 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Consider keeping your application alive via the administrative appeal process. 5-312

Yeah, but they didn't ever process his application. They just returned what he sent them.

(He sent his application in after the stay. They didn't even cash his check.)

Or so I am gathering based on the above posts.

jfox · Apr 12, 2012

Brooksy said:
Doesn't this action violate the adopted regulations in COMAR?

29.03.02.06 "Upon the completion of the investigation, the Secretary of State Police shall notify the applicant by letter either that the permit has been issued or that it has been denied . http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=29.03.02.06.htm

Emphasis Mine. Doesn't seem that leaves room to return an application before processing it.

I think that is a great point. One I hope SAF also notices. Though, they are focusing on Wollard. Wonder what his letter said...

You may lose your money, but I would re-apply and state than in accordance with your lawful rights, and cite the sections above, you are requesting your application process be completed, without further delay.

Just my thoughts, but the state is pretty much telling you where to bend over.

montoya32 · Apr 12, 2012

They are honestly making a good case for constitutional carry, because the state cannot be trusted to carry out any type of court mandate. Even after this is completely passed, how can we be sure we won't get f*cked with everytime someone goes to apply or when someone gets stopped with a firearm and permit. This state and its leadership sucks large, wrinkly donkey D!

Inigoes · Apr 12, 2012

Brooksy said:
Doesn't this action violate the adopted regulations in COMAR?

29.03.02.03 "Upon receipt of the application and the supporting material described, the Secretary shall cause an investigation of the applicant to be conducted for the purpose of determining whether the applicant possesses the qualifications for a permit as required by Public Safety Article, §5-306, Annotated Code of Maryland." http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=29.03.02.03.htm

AND

29.03.02.06 "Upon the completion of the investigation, the Secretary of State Police shall notify the applicant by letter either that the permit has been issued or that it has been denied . http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=29.03.02.06.htm

Emphasis Mine. Doesn't seem that leaves room to return an application before processing it.

Another incident of the MSP not following the law! :mad54:

jfox · Apr 12, 2012

teratos said:
The State is just doing you a favor, you know how MD wants to keep your money where it belongs......in your pocket.

I can guarantee MSP requested guidance from the AG, and that the AG did not direct this course of action upon thinking about you and your pocketbook.

OnTarget · Apr 12, 2012

Patrick said:
They are trying to be cute and deny without denying. They think they can say "no harm" because they didn't cash the check. Not so. Denial of a right is harm in and of itself. It doesn't matter how you cause the harm; it is still harm.

Again: dumb.

Patrick, you've got it perfectly.

If MSI or SAF doesn't call this to Judge Legg's attention, then they are making a HUGE mistake. I truly believe that the temporary stay could be lifted because of what has just occurred. Really!
What more could we ask for?

dlmcbm · Apr 12, 2012

The letter states that if you have any question about things that were not covered in the letter to call right? So call them and ask them what G&S is???? Ask them how you are suppose to supply information that now one outside of MSP can define???? Tell them as soon as they let us know what G&S is that they might get the right answer to there questions........Just sayin!!!

CypherPunk · Apr 12, 2012

I just received my G&S rejection letter as well today. I think I sent it in on 4/5/2012. My check was un-cashed.

The most frustrating aspect is that I don’t think the MSP even read the application.

In consultation with an experienced attorney, for question 9a, I wrote "See attached". On the continuation sheet, I wrote 6 reasons under detailed explanations (numbered 1 through 6). Reason #1 was "self-defense and all lawful purposes". Reason #4 was because of what we carry in our job, but was described clearly in the application.

It seems the MSP either, didn’t even read the application, or read the first reason "Self Defense...", and rejected it, or finally, didn’t like the reason I provided.

Patrick · Apr 12, 2012

Re-reading the letter this is not final. OP can re-submit the application "for real" and then MSP will act upon it.

It's more steps than we should need to go through, but technically they said they would process it if he insists. ******** if you ask me.

They will call it a service - trying to warn people off.

If OP re-submits then they say they will process. His call.

Bikebreath · Apr 12, 2012

OnTarget said:
If MSI or SAF doesn't call this to Judge Gura's attention, then they are making a HUGE mistake. I truly believe that the temporary stay could be lifted because of what has just occurred. Really!
What more could we ask for?

Gura is not a Judge and Patrick already said he took care of informing him...see post #58.

Patrick · Apr 12, 2012

And they are dancing a thin, thin line by returning the application but saying he could resubmit it. It's a scare tactic.

PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

☠Buff➐㎣☠

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Member

☠Buff➐㎣☠

Head'n for the hills

My hair is amazing

Handsome Engineer

Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Opinions Are My Own

MSI Executive Member

R.I.P.

MSI Executive Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics