HOW to APPLY for a MARYLAND Carry Permit

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!
  • Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,986
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    As far as #2 goes it says on the paper that came with your permit no drinking and carrying, persuant to MD Regs blah, blah, blah....
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,986
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Went and checked, you are correct, I was paraphrasing from memory.


    I think I see where you are headed with this, would be an interesting topic for another thread....
     

    Jack McCauley

    Active Member
    Oct 16, 2014
    193
    Handgun Permits, Reason for Denial

    The issuance (or lack thereof) of HANDGUN PERMITS in the State of Maryland seems to be one of the most frustrating topics for our citizens. The problem arises from the requirement of a good and substantial reason. A requirement that was once overturned by a judge who deemed this requirement to be unconstitutional. I believe the court erred greatly when this decision was overturned. And, I base my opinion on personal experience.

    What is, "Good and substantial?"

    When I was assigned as the Commander of the Maryland State Police Licensing Division, I could not find one person that could give me a consistent and reasonable definition or explanation of what, “Good and substantial” is. The closest explanation I could get was from a trooper that claimed to base his decisions on established case law, primarily referring to Snowden v. State of Maryland. He would measure all of his decisions based upon on a quote in the Snowden case, “An apprehended fear of danger is more than one’s personal anxiety.” (See Carl Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. April 17, 1980)

    I would also be referred to another relevant court opinion; Scherr v. State of Maryland. In this case, the Department of State Police denied the applicant’s permit to carry a handgun because the applicant’s “level of threat and/or danger” was not any greater than that of an ordinary citizen.

    In the Scherr decision the court would also refer to the previous decision inn Snowden. (See Robert Scherr v. State of Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, in the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland, 2004)

    If you review Maryland law closely, as well the decision in Snowden v. State of Maryland, you will see that nothing requires an applicant to show that his level of threat and/or danger needs to be GREATER than an ordinary citizen. Rather, in the decision of Snowden v. State of Maryland, the court determined that an individual must have a need for a “reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” And that danger must be more than one’s PERSONAL anxiety or fear. It does not say that anxiety or fear needs to be GREATER than another citizen’s fear.

    During the handgun permit review board hearing for Scherr, he represented himself. The following exchange occurred with Detective Sergeant Galloway of the Maryland State Police;

    Q [MR. SCHERR] What is your criteria to determine whether a person has a good or substantial reason to carry a handgun?

    A Whether or not that person’s level of danger warrants the issuance of a Handgun Permit.

    Q What is an acceptable level of danger, and what is not an acceptable level of danger?

    A An acceptable level of danger is that which is more than the average person would expect to encounter. Unacceptable would be anything other than that. And we require that you have police reports to substantiate that, because often, people come to us and say that they’ve been involved in activities or have been threatened and assaulted, when it never occurred. And the only way for us to know that it actually did occur is whether or not there’s been something to substantiate it, reports of witnesses, something, other than the person just coming to me and saying, you know, I was threatened, I was assaulted.

    Q All right. So what you’re testifying to is that an acceptable level of danger to you, which would merit your issuing a permit, would be, I think you said more than the average person would encounter?

    A Yes.

    Q What would the average person encounter, in your mind? I’m just trying to figure out what all your, what your standards are. You said that an acceptable level of danger to get a permit would be more than the average person would encounter. I’m asking you, what is the standard that an average person would encounter, so that I can determine what’s more and what’s less?

    A There is no definitive standard. I look at that, and I interpret that as meaning more than someone saying, “I’m going to harm you,” or someone bumping into you or someone making gestures, that we all encounter every day. You’re at the supermarket, and someone bumps into you and gives you the evil stare. We all encounter that from time to time. Someone cuts you off on the road. We all have encountered that. Verbal arguments between people. We all encounter that. We all have, and we all will. But there is no definitive standard that I’m aware of. We have to use good judgment.

    Q So your testimony, then, is that the definite – you have indicated that an acceptable level of danger to you, which would then – based on that, you would then issue a permit. That is more than what – you said, is more than an average person would encounter. That phrase is your own . . .

    A Yes.

    Q . . . thinking, right?

    A Uh-huh.

    Q In other words, for lack of a better word, you made that up?

    A Yes.

    Is you fear of apprehended danger more than your own personal anxiety? I would argue that thousands of Marylanders have a fear of apprehended danger when traveling into high crime areas of our cities. I believe that SHARED fear is more than one's own personal anxiety.

    My efforts to change the way good and substantial is evaluated was quickly halted...obviously for political reasons. Please share this information. This process of arbitrary approvals needs to be challenged.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    The issuance (or lack thereof) of HANDGUN PERMITS in the State of Maryland seems to be one of the most frustrating topics for our citizens. The problem arises from the requirement of a good and substantial reason. A requirement that was once overturned by a judge who deemed this requirement to be unconstitutional. I believe the court erred greatly when this decision was overturned. And, I base my opinion on personal experience.

    What is, "Good and substantial?"

    When I was assigned as the Commander of the Maryland State Police Licensing Division, I could not find one person that could give me a consistent and reasonable definition or explanation of what, “Good and substantial” is. The closest explanation I could get was from a trooper that claimed to base his decisions on established case law, primarily referring to Snowden v. State of Maryland. He would measure all of his decisions based upon on a quote in the Snowden case, “An apprehended fear of danger is more than one’s personal anxiety.” (See Carl Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. April 17, 1980)

    I would also be referred to another relevant court opinion; Scherr v. State of Maryland. In this case, the Department of State Police denied the applicant’s permit to carry a handgun because the applicant’s “level of threat and/or danger” was not any greater than that of an ordinary citizen.

    In the Scherr decision the court would also refer to the previous decision inn Snowden. (See Robert Scherr v. State of Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, in the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland, 2004)

    If you review Maryland law closely, as well the decision in Snowden v. State of Maryland, you will see that nothing requires an applicant to show that his level of threat and/or danger needs to be GREATER than an ordinary citizen. Rather, in the decision of Snowden v. State of Maryland, the court determined that an individual must have a need for a “reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” And that danger must be more than one’s PERSONAL anxiety or fear. It does not say that anxiety or fear needs to be GREATER than another citizen’s fear.

    During the handgun permit review board hearing for Scherr, he represented himself. The following exchange occurred with Detective Sergeant Galloway of the Maryland State Police;

    Q [MR. SCHERR] What is your criteria to determine whether a person has a good or substantial reason to carry a handgun?

    A Whether or not that person’s level of danger warrants the issuance of a Handgun Permit.

    Q What is an acceptable level of danger, and what is not an acceptable level of danger?

    A An acceptable level of danger is that which is more than the average person would expect to encounter. Unacceptable would be anything other than that. And we require that you have police reports to substantiate that, because often, people come to us and say that they’ve been involved in activities or have been threatened and assaulted, when it never occurred. And the only way for us to know that it actually did occur is whether or not there’s been something to substantiate it, reports of witnesses, something, other than the person just coming to me and saying, you know, I was threatened, I was assaulted.

    Q All right. So what you’re testifying to is that an acceptable level of danger to you, which would merit your issuing a permit, would be, I think you said more than the average person would encounter?

    A Yes.

    Q What would the average person encounter, in your mind? I’m just trying to figure out what all your, what your standards are. You said that an acceptable level of danger to get a permit would be more than the average person would encounter. I’m asking you, what is the standard that an average person would encounter, so that I can determine what’s more and what’s less?

    A There is no definitive standard. I look at that, and I interpret that as meaning more than someone saying, “I’m going to harm you,” or someone bumping into you or someone making gestures, that we all encounter every day. You’re at the supermarket, and someone bumps into you and gives you the evil stare. We all encounter that from time to time. Someone cuts you off on the road. We all have encountered that. Verbal arguments between people. We all encounter that. We all have, and we all will. But there is no definitive standard that I’m aware of. We have to use good judgment.

    Q So your testimony, then, is that the definite – you have indicated that an acceptable level of danger to you, which would then – based on that, you would then issue a permit. That is more than what – you said, is more than an average person would encounter. That phrase is your own . . .

    A Yes.

    Q . . . thinking, right?

    A Uh-huh.

    Q In other words, for lack of a better word, you made that up?

    A Yes.

    Is you fear of apprehended danger more than your own personal anxiety? I would argue that thousands of Marylanders have a fear of apprehended danger when traveling into high crime areas of our cities. I believe that SHARED fear is more than one's own personal anxiety.

    My efforts to change the way good and substantial is evaluated was quickly halted...obviously for political reasons. Please share this information. This process of arbitrary approvals needs to be challenged.
    :thumbsup: Thank you for this post.
     
    Feb 28, 2013
    28,953
    I posted this once before, but since now Capt. McCauley decided to join us I'll repeat it so he can comment if he wants.

    On the Chris Plante show on WMAL a while back there was a discussion on this topic. A gentleman claiming to be a nuclear physicist who defected from Russia called in. Apparently after applying at least once for a CCP and being rejected it took two attempts on his life by the KGB to be able to prove his G&S, since he was now worth more to them dead.

     

    HeatSeeker

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2012
    3,058
    Maryland
    If you are drinking, you are under the influence. You might not be intoxicated, but if you have 1 drink you are under the influence. So again, I see no difference. Symantics.
     

    Straightshooter

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 28, 2010
    5,015
    Baltimore County
    That's your opinion and you have a right to it but that does not make it the law. Many threads have been started and fought on this subject and if you want to travel that well worn path, go at it.
     

    Straightshooter

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 28, 2010
    5,015
    Baltimore County
    The general consensus was that if you can't stay in control of your senses, don't drink. If you don't possess that level of self control maybe you shouldn't carry. PA has no prohibition on drinking while carrying and no one can offer up an instance where this has lead to shootings by CCW holders. Let your conscience be your guide.
     

    Jack McCauley

    Active Member
    Oct 16, 2014
    193
    You are not prohibited from consuming alcohol while carrying with a permit. Intoxication would require proof similar to that of a DUI arrest. You would not be compelled to submit to any tests though.
     

    CypherPunk

    Opinions Are My Own
    Apr 6, 2012
    3,907
    You are not prohibited from consuming alcohol while carrying with a permit. Intoxication would require proof similar to that of a DUI arrest. You would not be compelled to submit to any tests though.

    I've actually debated this at length with students and student attorneys.
    I don't think anyone doubts the likelihood of an administrative revocation of one's Maryland Handgun Permit. Would you concur Captain McCauley?

    With regard to the legal definition of "under the influence"...
    There is no legal definition of the term within the statute. Attorney's tell me that there is a preamble and case law that states to the effect when a term is not defined within the statute, one can look at another statute (in this case the Motor Vehicle Chapter), and then legislative intent (perhaps .08)?

    But then its late and I may not remember correctly.

    I would be most interested in hearing Commander McCauley's recollection of any public cases or appeals where a permit holder was accused and suspended, revoked and/or reinstated.

    Welcome aboard Jack. Missed you in Chicago.
     

    Jack McCauley

    Active Member
    Oct 16, 2014
    193
    I can only readily recall two people, leaving a company Christmas party. The first was stopped and arrested for DUI. He was carrying with a permit. A coworker leaving the same gathering stopped to check on his welfare at the traffic stop. She too was intoxicated and was arrested for DUI. She was also carrying with a permit. Both had their permits revoked. They pled guilty to DUI, the gun charges were dropped and they reapplied and were granted permits for work purposes. A costly mistake. The suspension of a permit is very rare. Most are so restrictive you can only technically carry on a limited basis.
     

    PJDiesel

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 18, 2011
    17,603
    This thread just got a whole lot more informative, we really appreciate the unique viewpoint.

    Thanks for posting Mr. McCauley.
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    5,492
    Carroll County!
    I can only readily recall two people, leaving a company Christmas party. The first was stopped and arrested for DUI. He was carrying with a permit. A coworker leaving the same gathering stopped to check on his welfare at the traffic stop. She too was intoxicated and was arrested for DUI. She was also carrying with a permit. Both had their permits revoked. They pled guilty to DUI, the gun charges were dropped and they reapplied and were granted permits for work purposes. A costly mistake. The suspension of if a permit is very rare. Most are so restrictive you can only technically carry on a limited basis.

    Jack,, If I may ask, how often are the restrictions enforced? I mean if someone with a carry permit is at home depot carrying on a restricted permit ie between residence and business or actively involved in financial transactions as Owner as same. To me, I think unless the permit holder was involved in a shooting or the like, no harm no foul?
     

    Jack McCauley

    Active Member
    Oct 16, 2014
    193
    One would never truly know how often the restrictions are enforced. If a law enforcement officer encounters a person with a handgun in a non criminal contact and they reveal they are carrying, the officer would need to first understand the complex law sufficiently enough to even understand permits have restrictions. If an officer decided to overlook a technical infraction, people in my (former) position would be the last to know. It is rare to be arrested for a permit violation. But it does indeed occur.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,078
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom