Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board Reference Guide

Inigoes said:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1320313.html

Click to expand...

Ah, it is in Scherr. I was looking in the Snowden opinion for it. thanks.

MD HGPRB

I'm curious as to why Courtney White is highlighted in red.

TheGrizzly said:

I'm curious as to why Courtney White is highlighted in red.

Click to expand...

its not highlighted in red for me. did you search that name in the forum search engine?

if you search for a word, that word appears highlighted in red when you view the results.

also, hi!

We think the phrase “good and substantial reason,” as used in Md. Ann.Code art. 17, § 36E(a)(6), means something more than personal anxiety over having one's name connected publicly with anti-drug and anti-crime activities.   It means, we believe, something more than the concern the individual may have because he has been told by another, that she heard some unidentified men threatening to harm the applicant if he journeys to Meade Village.   The statute makes clear that it is the Board[,] not the applicant, that decides whether there is “apprehended danger” to the applicant.   If the Act were read as Mr. Snowden would have the court read it, there would be no necessity for a review by the Board.   Each person could decide for himself or herself that he or she was in danger.   The State Police would become a “rubber stamp” agency for the purpose of handing out handgun permits.   The carefully considered legislation would be rendered absolutely meaningless insofar as the control of handguns is concerned. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1320313.html#sthash.DXaXun6L.dpuf

Click to expand...

This seems to imply the law bans self defense as a G&S..and removes that degree of discression.

Post Heller it my no longer be good law--

But is its holding on the meaning of the statue still binding?

Opinions...
.

Brooklyn said:

This seems to imply the law bans self defense as a G&S..and removes that degree of discression.

Post Heller it my no longer be good law--

But is its holding on the meaning of the statue still binding?

Opinions...
.

Click to expand...

" The statute makes clear that it is the Board[,] not the applicant, that decides whether there is “apprehended danger” to the applicant."

reading the snowden analysis on msi's website, the law, and comar, there is a lot of constraint on what msp/"the secretary" can do and can not do. but almost nothing on what the board can do and cannot do.

comar says the board can reverse a denial or adjust restrictions. it doesnt say how they come to those decisions. same with md law.

this decision, snowden, answers a question. "how restictive can the permit process be?" it does not state how permissive the board can be, beyond the decision not being up to the applicant. to me it is worded in such a way as to uphold the personal beliefs of the board's membership.

The part about rubber stamp gets me.

While I agree about what the decision held.. And what it can hold under law.. The court has in fact asserted.. That the permit board is not authorized to execeed the meaning of the law..which they hold to be more restrictive than average.

Its as if the only purpose if the permitting process is to carve out special cases..on a total ban..which is in fact the intent of the law.

I think the gov and the board can defy this...and we can deal with it in court..

I think we may well win given an as applied angle.. Cf the CA 9 cases..

Anyway I am ready for that fight...let's bring it.

Brooklyn said:

The part about rubber stamp gets me.

While I agree about what the decision held.. And what it can hold under law.. The court has in fact asserted.. That the permit board is not authorized to execeed the meaning of the law..which they hold to be more restrictive than average.

Its as if the only purpose if the permitting process is to carve out special cases..on a total ban..which is in fact the intent of the law.

I think the gov and the board can defy this...and we can deal with it in court..

I think we may well win given an as applied angle.. Cf the CA 9 cases..

Anyway I am ready for that fight...let's bring it.

Click to expand...

who has standing to tell the board "no"?

Just off the cuff... without laboring over COMAR and Annotated Code... again... the Board seems to have the final word. From what I have read... they are the end of the line. Either they grant it... or they don't. YMMV.

Applehd said:

Just off the cuff... without laboring over COMAR and Annotated Code... again... the Board seems to have the final word. From what I have read... they are the end of the line. Either they grant it... or they don't. YMMV.

Click to expand...

I believe you can still petition the Circuit Court after the HPRB, and continue to appeal from there.

Sorry... I was thinking within the local/state structure. Courts... (i.e. Snowden/Scherr) would be next... Batter up!!!

boundlessdyad said:

I believe you can still petition the Circuit Court after the HPRB, and continue to appeal from there.

Click to expand...

Correct. Next step after HPRB is the Circuit Court of your county of residence.

boundlessdyad said:

I believe you can still petition the Circuit Court after the HPRB, and continue to appeal from there.

Click to expand...

The Board's decision is the final step in exhausting your administrative remedies, before you can petition for judicial review in the state circuit court. Note however that the court's review is generally "on the record." In other words, you don't typically have the opportunity to introduce new information, but rather are limited to arguing that the Board was incorrect for whatever reason appears in the record.

It is true the Board has wide discretion. In this regard (IMO), neither Scherr nor Snowden bind the current MSP Super or the current Board to the G&S definition/standards imposed on the applicants at the time of those two cases by the prior Supers and prior Boards. Moreover, there are legitimate arguments why those cases are outdated and are no longer appropriate to be relied upon by the current Super or the current Board. Of course, the current Super and current Board may be reluctant to exercise their own discretion and stop relying on them without judicial intervention?

It's anyone's guess what the current Super and new Board are inclined to do at this point.

Jaybeez said:

" The statute makes clear that it is the Board[,] not the applicant, that decides whether there is “apprehended danger” to the applicant."

reading the snowden analysis on msi's website, the law, and comar, there is a lot of constraint on what msp/"the secretary" can do and can not do. but almost nothing on what the board can do and cannot do.

comar says the board can reverse a denial or adjust restrictions. it doesnt say how they come to those decisions. same with md law.

this decision, snowden, answers a question. "how restictive can the permit process be?" it does not state how permissive the board can be, beyond the decision not being up to the applicant. to me it is worded in such a way as to uphold the personal beliefs of the board's membership.

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how folks got permits for carrying cash and valuables under the "apprehended danger" standard?

press1280 said:

I'm curious as to how folks got permits for carrying cash and valuables under the "apprehended danger" standard?

Click to expand...

Beats the hell out of me and I have that permit you described.

Since I was last a Corrections Officer nearly 20 years ago it surely wasn't due to that.

Perhaps MSP has some secret squirrel document that shows business owners are in more danger than everyone else. But "ONLY" when conducting transactions and carrying valuables or going to and from work. As if the master mind criminals know or even care about whether you are actually conducting a transaction or transporting a valuable when they stick a gun in your face. G&S followed by ridiculous restrictions make the whole process a joke. There is no way on earth I am in more danger going to an appointment in Montgomery County on a Monday than I am when visiting family in Baltimore City on a Saturday. Especially since Tuesday through Friday may have been spent on appointments in the worst parts of Baltimore City. I seriously doubt the criminals who may have figured out I own a business forgot about it just because I am visiting family instead of conducting a weekend business transaction.

press1280 said:

I'm curious as to how folks got permits for carrying cash and valuables under the "apprehended danger" standard?

Click to expand...

Because there is an internal MSP "policy" document (I have a printed copy at home, found somewhere on this site) that states the prior Superintendent (exercising his statutory discretion) more or less determined that a business owner carry business assets has a good and substantial reason for a permit. Maybe someone else can post a link to it.

Unfortunately, you, just in fear for your and your family's lives (or your personal assets) in our crime ridden community, not so much a concern to MSP. It's just one example of why the system is so arbitrary and (until it is scrapped altogether by the MGA or more likely the Courts) desperately needs to be revamped by Pallozzi to include general self-defense. The prior Superintendent wasn't shy about implementing his policy, so its beyond me why Pallozzi wouldn't put his own policy regarding self-defense in place. I guess we will know very soon.

Inaction on Pallozzi's part would demonstrate that he - like those before him - values a masonry contractor carrying a few hundred dollars in payroll, or blank checks to be filled out later, more than you or your wife strapped into the family SUV with a few hundred in your wallet, your engagement rings on your fingers, and your children in the back seat. Frankly, if it was me I couldn't sleep at night if I had the authority to correct the situation and failed to do so. I remain somewhat optimistic he will do right.

Anyway, and relative to this specific thread, I am aware of nothing in the law that would preclude the current Board from treating an individual with a reasonably articulated need for self-defense, or personal and family assets, the same as a business owner with business assets. That would eliminate the arbitrary application of G&S by MSP if Pallozzi refuses to do so on his own. Bottom line is that if an individual still can't get a permit issued by Pallozzi or the new Board for reasonably articulated self-defense then there is only one place to address our collective grievance. Again, until proven otherwise I remain somewhat optimistic we will soon see more even handed treatment for all under the law.

OP Updated

Excellent resource. Had missed this before. I think that it would be very useful to have this thread and the similar thread that you started under the National forum on the DC permit reference guide as stickies so they are at the top when someone visits a subforum.

Respected mods, any agreement on this point?

fidelity said:

Excellent resource. Had missed this before. I think that it would be very useful to have this thread and the similar thread that you started under the National forum on the DC permit reference guide as stickies so they are at the top when someone visits a subforum.

Respected mods, any agreement on this point?

Click to expand...

I agree. There is a growing movement, increased interest, and a separate DC Gun Rights forum only makes sense due to what I am sure will be increased traffic.

I have asked, and they have thus far declined. Hope they change their minds.

Is DC more closely related to VA than MD now?

ironpony said:

Is DC more closely related to VA than MD now?

Click to expand...

Temporarily yes, but likely on paper only since DC can and will probably appeal.