PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

Inigoes · Apr 17, 2012

Merlin said:
but I do not understand all of the steps this will take between this stay until the end of May and what comes next as far as the 4th giving them another stay until the appeal is complete.

I'm guessing the MSP could end up using G&S all the way up until the end of the appeal with the 4th and that could last another year or more. Someone said 2014.

The MSP has not done the AG any favors. Showing the court the state's refusal/disdain for the 3/5 ruling.

The 4th may put a stay in effect after Judge Legg lifts the current temporary stay, but the state's argument is severely hampered by the MSP's actions.

If the MSP is follows existing law (HA HA), they have 90 days to act on the application.

vector03 · Apr 17, 2012

I'm just speculating here but...I wonder if they're returning the apps and checks because of the legal obligation attached to cashing the check.

It's a tacit agreement to perform service because payment was accepted. Once you've done that, you're obligated to perform the task you were compensated for, or risk legal consequences.

Yes a class action could occur...but it may be financially motivated...not motivated by rights.

Broadside · Apr 17, 2012

It would appear that the Maryland State Police and the Attorney General are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. They know they could be facing additional litigation if they deny any permits for G&S. Yet they could be sitting on several thousand applications by the time this finally works its way through the 4th Circuit and the SCOTUS.

It could be several more years before this case if finally resolved. I'm sure that the MSP and AG feel that they would have to redo any investigation that is more than a year old. This essentially means duplicating work.

I think the AG and the MSP feel that returning applications is the best of a series of bad alternatives.

With that said, I think we should do everything we can to squeeze the MSP and as a result the AG. If they returned my application to me, I would immediately file for an appeal to the Handgun Permit Board stating that the returned application was in substance a denial to issue a permit.

Merlin · Apr 17, 2012

Inigoes said:
The MSP has not done the AG any favors. Showing the court the state's refusal/disdain for the 3/5 ruling.

The 4th may put a stay in effect after Judge Legg lifts the current temporary stay, but the state's argument is severely hampered by the MSP's actions.

If the MSP is follows existing law (HA HA), they have 90 days to act on the application.

Is the 90 days a law or just a guideline they try their best to stick to. Depending on how busy they are and the like. Just playing devils advocate.

I can't imagine the MSP getting into any trouble if they went over the 90 days. More so now when they can say they are short staffed with budget cutbacks.

They will work every angle they can until that can't.

Inigoes · Apr 17, 2012

Merlin said:
Is the 90 days a law or just a guideline they try their best to stick to. Depending on how busy they are and the like. Just playing devils advocate.

I can't imagine the MSP getting into any trouble if they went over the 90 days. More so now when they can say they are short staffed with budget cutbacks.

They will work every angle they can until that can't.

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

It's law § 5-312 for the 90 days.

dlmcbm · Apr 17, 2012

sbmike said:
I've seen this stated in other posts on this thread, but how can there be no record when they the MSP sends you a letter explaining why your application is being returned to you? I could see it if they simply returned your application unopened (which would make no sense at all) but that's not how they are doing it. Am I missing something?

I am hoping that at least one of the people that got a letter will try to appeal. I am willing to bet that if they do they will not get an appeal on grounds that MSP don't even have an app for them. Just my thoughts but I would think if they are going to risk appeal then they would have cashed the check.

PJDiesel · Apr 17, 2012

Broadside said:
If they returned my application to me, I would immediately file for an appeal to the Handgun Permit Board stating that the returned application was in substance a denial to issue a permit.

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.

Smagel · Apr 17, 2012

I would be surprised if MSP did not consult the review board before taking the non-denial denial approach and establish what their response might be if someone who got the letter appealed.

I would also speculate that the answer they got from the board was one that MSP liked.

So, I'm predicting that those who take this to appeal will be turned away by the board for having not received a negative action from MSP or on some other grounds.

This would put the appellant in the position of having to go to the prohibitive trouble and expense of suing, which I believe is the intent of this action. The number of people willing and able to file suit is quite small compared to those who would file and then appeal since the stakes and costs rise with each level of action.

Of course, my speculation hinges on how MSP treats those who re-submit their applications after getting the bogus letter.

MJD438 · Apr 17, 2012

Smagel said:
I would be surprised if MSP did not consult the review board before taking the non-denial denial approach and establish what their response might be if someone who got the letter appealed.

I would also speculate that the answer they got from the board was one that MSP liked.

So, I'm predicting that those who take this to appeal will be turned away by the board for having not received a negative action from MSP or on some other grounds.

This would put the appellant in the position of having to go to the prohibitive trouble and expense of suing, which I believe is the intent of this action. The number of people willing and able to file suit is quite small compared to those who would file and then appeal since the stakes and costs rise with each level of action.

Of course, my speculation hinges on how MSP treats those who re-submit their applications after getting the bogus letter.

IANAL, but personally, this would lead to a quandary for me if I were a member of the review board. The review board is supposed to be a watchdog organization, not subject to influence from the MSP (yes, I can conjecture that it probably occurs, but the format designed in the law places them in an outside oversight role - think IG office for the various departments, they are supposed to stand apart and make their decisions with no direct influence from the agency being overseen).

Smagel · Apr 17, 2012

MJD438 said:
IANAL, but personally, this would lead to a quandary for me if I were a member of the review board. The review board is supposed to be a watchdog organization, not subject to influence from the MSP (yes, I can conjecture that it probably occurs, but the format designed in the law places them in an outside oversight role - think IG office for the various departments, they are supposed to stand apart and make their decisions with no direct influence from the agency being overseen).

Yep, I agree that's how it's supposed to be, but in real life, in politics, I suspect the worst. I'd be happy to find my cynicism is wrong.

Inigoes · Apr 17, 2012

MJD438 said:
IANAL, but personally, this would lead to a quandary for me if I were a member of the review board. The review board is supposed to be a watchdog organization, not subject to influence from the MSP (yes, I can conjecture that it probably occurs, but the format designed in the law places them in an outside oversight role - think IG office for the various departments, they are supposed to stand apart and make their decisions with no direct influence from the agency being overseen).

Not to mention, the Board does not have the protection of the state when sued.

As Patrick/Esp... mentioned "the state may defend the board, but the state is not responsible for the liabilities if the board loses the suit." So if the board loses, the individual members will have to pay out of their own pockets, perhaps mortgaging their homes.

edit: Upon looking back @ Judge Legg's decision 3/2-3/5, it appears three members of the board are in the suit. We'll know pretty quickly if the will be held personally liable for the decision against Mr. Woollard.

MRA · Apr 17, 2012

If you have standing with the SAF, I think they could sue on your behalf. If that is true, I think it would go directly to Judge Legg. IMO, this is very bad for MSP and the review board. I'm sure the review board knows they are not financially protected by the state. So, if you were a member of the review board, what would you do? I think I would consider resigning. IANAL!

swinokur · Apr 17, 2012

MSP should be keeping a list of returned apps. That's a paper trail is it not? I bet they already have a running total of returned apps so if asked by the GA they could provide a number.

Thoughts?

X-Factor · Apr 17, 2012

swinokur said:
MSP should be keeping a list of returned apps. That's a paper trail is it not? I bet they already have a running total of returned apps so if asked by the GA they could provide a number.

Thoughts?

I doubt it. They think they are doing right by us and helping us not waste money etc etc, so there probably ISN'T a list since I doubt they see a liability.

Mr H · Apr 17, 2012

swinokur said:
MSP should be keeping a list of returned apps. That's a paper trail is it not? I bet they already have a running total of returned apps so if asked by the GA they could provide a number.

Thoughts?

Unless the return envelopes were hand-addressed, I'd say there's better than even chance the list is in a computer file, somewhere.

Shoot... even if they ARE hand-addressed it's possible, but that'd be a little harder to prove, I think.

esqappellate · Apr 17, 2012

Inigoes said:
Not to mention, the Board does not have the protection of the state when sued.

As Patrick/Esp... mentioned "the state may defend the board, but the state is not responsible for the liabilities if the board loses the suit." So if the board loses, the individual members will have to pay out of their own pockets, perhaps mortgaging their homes.

edit: Upon looking back @ Judge Legg's decision 3/2-3/5, it appears three members of the board are in the suit. We'll know pretty quickly if the will be held personally liable for the decision against Mr. Woollard.

While the stay is in place Board members are acting perfectly legally in applying 5(ii). If the stay is lifted, any continued application of 5(ii) would be grounds for a contempt action by SAF in Woollard (if you are member of SAF). Note that Woollard did not and does not seek damages -- at all. Just fees and costs. These Board members are not on the hook for actual damages in Woollard. And they would not be so stupid to continue to apply 5(ii) if the injunction is allowed to go into effect. Deep breath.

Smagel · Apr 17, 2012

esqappellate said:
While the stay is in place Board members are acting perfectly legally in applying 5(ii). If the stay is lifted, any continued application of 5(ii) would be grounds for a contempt action by SAF in Woollard (if you are member of SAF). Note that Woollard did not and does not seek damages -- at all. Just fees and costs. These Board members are not on the hook for actual damages in Woollard. And they would not be so stupid to continue to apply 5(ii) if the injunction is allowed to go into effect. Deep breath.

That leaves open what they might do regarding an appeal based on MSP not adhering to COMAR by sending applications back without processing them. I'm curious how they'll handle that as it's a different animal than Wollard.

esqappellate · Apr 17, 2012

Smagel said:
That leaves open what they might do regarding an appeal based on MSP not adhering to COMAR by sending applications back without processing them. I'm curious how they'll handle that as it's a different animal than Wollard.

That is a matter of state law only, not addressable in federal court under Section 1983. If the Board doesn't follow COMAR, its decision can be challenged in state court (not federal court).

Inigoes · Apr 17, 2012

esqappellate said:
While the stay is in place Board members are acting perfectly legally in applying 5(ii). If the stay is lifted, any continued application of 5(ii) would be grounds for a contempt action by SAF in Woollard (if you are member of SAF). Note that Woollard did not and does not seek damages -- at all. Just fees and costs. These Board members are not on the hook for actual damages in Woollard. And they would not be so stupid to continue to apply 5(ii) if the injunction is allowed to go into effect. Deep breath.

So the three board members wouldn't have to pay a portion of the attorney fees?

That is quite a large number for the average joe.

esqappellate · Apr 17, 2012

Inigoes said:
So the three board members wouldn't have to pay a portion of the attorney fees?

That is quite a large number for the average joe.

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

PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

Frustrated Incorporated

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Banned

Hey, hey, my, my

Ultimate Member

Hey, hey, my, my

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

I don't say please

Banana'd

President, MSI

Hey, hey, my, my

President, MSI

Head'n for the hills

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics