A letter from Pallizzi - CCW

Gryphon said:

I only a have a minute, but let me try to answer. Its apparent that Pallozzi is not inclined to define a bald assertion of self-defense as satisfying G&S, and that even if he were that trying to promulgate such a definition in formal regulations published in COMAR would be problematic.

Suspecting this might be the case, I suggested quite a while back that those applying might consider articulating whatever need they could, even if not able to document a need "greater than others."

"Personal protection" is a category already appearing in the law, and that's the same as self-defense. The problem is that MSP adopted for itself a "greater than others" danger standard for accepting personal protection. That's were the "documented imminent threat" requirement came from, i.e. prove "greater than others." However, the "greater than others" standard isn't in the statute and isn't in published regulations. It just showed in testimony in the Scherr case and appears to have been implicitly accepted without fanfare as a standard operating procedure once that case was affirmed. Jack McCauley has mentioned this several times in his posts.

Now Scherr is no longer controlling or even persuasive because it was decided by a court that rejected the notion that the 2A was an individual right that applied to the states in the first place. Snowden and Scherr thought a permit was a mere privilege. Heller and McDonald prove that foundation was wrong. The right to bear is an individual right that applies to the states. Even Woollard acknowledged so.

Furthermore, Woollard, in upholding G&S, was decided under the belief that G&S was okay because an applicant with a "palpable need" could get a permit to carry where not otherwise prohibited.

Voila, Woollard itself prescribes "palpable need for self defense" as satisfying good and substantial. Pallozzi and the Board just need to recognize and accept it as the new SOP, to replace the now outdated and improper "greater than others" standard MSP followed after Scherr. That's as simple as I can explain it.

Edit: Let me add, that perhaps an easier way to look at this is that there was never any basis for the "greater than others" standard in the first place, so there is no basis to continue its application now; especially in the light of Heller, McDonald and the other intervening 2A cases. If Superintendent Pallozzi recognizes that, he is well within the law applying the "palpable need" standard identified in Woollard.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

If a person has a permit, he cannot be charged under 4-203, as that statute make carry legal if the person simply has a permit. The court will not look to whether the Super's interpretation was in accord with the AG in those proceedings. Possession of the permit is a complete defense to a 4-203 charge.

Click to expand...

Hattie said:

Esq.:

To the extent your Memorandum of Law goes beyond the text of your letter, would it be possible to post the same? Many thanks.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Not quite. The Super is required to comply with the law, here the requirement of G&S. The AG is telling him that "self-defense" standing alone, cannot be G&S. It is not reasonable or realistic to expect the Super to tell the AG to stuff that advice and proceed on his own. That is not how it works. However, the Super would be well within the law and his lawful discretion, given McDonald, to say that Scherr and Snowden no longer govern and that the "palpable need" standard set out in Woollard is the new standard.

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

Esq's letter outlines how MSP can work around it. Clement's "hum a few bars" line from Peruta is what we would get with such a change, not perfect, but a restricted permit for your fledging side business beats no permit.

Click to expand...

ericahls said:

Well my opinion is that when I am dealing with a fundamental right of mine I don't wan't that individual to be snarky. Sgt Knaub, at least with me, has always come across as I am bothering him.

Under paid or not he needs to remember that NONE of us want to be having a conversation with them begging for our rights.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Exactly. Especially if we can get the Board to adopt this approach as well.

Click to expand...

rambling_one said:

When "palpable need" becomes the new standard there hopefully will be a cadre of successful applicants able and willing to help the less articulate formulate acceptable language.

Click to expand...

BeoBill said:

Folks here seem to be right helpful so far. It's encouraging.

I just find it galling to have to go through this for what should be a "given."

Click to expand...

BeoBill said:

Folks here seem to be right helpful so far. It's encouraging.

I just find it galling to have to go through this for what should be a "given."

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

If a person has a permit, he cannot be charged under 4-203, as that statute make carry legal if the person simply has a permit. The court will not look to whether the Super's interpretation was in accord with the AG in those proceedings. Possession of the permit is a complete defense to a 4-203 charge.

Click to expand...

Abacab said:

Yes but if they issue permits and slap a whole bunch of restrictions on them, under Public Safety 5-307, the law now renders that permit null and void if you are violating said restrictions under 4-203, no? The permit itself does not protect you from a 4-203 charge if it violates restrictions.

Click to expand...

Gryphon said:

No one should have to prove an entitlement to a privilege that is actually a fundamental right, enumerated in the Constitution, with plain unambiguous langauge. I blame our forefathers for allowing it to happen. I don't even have children, but I will not depart this earth without doing my best to set things straight, even though it will have to be in small steps.

Click to expand...

Abacab said:

Yes but if they issue permits and slap a whole bunch of restrictions on them, under Public Safety 5-307, the law now renders that permit null and void if you are violating said restrictions under 4-203, no? The permit itself does not protect you from a 4-203 charge if it violates restrictions.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

That's absolutely correct. Hadn't meant to suggest otherwise. IN context, the post was discussing whether a permit issued contrary to the AG's advice was nonetheless valid for purpose of 4-203. Moreover, even a highly restricted permit can be used to obtain an unrestricted permit from PA, NH and Maine.....

Click to expand...

07MDRubi said:

Not sure if it is relevant or not at this point, but I received the same letter in the mail today. Sorry for not reading through the whole thread to find out if others have received it or not, it was just to much for me to go through not following this thread from the start.

I sent an email to Hogan several months ago asking that he work to have self defense defined as good and substantial for a permit. I only assume this is the form letter they came up with to satisfy everyone who contacted them about this issue. Shows me that there have been a lot of people contacting them on this issue if they put together a letter and mailed it out.

Click to expand...