Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 12th, 2013, 06:38 AM   #1
k9guy
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 102
Maryland CCW & HQL

Ok I contacted MSP and got some information regarding the new HQL if you already possess a Maryland CCW. I am being told that the online sign up for both should be up and running in the next two weeks. According to MSP if you already have a MD CCW then you WILL NOT be charged a fee to get a HQL. You will however still need to submit new fingerprints along with your HQL application if it has been longer then 30 days since the last time your fingerprints were taken.

I just wanted to share this information with everyone, at least those of us who have our MD CCW won't be out the $50 for the HQL.
k9guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:00 AM   #2
Straightshooter
Senior Member
 
Straightshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore County
Posts: 2,664
Who did you talk to? Ddeanjohnson got clarification from the head of the licensing division yesterday and posted a thread. There has been conflicting information on this subject depending on who you spoke with.


__________________
SAF Life Member
MSI Member
#250A
Straightshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:10 AM   #3
k9guy
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 102
I got my information from Mr. James Kozlowski.
k9guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:10 AM   #4
ddeanjohnson
No Kind of Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 724
No, that's bad information

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9guy View Post
Ok I contacted MSP and got some information regarding the new HQL if you already possess a Maryland CCW. I am being told that the online sign up for both should be up and running in the next two weeks. According to MSP if you already have a MD CCW then you WILL NOT be charged a fee to get a HQL. You will however still need to submit new fingerprints along with your HQL application if it has been longer then 30 days since the last time your fingerprints were taken.

I just wanted to share this information with everyone, at least those of us who have our MD CCW won't be out the $50 for the HQL.
I'm sorry to inform you that you have received misinformation. This subject is thoroughly discussed in another thread, here:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=131343

To summarize that thread: As of October 1, anyone with a currently valid Maryland carry permit -- even if it was issued a year or two ago -- may obtain a HQL license merely by submitting an on-line request, which will include a request for the carry permit number. The MSP will confirm that the requester has a valid carry permit, and then will issue a HQL. The requester will NOT be required to submit new fingerprints (and also, as you said, there is no fee). This information was confirmed in writing by Lt. John G. Cook, commander of the Licensing Section, as recently as yesterday (Sept. 11, 2013) -- again, see the thread linked above.

The MSP is adopting this policy under a specific provision of SB 281 that gives the Secretary of the MSP authority to issue HQLs to carry permit holders "without an additional application or fee." The fingerprinting requirement to which you refer is, of course, part of the general HQL application process. Thus, what you were told not only contradicts what the Section Commander says, but if attempted, would contradict the plain language of the statutory authority on which the MSP is basing the policy. The MSP is not mandated to issue HQLs on request to carry permit holders, but when it employs its lawful authority to do so, it must do so "without an additional application or fee."
ddeanjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:13 AM   #5
Straightshooter
Senior Member
 
Straightshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore County
Posts: 2,664
Dd, do you ever sleep?


__________________
SAF Life Member
MSI Member
#250A
Straightshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:26 AM   #6
k9guy
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 102
Ok that sounds great, I was just sharing the information I received. That is great that you do not have to submit new fingerprints or pay a fee. Question; I see that the new HQL has a photo of the applicant on it, how do we get a photo to MSP for the HQL.
k9guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:28 AM   #7
Straightshooter
Senior Member
 
Straightshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore County
Posts: 2,664
Through MVA records.


__________________
SAF Life Member
MSI Member
#250A
Straightshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:29 AM   #8
ddeanjohnson
No Kind of Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9guy View Post
Question; I see that the new HQL has a photo of the applicant on it, how do we get a photo to MSP for the HQL.
They used the camera on your laptop to take your photo yesterday, while you were talking to Mr. Kozlowski. So you are good to go.
ddeanjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:32 AM   #9
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeanjohnson View Post
I'm sorry to inform you that you have received misinformation. This subject is thoroughly discussed in another thread, here:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=131343

To summarize that thread: As of October 1, anyone with a currently valid Maryland carry permit -- even if it was issued a year or two ago -- may obtain a HQL license merely by submitting an on-line request, which will include a request for the carry permit number. The MSP will confirm that the requester has a valid carry permit, and then will issue a HQL. The requester will NOT be required to submit new fingerprints (and also, as you said, there is no fee). This information was confirmed in writing by Lt. John G. Cook, commander of the Licensing Section, as recently as yesterday (Sept. 11, 2013) -- again, see the thread linked above.

The MSP is adopting this policy under a specific provision of SB 281 that gives the Secretary of the MSP authority to issue HQLs to carry permit holders "without an additional application or fee." The fingerprinting requirement to which you refer is, of course, part of the general HQL application process. Thus, what you were told not only contradicts what the Section Commander says, but if attempted, would contradict the plain language of the statutory authority on which the MSP is basing the policy. The MSP is not mandated to issue HQLs on request to carry permit holders, but when it employs its lawful authority to do so, it must do so "without an additional application or fee."
This is my understanding as well. You *should* be able to do so on-line come Sept. 16 by entering your MD CCW number in the HQL license application menu. You should be able to indicate the basis for exemption from the training requirement as well. EG If you are a certified instructor, you are also exempt from the training requirement. We shall see if it actually works.


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:39 AM   #10
ddeanjohnson
No Kind of Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
This is my understanding as well. You *should* be able to do so on-line come Sept. 16 by entering your MD CCW number in the HQL license application menu. You should be able to indicate the basis for exemption from the training requirement as well. EG If you are a certified instructor, you are also exempt from the training requirement. We shall see if it actually works.
I am not sure what "training requirement" you are referring to here. A person who has a Maryland carry permit will submit nothing but the request and his carry permit number, and a HQL will be issued, period. All of the other requirements and exemptions for a HQL, including the training requirement and exemptions thereto, are inapplicable to someone who already has a Maryland carry permit, under the statute-based MSP policy as explained by Lt. Cook and summarized above.

If you are talking about the exemptions to the training requirement that will apply to everybody who actually has to apply for a HQL (people who do not have carry permits and who are not otherwise exempt), then it is also my understanding that the on-line application process will allow for the entry of certificate numbers and the like that will validate one exemption or another.
ddeanjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:55 AM   #11
dblas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeanjohnson View Post
I am not sure what "training requirement" you are referring to here. A person who has a Maryland carry permit will submit nothing but the request and his carry permit number, and a HQL will be issued, period. All of the other requirements and exemptions for a HQL, including the training requirement and exemptions thereto, are inapplicable to someone who already has a Maryland carry permit, under the statute-based MSP policy as explained by Lt. Cook and summarized above.

If you are talking about the exemptions to the training requirement that will apply to everybody who actually has to apply for a HQL (people who do not have carry permits and who are not otherwise exempt), then it is also my understanding that the on-line application process will allow for the entry of certificate numbers and the like that will validate one exemption or another.
He is referring to the update in 5-306 (D) 1:

(D) THE SECRETARY MAY ISSUE A HANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE, WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OR FEE, TO A PERSON WHO:

(1) MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT UNDER THIS SECTION; AND

If I read (1) correctly, requirements for issuance of a permit under the section would also include the training requirements. I saw what you got back from Lt. Cook, but the training requirement of a current CCW do not meet the requirement in affect on Oct 1. Is that or will that be an issue?
dblas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 07:58 AM   #12
Shinny
Senior Member
 
Shinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeanjohnson View Post
They used the camera on your laptop to take your photo yesterday, while you were talking to Mr. Kozlowski. So you are good to go.
Shinny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 08:02 AM   #13
ron2shel
Junior Member
 
ron2shel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
so i have a permit to carry in maryland for work only. would i still be able to get an hql without paying app fees and getting finger printed.
ron2shel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 08:14 AM   #14
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeanjohnson View Post
I am not sure what "training requirement" you are referring to here. A person who has a Maryland carry permit will submit nothing but the request and his carry permit number, and a HQL will be issued, period. All of the other requirements and exemptions for a HQL, including the training requirement and exemptions thereto, are inapplicable to someone who already has a Maryland carry permit, under the statute-based MSP policy as explained by Lt. Cook and summarized above.

If you are talking about the exemptions to the training requirement that will apply to everybody who actually has to apply for a HQL (people who do not have carry permits and who are not otherwise exempt), then it is also my understanding that the on-line application process will allow for the entry of certificate numbers and the like that will validate one exemption or another.
The HQL is issued to a CCW permit holder if the permit holder otherwise meets all the requirements for the issuance of the CCW permit, including presumably the training. Although it would make sense, I don't recall anything in SB 281 that specifically exempts CCW permit holders, as such, from the HQL training requirements. So, if you apply the literal language of SB 281, you will need to satisfy the training requirements or be otherwise exempt for one of the listed reasons. If the MSP is actually doing something to presume that the MD CCW holder is exempt from the HQL training I would be pleased and surprised, if only because it eliminates an unnecessary hoop.


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 08:16 AM   #15
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by dblas View Post
He is referring to the update in 5-306 (D) 1:

(D) THE SECRETARY MAY ISSUE A HANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE, WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OR FEE, TO A PERSON WHO:

(1) MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT UNDER THIS SECTION; AND

If I read (1) correctly, requirements for issuance of a permit under the section would also include the training requirements. I saw what you got back from Lt. Cook, but the training requirement of a current CCW do not meet the requirement in affect on Oct 1. Is that or will that be an issue?
Exactly my point.


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 08:23 AM   #16
ddeanjohnson
No Kind of Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by dblas View Post
He is referring to the update in 5-306 (D) 1:

(D) THE SECRETARY MAY ISSUE A HANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE, WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OR FEE, TO A PERSON WHO:

(1) MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT UNDER THIS SECTION; AND

If I read (1) correctly, requirements for issuance of a permit under the section would also include the training requirements. I saw what you got back from Lt. Cook, but the training requirement of a current CCW do not meet the requirement in affect on Oct 1. Is that or will that be an issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
Exactly my point.
They've already decided this, and they've decided it in an obviously sensible way: "Valid carry permit holders will be issued an HQL upon request regardless of when the permit was issued," wrote Lt. Cook, the commander of the Licensing Section, yesterday.

Frankly, I fail to see the utility of speculating on alternative interpretations by which they might have reached some other much more cumbersome result, burdening both the MSP and current permit holders to no useful purpose. So I'd be happy to see this entire exchange deleted. But since you've raised an argument, here goes:

It is my understanding that every current permit holder had to demonstrate training satisfactory to the Secretary, before a permit was issued, and the Secretary was free to make that determination based on the reasons the permit was sought, the documentation submitted by the applicant, the types of restrictions that would be placed on the permit, and so forth. Likewise, the new law grants the Secretary blanket authority to approve as sufficient any "course" of instruction, as an exemption from the new training requirement. Therefore, I suppose one could say that by now using his statutory authority to issue HQLs to current permit holders, he is also implicitly employing his statutory authority to recognize their past training (which was already reviewed by MSP before their current permits were issued) as sufficient for exemption from the new training requirement.

However, this does not mean that these permit holders will automatically be exempt from the re-training requirement in the new law, if and when they seek to renew their carry permits. The Secretary has authority to determine what type of instruction ("course") is adequate in any particular case, or at any particular time. He may or may not decide that longtime permit holders had a "course" of instruction that is sufficient to justify a renewed exemption. And that flexibility is not a bad thing. It was put into the law for a reason.
ddeanjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 08:39 AM   #17
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeanjohnson View Post
They've already decided this, and they've decided it in an obviously sensible way: "Valid carry permit holders will be issued an HQL upon request regardless of when the permit was issued," wrote Lt. Cook, the commander of the Licensing Section, yesterday.

Frankly, I fail to see the utility of speculating on alternative interpretations by which they might have reached some other much more cumbersome result, burdening both the MSP and current permit holders to no useful purpose. So I'd be happy to see this entire exchange deleted. But since you've raised an argument, here goes:

It is my understanding that every current permit holder had to demonstrate training satisfactory to the Secretary, before a permit was issued, and the Secretary was free to make that determination based on the reasons the permit was sought, the documentation submitted by the applicant, the types of restrictions that would be placed on the permit, and so forth. Likewise, the new law grants the Secretary blanket authority to approve as sufficient any "course" of instruction, as an exemption from the new training requirement. Therefore, I suppose one could say that by now using his statutory authority to issue HQLs to current permit holders, he is also implicitly employing his statutory authority to recognize their past training (which was already reviewed by MSP before their current permits were issued) as sufficient for exemption from the new training requirement.

However, this does not mean that these permit holders will automatically be exempt from the re-training requirement in the new law, if and when they seek to renew their carry permits. The Secretary has authority to determine what type of instruction ("course") is adequate in any particular case, or at any particular time. He may or may not decide that longtime permit holders had a "course" of instruction that is sufficient to justify a renewed exemption. And that flexibility is not a bad thing. It was put into the law for a reason.

Actually, that understanding is incorrect, as the current rules for CCW issuance do not require *any* training. Of course, the troopers, during the interview, usually ask about training, but permits are and have been issued to well-connected persons lacking training of any sort. The better argument is that current CCW permit holders can be reasonably presumed to already own a regulated handgun and thus are exempt from the required HQL training for that reason.

We are in agreement, that current permit holders will be required to satisfy the CCW permit training upon *renewal* of their CCW permits. Fortunately, the MSP is not requiring current permit holders to get 16 hours of training simply in order to *keep* their existing permits. That would be lawless, but... As to the Secretary's approval of courses of training, we have a separate thread on that....


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 09:19 AM   #18
ddeanjohnson
No Kind of Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
Actually, that understanding is incorrect, as the current rules for CCW issuance do not require *any* training. Of course, the troopers, during the interview, usually ask about training, but permits are and have been issued to well-connected persons lacking training of any sort.
I think you may be mistaken about the current regulations. Unfortunately, a bunch of state websites are down right now, including the COMAR, so I cannot get access to copy-and-paste. But I have a printout of a current regulation that I printed out less than two weeks ago, MSP 29.03.02.12, which does spell out requirements for issuance of handgun permits "in accordance with Article 27, Sec. 36E(i)." That is a reference to the handgun permit law as it existed before recodification, and I cannot get access to that old code right now, either, but I don't think much in the way of substantive change was made during recodification. The regulation contains fairly detailed specifications regarding training, but it also contains a provision that grants the Secretary authority to make exceptions, and that language is somewhat elastic. This is a point on which further research might be interesting, but it's far from no. 1 on my priority list for reasons already enunciated.

Quote:
The better argument is that current CCW permit holders can be reasonably presumed to already own a regulated handgun and thus are exempt from the required HQL training for that reason.
Sorry, you've lost me here. I think you're confusing the HQL training requirement with the concealed-carry training requirement. Ownership of a regulated firearm is one of the exemptions to the HQL training requirement. It has nothing to do with the issue that we are discussing here, which is whether or not current carry permit holders meet the requirements of the provision that allows the Secretary to issue them HQLs without being subject at all to the HQL application process or to the requirements that generally apply to obtaining a HQL -- which, of course, includes the HQL license training requirement. The SB 281 language that we're discussing here refers to the concealed-carry permit requirements, not the HQL requirements.

Quote:
We are in agreement, that current permit holders will be required to satisfy the CCW permit training upon *renewal* of their CCW permits.
I agree that is the "default position." However, the Secretary has the statutory authority to decide that an individual applicant or group of applicants have completed a "course" of instruction that justifies exemption from the general re-training requirement.
ddeanjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 11:21 AM   #19
esqappellate
MSI BoD Member
 
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeanjohnson View Post
I think you may be mistaken about the current regulations. Unfortunately, a bunch of state websites are down right now, including the COMAR, so I cannot get access to copy-and-paste. But I have a printout of a current regulation that I printed out less than two weeks ago, MSP 29.03.02.12, which does spell out requirements for issuance of handgun permits "in accordance with Article 27, Sec. 36E(i)." That is a reference to the handgun permit law as it existed before recodification, and I cannot get access to that old code right now, either, but I don't think much in the way of substantive change was made during recodification. The regulation contains fairly detailed specifications regarding training, but it also contains a provision that grants the Secretary authority to make exceptions, and that language is somewhat elastic. This is a point on which further research might be interesting, but it's far from no. 1 on my priority list for reasons already enunciated.



Sorry, you've lost me here. I think you're confusing the HQL training requirement with the concealed-carry training requirement. Ownership of a regulated firearm is one of the exemptions to the HQL training requirement. It has nothing to do with the issue that we are discussing here, which is whether or not current carry permit holders meet the requirements of the provision that allows the Secretary to issue them HQLs without being subject at all to the HQL application process or to the requirements that generally apply to obtaining a HQL -- which, of course, includes the HQL license training requirement. The SB 281 language that we're discussing here refers to the concealed-carry permit requirements, not the HQL requirements.



I agree that is the "default position." However, the Secretary has the statutory authority to decide that an individual applicant or group of applicants have completed a "course" of instruction that justifies exemption from the general re-training requirement.
I thought we were discussing getting a HQL merely because you have the CCW permit, that is getting the HQL without getting the HQL training. I agree that the training that 5-306 refers to is the requirement that a person may be issued a HQL if that person meets all the requirements for a CCW permit, including the 16 hours of training and the 8 hours for a renewal. The point is that current CCW permit holders do not necessarily have *either* the HQL training (by definition, since it is brand new with statutorily defined elements) or 16 hours of training that 5-306 *now* requires as of Oct. 1. And yet, the MSP will nonetheless accord current CCW permit holders an HQL. I think that is a great result and makes great sense as a practical matter. It is, however, hardly compelled by the statutory language.

I know the training reg. .12 you are referring to. That reg was used for the issuance of permits to security guards and the like and was imposed by the MSP for those occupations ONLY. Those occupations were deemed to have G&S and get permits as a matter of course IF they take the required training. The MSP never used those regs to control the issuance of the CCW permit to persons who were not in those occupations but had a different G&S reason for a permit. Woollard, for example, got his initial permit without undergoing that training. You can be sure that the connected, like state legislature members do not do the police course and get a qualifying score.

Agreed that Secretary has discretion over courses that satisfy the training requirement for renewals. I would like to see some regs that actually identify courses that are deemed to meet that requirement so people will know.


__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2013, 01:12 PM   #20
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,256
Wouldn't most CCW holders already own a regulated firearm, otherwise what are they carrying, and owning prior to Oct. 1st is an exemption from HQL training.
Blacksmith101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2013, Maryland Shooters, LLC