Ccw permits new momo.

[gre24ene]

I also remember seeing a list of CCWers that MONTOYA posted via MSP that was broken down by profession and unless I'm mistaken I remember seeing that firefighters held a fairly high percentage of permits in MD.

 

[rickyp]

I have to disagree. I fully understand we are not police and we are not enforcement. However we should still be able to defend our self if the suition should arise we don't have EI on our portals for nothing. I have been on more then a few calls that came out as one thing and turned out to be something totally different. And found my self in not a good position. When you hit the EI it is just little better then calling 911 on cell phone and that is if your radio gets out. It would be nice to be able to defend yourself until the police can get to us. I don't know where you are at but my station has bullet holes in the bricks out on front ramp another station close to us had driver side windshield shot out. I know several medics that would wear a bullet proof vest because that is only way they could protect them self. Make no mistake about it depending on where your station is at we can be in very real danger and it is getting worse.

 

[gamer_jim]

Here is the latest memo!
MARYLAND STATE POLICE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
...
.01 Purpose
To establish guidelines and policies for the approval and denial of wear and carry handgun permit applications, both new and renewal, and applying the appropriate restriction on issued permits.
...
ASSUMED RISK POSITION: a position of government/public safety/criminal justice employment where, by virtue of the positions duties and responsibilities, the employee voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risks that those duties will either place their lives in imminent danger and/or subject them to be targeted by individuals or entities seeking to do them harm as a result of performing those duties or responsibilities
...
GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REASON: an objective determination, arrived at by the assigned Maryland State Police Licensing Division employee based upon his investigation that the wearing, carrying or transporting of a handgun by the applicant is necessary for the applicant’s:
1. Business activities, either as the business owner or upon request of the owner on behalf of an employee.
2. Employment in a regulated profession such as security guard, private detective, armored car driver, and/or special police officer or rail road police officer.
3. Employment in an assumed risk position.
...

Is this saying that if someone works for the government that they have G&S?

What if in that position the employee has access to sensitive data?

 

[miles71]

Don't get me wrong, I agree all public servant jobs are at risk. While I am sure you can agree the police are in a different type of risk fire and ems are also at risk. Again, I don't want to stop anyone who is able from getting a permit, but think this slippery slope we are being handed could be used for other professions.

I mentioned teachers but how about security guards, esp. Armed ones. Rite now they can only carry during work, so they are defenseless on their off time. Shouldn't they have their restrictions lifted, especially since they have no police powers or backing and basically make everyone upset they talk to lol

Sorry, but I do not agree fire and ems should carry during duty. If the job is that dangerous wait for the police to show up.

Lastly, I appreciate all the fire, ems, and Leo's do for us. I have many close friends in all of the services.

TD

 

[miles71]

And by the way......

Why do they have a restriction for active police officers?

TD

 

[redeemed.man]

And by the way......

Why do they have a restriction for active police officers?

TD

Authority for on duty carry is granted by the agency would be my guess.

Corrections Officers that work armed posts get the authority to carry from the agency when on duty which is why the handgun permit is for off duty only.

 

[miles71]

I don't know ANY active police officers who have an additional permit besides their badge. With Leosa why even have one from out of state.

TD

 

[redeemed.man]

I don't know ANY active police officers who have an additional permit besides their badge. With Leosa why even have one from out of state.

TD

Gun free school zone is one good reason. LEOSA permits don't count in another states GFSZ. Some agencies may suspend police powers when on medical leave, admin. leave, etc. There are all kinds of reasons a LEO may want a state issued handgun permit.

 

[Mike OTDP]

This could get interesting. I wrk for the Feds...in unmanned aviation.

 

[gamer_jim]

Sorry, but I do not agree fire and ems should carry during duty. If the job is that dangerous wait for the police to show up.

No.

Everyone should have the right to self defense, regardless of where they work.

Police, teachers, ems, etc.

It may not be the ems, or teacher's, job to defend others but they should always have the ability to defend themselves where ever they are.

 

[esqappellate]

This could get interesting. I wrk for the Feds...in unmanned aviation.

I have some "friends" in the Taliban who would love to have a piece of you.....

 

[Popo242]

LEOSA is good in all states. Most Active LEO's get their permit just to have because most departments require you to qualify with your off duty weapon. Now, with your CCW, you can carry something different if you would like. The restriction with Active LEO's is just that, while actively employed with your agency. When you leave, you must notify MSP. RETIRED LEO's go through different training and their LEOSA permits are good, along with their retirement ID's, in all 50 States and U.S. Territories.

 

[miles71]

Quote:
Originally Posted by miles71 View Post
Sorry, but I do not agree fire and ems should carry during duty. If the job is that dangerous wait for the police to show up.


No.

Everyone should have the right to self defense, regardless of where they work.

Police, teachers, ems, etc.

It may not be the ems, or teacher's, job to defend others but they should always have the ability to defend themselves where ever they are.

Ok, I'll agree to agree if everyone has the same ability to defend themselves. Not just becUse they have a job that someone thinks warrants it.

TD

 

[moojersey]

Damn that Fortress Training site is pretty bold. They say if you don't get a permit they don't get paid? How on earth can they say that?

 

[giggity]

So what's the consensus on how this change will be applied... who would you say probably qualifies under these new changes?
Is anyone that normally wouldn't qualify before going to try to get their permit now?

 

[MJD438]

LEOSA is good in all states. Most Active LEO's get their permit just to have because most departments require you to qualify with your off duty weapon. Now, with your CCW, you can carry something different if you would like. The restriction with Active LEO's is just that, while actively employed with your agency. When you leave, you must notify MSP. RETIRED LEO's go through different training and their LEOSA permits are good, along with their retirement ID's, in all 50 States and U.S. Territories.

IANAL, and would certainly love for one of our forum members that is to correct me if I am wrong here, but I would be careful with this one. LEOSA may cover general carry in all 50 states, but it does not appear to meet my layman's interpretation of the requirements of the GFSZA for carry in/through a school zone in any state other than the state which issued the LEOSA credential.

 

[redeemed.man]

IANAL, and would certainly love for one of our forum members that is to correct me if I am wrong here, but I would be careful with this one. LEOSA may cover general carry in all 50 states, but it does not appear to meet my layman's interpretation of the requirements of the GFSZA for carry in/through a school zone in any state other than the state which issued the LEOSA credential.

Correct

 

[Popo242]

IANAL, and would certainly love for one of our forum members that is to correct me if I am wrong here, but I would be careful with this one. LEOSA may cover general carry in all 50 states, but it does not appear to meet my layman's interpretation of the requirements of the GFSZA for carry in/through a school zone in any state other than the state which issued the LEOSA credential.

No, you are still held by ALL states, to include the state in which you are living in, laws regarding concealed carry in prohibited places. Right now, that includes the carry of "Standard Capacity" magazines, if the state that you are traveling to, places a limit on them. ATF actually ruled on that one.

 

[Jack McCauley]

People are overreacting to this SOP. The State Police have been overburdened recently with people questioning their lack of consistency on applying the good and substantial rule. This SOP only helps to clarify the same categories they have always used. The department underwent CALEA certification and is continuing to develop policy according to CALEA standards.

I DO NOT see this memo as any change or progression other than to say they are attempting to define standards better. The changes are not yet occurring within the division. But I anticipate they soon will.

If the Handgun Permit Review Board continues to overturn denials, they will be forced to evaluate the process and adapt. In the four pervious years the Handgun Permit Review Board has not overturned one single appeal. Now, with just three hearings and a limited number of cases reviewed that have merit, we are quickly seeing the State Police being overturned. (I think there have been 8 cases so far this year since July)

One should carefully read all of the current policy. Pay close attention to retired law enforcement officers. If they do not apply within one year of retirement, their profession is no longer recognized as an assumed risk. After one year (if they did not apply) they must justify their need under the good and substantial requirement. This has long been misapplied by the department but that is a whole other topic of discussion. If a retired police officer can't get a permit without g and s, why would a firefighter? Most know where I stand on g and s. It should be thrown out. I believe in Constitutional carry. But I don't see this SOP as a change to anything other than evidence of cash deposits.....and that is not even clear yet.

WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT:
Change is slow in the Department of State Police. They just appointed a new commander; one I happen to think very highly of. But he has a huge responsibility. He must first understand the policies, laws, reasonings, case law etc. He must then review 30 years worth of legal decisions. And even if he feels that the Department has been applying the good and substantial rule incorrectly, he then must articulate his stance to his boss, a Major. Then the Major must agree with him and articulate his stance to the Lt. Colonel. If the Lt. Colonel agrees with him then he/she must articulate their distance to the Colonel. This process continues all the way through the Governor's staff with attorneys bouncing conversations back and forth. Progression on the g and s issue is unlikely to occur because of a change in command alone. .......UNLESS... unless those changes have been dictated by 1 of 2 things;

1) The Governor directs the MSP to make changes to their permitting process and evaluate the good and substantial requirements, loosening the restrictions and arbitrary approval process. ( I do not think that has happened) or,
2) There are an abundance of overturned appeals by the Handgun Permit Review Board and the Department is forced to makes changes. If they are continually being overturned, why continue to make the same restrictions.

Everyone should pay close attention to Tim Montoya's approval. His approval opened doors for many others. Trust me. I fully understand his process inside and out. You should at a minimum, listen to the audio he provided in another thread of his informal review.

 

[Blaster229]

I don't know ANY active police officers who have an additional permit besides their badge. With Leosa why even have one from out of state.

TD

Typically, active duty cops would not have a physical LEOSA id card, their creds cover them. I don't know of any agency/dept that would even issue one until separation or retirement.

Sometimes cops have non disciplinary, administrative action, say like medical and they are placed on light duty (flying a desk while they recuperate).
Some/most/all agencies/depts "neuter" the officer because they technically cannot perform "LE duties" while in that capacity, so off comes the badge and gun.

Having a permit allows them to still carry in the state. I think MSP is sympathetic to this issue.