Effect of Wollard Case Ruling on Existing MD Carry Permits

[EngageSmith]

An interesting question has come up with us at Engage about how this ruling will affect the restrictions of current permit holders. Since most (and I mean most) MD permits have restrictions listed on the back of the card... does anything change? Will permit holders have to re-apply for new permits without restriction? Can we carry without restrictions under our current permits? Do we still have to surrender our permits if our "good and substantial reason" changes or no longer exists as it was found by MSP to issue the permit in the first place?

Just throwing ideas out there for discussion... What do you guys think? Has MSI addressed this yet?

 

[Safetech]

Glad you asked!

Was wondering that myself.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Send in a letter demanding removal of your work restrictions.

 

[SkunkWerX]

Yep, this is one of the key questions floating around at the moment.

 

[Safetech]

Send in a letter demanding removal of your work restrictions.

"Demanding" anything from the Police does not sound like a good idea.

 

[Abacab]

We're investigating but there's hardly any answers out there right now. As a reminder, restrictions are an administrative function. They hold no legal weight.

 

[SkunkWerX]

Common thought is that we now have a RIGHT supported by a Federal Judge.

To continue to restrict an existing permit holder could be construed as restricting a Civil Right.

But this doesn't mean someone with a restricted permit should waltz around and ignore the restriction on their existing permit. Recent posts suggest sending a letter to MSP Licensing Division requesting the restriction be lifted by citing the Woollard decision. As of now, there is nothing official out of MSP or Annapolis, so no concrete answer or procedure to follow.

 

[Safetech]

I wonder if - when I go for my interview - I should ask for it to be unrestricted now. (Citing the ruling) Or should I just leave well enough alone for right now, so as to not jepordize even getting a restricted one.

I'll probably just feel out the situation and play it by ear.

 

[Inigoes]

"Demanding" anything from the Police does not sound like a good idea.

They gotta start recognizing a right sometime

 

[eruby]

I wonder if - when I go for my interview - I should ask for it to be unrestricted now. (Citing the ruling) Or should I just leave well enough alone for right now, so as to not jepordize even getting a restricted one.

I'll probably just feel out the situation and play it by ear.

If you're applying under "self defense - all lawful purposes", what restrictions would there be? Only when you're alive?

Of course I wouldn't put it past MD to play Chicago-like games.

I see this is in the 'Engage' thread so nevermind.

 

[esqappellate]

An interesting question has come up with us at Engage about how this ruling will affect the restrictions of current permit holders. Since most (and I mean most) MD permits have restrictions listed on the back of the card... does anything change? Will permit holders have to re-apply for new permits without restriction? Can we carry without restrictions under our current permits? Do we still have to surrender our permits if our "good and substantial reason" changes or no longer exists as it was found by MSP to issue the permit in the first place?

Just throwing ideas out there for discussion... What do you guys think? Has MSI addressed this yet?

A suggestion; Don't violate the terms of your permit. Reapply if you want to get rid of the restrictions. And be prepared to be very patient.

 

[Safetech]

If you're applying under "self defense - all lawful purposes", what restrictions would there be?

"Business owner". I assume I will only get it for work and bank runs.

 

[teratos]

I wonder if - when I go for my interview - I should ask for it to be unrestricted now. (Citing the ruling) Or should I just leave well enough alone for right now, so as to not jepordize even getting a restricted one.

I'll probably just feel out the situation and play it by ear.

Yes, you should ask for unrestricted. Unless the State files for and is granted a stay, the Judge's ruling is in effect. They cannot, as of this very minute, require a good and substantial reason.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, MD is the first State in which citizens have had to get their rights via the courts. All of the other States have passed it through their legislature.

 

[smokey]

Oh god, please someone write gansler for clarification on this issue like we got on the loaded magazine issue. I can just imagine his face when he reads the request.

 

[EngageSmith]

Oh god, please someone write gansler for clarification on this issue like we got on the loaded magazine issue. I can just imagine his face when he reads the request.

Hmmmmm.... either this or sending a letter asking MSP to alter/remove restrictions shouldn't really hurt anything. My "good and substantial reason" still exists so I believe the worst they could say is "no, sorry, your restrictions are still in effect."

Thanks for the input guys.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Hmmmmm.... either this or sending a letter asking MSP to alter/remove restrictions shouldn't really hurt anything. My "good and substantial reason" still exists so I believe the worst they could say is "no, sorry, your restrictions are still in effect."

Thanks for the input guys.

That's a denial.

 

[SkunkWerX]

That's a denial.

EXACTLY!
...and wouldn't it be a nice little piece of fodder to be used (possibly) at some point?

 

[jpk1md]

Send in a letter demanding removal of your work restrictions.

"Demanding" anything based upon the outcome of Wollard not only won't get you anywhere but also ignores the simple fact that Wollard did not address WHERE or WHEN you can carry only that the State may not require you offer a "Good and Substantial Reason" to exercise a Right. (In this context be issued a Permit)

"A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."

In fact this issue was already in part addressed by SCOTUS when they made reference to the fact that Gov CAN restrict carry in what I believe they called "Sensitive" places.

Unless you are an excellent candidate for the next national challenge to CCW limitations, are willing to put your life on the stage, follow through AND have deep pockets I suggest putting a couple brain cells together and pondering the consequences for a moment as a BAD decision is worse than NO decision at this point......but nonetheless if you choose to pursue your day in court thats your right.

THIS is the fundamental problem with granting the Fed Gov the power to make decisions on the Natural Right to Self Defence when 2A clearly states that it shall not be infringed......even by the Courts

 

[teratos]

"Demanding" anything based upon the outcome of Wollard not only won't get you anywhere but also ignores the simple fact that Wollard did not address WHERE or WHEN you can carry only that the State may not require you offer a "Good and Substantial Reason" to exercise a Right. (In this context be issued a Permit)

"A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."

In fact this issue was already in part addressed by SCOTUS when they made reference to the fact that Gov CAN restrict carry in what I believe they called "Sensitive" places.

Unless you are an excellent candidate for the next national challenge to CCW limitations, are willing to put your life on the stage, follow through AND have deep pockets I suggest putting a couple brain cells together and pondering the consequences for a moment as a BAD decision is worse than NO decision at this point......but nonetheless if you choose to pursue your day in court thats your right.

THIS is the fundamental problem with granting the Fed Gov the power to make decisions on the Natural Right to Self Defence when 2A clearly states that it shall not be infringed......even by the Courts

So maybe MD will issue everyone a permit with the restriction that they can carry to and from the mailbox on February 29th.

 

[jpk1md]

So maybe MD will issue everyone a permit with the restriction that they can carry to and from the mailbox on February 29th.

And you don't think Gansler hasn't already considered this approach?

Honestly thats not far from the current situation.....they only issue with enough leeway on where and when you can carry to satisfy the threat you've demonstrated.

Gansler could very easily deem that certain days of the week and times of the day, holidays and places where more than 100 people are likely to gather as restrictions for where and when you can carry.....heck we haven't even begun to address the hell they could inflict on a permit carriers life if they were to start prosecuting based upon GFSZA rules.......lots of you cannot....I repeat CANNOT physically travel to and from home and work without crossing one of these prohibited areas.

This case is just one step in an entire flight of stairs for you guys in Md and the State is not going to allow this without fighting tooth and nail, locking people up for ********/trumped up reasons and forcing Citizens to challenge them in court.....and they'll do it with your tax dollars.....heck why do you think O'Mouthy is trying to raise taxes?