Group-Submission of MD CCW Permits: Self-Defense

[montoya32]

Really? I think that a group showing in person would have the exact desired effect; Apply and send the message that we are united in our cause. Word of a big group showing up is much more likely to get back to the superintendent than a bunch of applications being received by mail on similar, but still random days. In person makes the statement, IMO, but I'm not leading this charge so I'll defer to your judgment.

Agree 100% with exact language idea, but as mentioned elsewhere, we do need more than just self defense as G&H. The guidance online is clear and until those rules are changed we are likely just throwing money away.

When considering a "go" date, keep in mind that livesscan prints are only good for a short time, I think.

Much coordination needed to pull this off as desired.

Everyone wear masks, call the media for coverage and make a circus out of it. I understand wanting to draw attention, but we have been reduced to this. Attention is the last thing a CCW permit holder wants, or should want. The process in place already creates more exposure to us who are going through it or have gone through it than we ever wanted. The idea of concealed is not limited to physical sight or the firearm. It also relates to the person and their entire life and daily travels. The process fundamentally fails especially in sight of the law passed in 2013 banning the distribution of the info of who has permits and their information. The application process busts that law by asking for references.

 

[Medshot]

I more-or-less made things more organized in the original post.

 

[Medshot]

Here is some verbiage that I have though about. IANAL but I think we need to deal in fact and not because we have "rights", we see daily how our rights are trampled. Woollard ring a bell? Anyway what are your thoughts on this approach.

As the Maryland State Police (MSP) are well aware based on various court cases some of which are listed below, there is no duty for the Maryland State Police, any of the 24 Sheriff Departments in the State and the numerous County and Municipal Police Departments to protect it citizens. We the taxpayer.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188)

It is incumbent that the MSP since they are charged by the law to administer the licensing of Concealed Carry Permits, permit it’s citizens that are so inclined the ability to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) for personal protection against all potential threats and all lawful purposes since every police organization in that State Of Maryland has no duty to protect the individual citizen. The individual citizen needs to be able to protect themselves.

Based on the above please find my completed application for a Maryland Concealed Carry Permit.

End of Statement

Editorial
This is the ultimate Catch 22 situation. There is no duty by the police to protect us and there is very little in the way that we can protect ourselves for lack of police protection.

I have thick skin. I would like to know if you think an approach like this has any better chance than the others mentioned. Does it need to be expanded? Is it too much? What could make it better.

Thanks

I like this. I'd say emphasize *law abiding citizen* as opposed to regular citizen.

What do you think of the following revision (pretty much just grammatical, and added the date of 1938 to the Tompkins case)?

There is no duty for the Maryland State Police, any of the 24 Sheriff Departments in the State, or the numerous County and Municipal Police Departments to protect it citizens, we the taxpayers. This has been established by the following court cases:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)).

It is therefore incumbent that the MSP issue permits that grant the ability to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) to applying, law-abiding citizens of Maryland, as the MSP is charged by state law to administer the licensing of Concealed Carry Permits. These permits allow for a law-abiding citizen of Maryland to ensure personal protection - using all lawful purposes - against all potential threats. Again, this addresses that every police organization in the state of Maryland has no duty to protect the individual citizen; the individual citizen needs to be able to protect themselves.

Based on the above please find my completed application for a Maryland Concealed Carry Permit.

 

[vgplayer]

I actually applied last week with "Self-Defense". I got a call by the end of the week asking for clarification. The Sgt. politely explained GS and I informed him that I understood Maryland law and had testified to change it. He explained it will be denied for lack of GS but it doesn't negatively affect me for applying later. He also stated that if things change down the road to make sure that the change is in full effect because they will process it based on the law/policies on the application date. I should receive a letter in about 90 days.

 

[BeoBill]

I like this. I'd say emphasize *law abiding citizen* as opposed to regular citizen.

What do you think of the following revision (pretty much just grammatical, and added the date of 1938 to the Tompkins case)?

There is no duty for the Maryland State Police, any of the 24 Sheriff Departments in the State, or the numerous County and Municipal Police Departments to protect it citizens, we the taxpayers. This has been established by the following court cases:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)).

It is therefore incumbent that the MSP issue permits that grant the ability to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) to applying, law-abiding citizens of Maryland, as the MSP is charged by state law to administer the licensing of Concealed Carry Permits. These permits allow for a law-abiding citizen of Maryland to ensure personal protection - using all lawful purposes - against all potential threats. Again, this addresses that every police organization in the state of Maryland has no duty to protect the individual citizen; the individual citizen needs to be able to protect themselves.

Based on the above please find my completed application for a Maryland Concealed Carry Permit.

I would also add the violent crime rate and murder rate in your county and city if it's more than nominal. That's your "apprehended danger."

 

[Medshot]

I actually applied last week with "Self-Defense". I got a call by the end of the week asking for clarification. The Sgt. politely explained GS and I informed him that I understood Maryland law and had testified to change it. He explained it will be denied for lack of GS but it doesn't negatively affect me for applying later. He also stated that if things change down the road to make sure that the change is in full effect because they will process it based on the law/policies on the application date. I should receive a letter in about 90 days.

Could you detail this experience a bit more? Was "self-defense" your only statement? I'd want to compare this with Gryphon's experience so far as well.

 

[ericahls]

I actually applied last week with "Self-Defense". I got a call by the end of the week asking for clarification. The Sgt. politely explained GS and I informed him that I understood Maryland law and had testified to change it. He explained it will be denied for lack of GS but it doesn't negatively affect me for applying later. He also stated that if things change down the road to make sure that the change is in full effect because they will process it based on the law/policies on the application date. I should receive a letter in about 90 days.

This is the problem. The GS reason of self defense has specific requirements that must be met before they will process the application.

What I'm not 100% sure of is whether it is an administrative requirement or it's in the COMAR.

If it is an administrative requirement only then our governor needs to inform the superintendent of state police that self-defense in and of itself is sufficient.

 

[vgplayer]

Literally "Self-Defense."

It was a quick call and he was very relieved I understood the law and I didn't argue with him.

 

[Medshot]

Literally "Self-Defense."

It was a quick call and he was very relieved I understood the law and I didn't argue with him.

Hmmm...from what I understand Gryphon's is in the pipeline still, though I'm not sure what his specific reasoning was.

 

[Medshot]

I would also add the violent crime rate and murder rate in your county and city if it's more than nominal. That's your "apprehended danger."

We'd have to be cherry-picking...
For example, using the UCR for Baltimore City PD, the only numbers that have gone up from 2011-2012 are for Homicide and Robbery, and I'm trying to find more recent data now.

 

[Biggfoot44]

New twist in the previous post about retroactively applying the standards in place at time app is submitted. Will have to think the ramifications. This *might* point towrds waiting and watching.

* Notwithstanding above developement , this is what I intended to write instead. *

At some point we need to quantify our degree of optimism. At the most wildly optimistic, merely writing down Self Defense will automaticly reflect reasonable fear of aprehended danger. Below that would be "some" reason specific to the applicant , but judged against a different standard as current. Hypothetically could be 99% of the way to Shall Issue , 99% of current scheme , or anywhere inbetween.

Everything BBGun177 sugguested is 100% true, but will still translate as " Self Defense and Lawful Purposes "

( Holding final paragraph in abayance pending further insight into the game changer of back dating MSP criteria.)

 

[vgplayer]

I think mine is still in the "pipeline" hence letter in 90 days but it isn't going to be processed, i.e. interviews. He didn't specifically mention this it seemed implied.

 

[Medshot]

I think mine is still in the "pipeline" hence letter in 90 days but it isn't going to be processed, i.e. interviews. He didn't specifically mention this it seemed implied.

Gotcha, what I meant more-so was I am curious if Gryphon was contacted like you were.

 

[camobob]

I'm in!
Might also be willing to show up in person if that's the way we choose to go.
Reading through the thread, I don't see anything on timing. If I remember right from my HQL, the fingerprints are short lived so we need to clarify when we'd apply. The biggest part would seem to be the justification used to support self defense from apprehended danger. Are we going to all use the same template?

 

[mxrider]

The biggest part would seem to be the justification used to support self defense from apprehended danger.

This exactly.

 

[Medshot]

I'm in!
Might also be willing to show up in person if that's the way we choose to go.
Reading through the thread, I don't see anything on timing. If I remember right from my HQL, the fingerprints are short lived so we need to clarify when we'd apply. The biggest part would seem to be the justification used to support self defense from apprehended danger. Are we going to all use the same template?

This exactly.

Yes, hopefully we can all agree to a template so we can be uniform in our reasoning and acceptance/denial. Hence why we need to focus on it.

Also, I'd like to emphasize since I may not have been clear:

This is NOT in any way a statement of "LET'S APPLY NOW, QUICK, GO GO GO!" This is meant as a means for us to get more information and be able to come together and agree to various things, and then submit together as a unified group, and the larger the better. Of course I hope that this is *sooner* rather than later, but that is all within the eye of the beholder. For example, developments with Gryphon and vgplayer will be of the utmost focus.

 

[Biggfoot44]

We skipped over CammoBob's last sentance : " Are we all going to use the same template ? " .

A common template is the defacto equiv of a simple Self Defense / lawful purposes . If that's what everyone is intending ( not that there's anything wrong with that ) , then rock and roll with it.

OR if you wish to have chance of actually receiving a Permit under a partial Administrative Relief situation , then listen to MX's sugguestions about providing some sort of applicant specific reasoning.

Going in to fail on purpose is still a worthwhile goal, and I won't encourage any to not do so. Just make informed decision with eyes open.

 

[Atlasarmory]

Please move me to the "Members in need of training to satisfy requirements" list

 

[Medshot]

Please move me to the "Members in need of training to satisfy requirements" list

Done

We skipped over CammoBob's last sentance : " Are we all going to use the same template ? " .

A common template is the defacto equiv of a simple Self Defense / lawful purposes . If that's what everyone is intending ( not that there's anything wrong with that ) , then rock and roll with it.

OR if you wish to have chance of actually receiving a Permit under a partial Administrative Relief situation , then listen to MX's sugguestions about providing some sort of applicant specific reasoning.

Going in to fail on purpose is still a worthwhile goal, and I won't encourage any to not do so. Just make informed decision with eyes open.

The point of the common template is something to show uniformity in using self-defense as our G&S reasoning. I believe this should be identical or damn close, but yes, like MX said, we need to address the "reasonable precaution against danger" aspect. I believe this should be the section that is unique to the individual applicant, based on previous experiences, data one wants to bring up, etc.

 

[Straightshooter]

I actually applied last week with "Self-Defense". I got a call by the end of the week asking for clarification. The Sgt. politely explained GS and I informed him that I understood Maryland law and had testified to change it. He explained it will be denied for lack of GS but it doesn't negatively affect me for applying later. He also stated that if things change down the road to make sure that the change is in full effect because they will process it based on the law/policies on the application date. I should receive a letter in about 90 days.

At least we now know for sure that changes have not yet been directed by the Superintendent. May in 2 more weeks.