HOW to APPLY for a MARYLAND Carry Permit

[Immigman]

I'm quite frankly, completely puzzled how they are denying carry permits to doctors. The application lists doctors as a category of applicant with "good and substantial" reasons to apply and receive a permit. The standard set forth on the application is proof of licensing and legitimacy of business activity. Internally changing their criteria for eligibility, without providing notice to the public by either changing the application instructions or changing the instructions published on their website, seems arbitrary. For any agency, federal or state, "arbitrary and capricious" decisions can result in costly litigation. To make matters worse, they're changing the rules on a population most likely to have the resources to challenge their decisions in court.

Why not revise the form and delete that category?Alternatively, why not reclassify the category as an example under the professional or personal protection ones? Cypher punk, you appear to be in the know, any ideas as to what's the rationale behind this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[teratos]

I'm quite frankly, completely puzzled how they are denying carry permits to doctors. The application lists doctors as a category of applicant with "good and substantial" reasons to apply and receive a permit. The standard set forth on the application is proof of licensing and legitimacy of business activity. Internally changing their criteria for eligibility, without providing notice to the public by either changing the application instructions or changing the instructions published on their website, seems arbitrary. For any agency, federal or state, "arbitrary and capricious" decisions can result in costly litigation. To make matters worse, they're changing the rules on a population most likely to have the resources to challenge their decisions in court.

Why not revise the form and delete that category?Alternatively, why not reclassify the category as an example under the professional or personal protection ones? Cypher punk, you appear to be in the know, any ideas as to what's the rationale behind this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

They can do what they want. It's in the law.

 

[teratos]

When I took my 16 hour training 2 months ago the certification form had been filled in to state what caliber (.45 ACP) I had qualified on? Apparently they (rightfully or wrongfully) are starting to keep track of that? The instructor said because I qualified on .45 I was good for anything below that. NO, I don't know the answer to the ensuing questions!

There is no rule in MD law that you have to qualify with the caliber you are going to carry. This is getting crazy.

 

[Gryphon]

I know Teratos - that's why I was surprised and questioned it. MSP or whoever making sh*t up as they go. It immediately had everyone in the training/certification class questioning their decision to qualify with 9mm - hahahaha! But I agree, they can ask whatever they want but the law doesn't constrain an individuals choice of caliber.

 

[Immigman]

They can do what they want. It's in the law.

That's true, sort of.

Even where state and federal administrative agencies maintain broad discretionary authority, their decisions cannot be "arbitrary or capricious." That partially the justification for the rules governing publishing administrative regulations, like COMAR. Agencies are mandated to provide public notice and comment before making a substantive interpretation of a legislative statute. To my knowledge, the state does not have a COMAR rule governing "professional activities." However, publishing application instructions and failing to adhere to the standards set there has been held to violate the rule against arbitrary decision-making.

It just seems like, from a litigation perspective, there are safer ways to do this than how the Licensing Division has chosen. Publishing a rule or revising the instructions eliminates the "arbitrary" arguments. Leaving them in place and failing to adhere to them gives a ready-made argument to a population with the resources to challenge the decision in court.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[teratos]

That's true, sort of.

Even where state and federal administrative agencies maintain broad discretionary authority, their decisions cannot be "arbitrary or capricious." That partially the justification for the rules governing publishing administrative regulations, like COMAR. Agencies are mandated to provide public notice and comment before making a substantive interpretation of a legislative statute. To my knowledge, the state does not have a COMAR rule governing "professional activities." However, publishing application instructions and failing to adhere to the standards set there has been held to violate the rule against arbitrary decision-making.

It just seems like, from a litigation perspective, there are safer ways to do this than how the Licensing Division has chosen. Publishing a rule or revising the instructions eliminates the "arbitrary" arguments. Leaving them in place and failing to adhere to them gives a ready-made argument to a population with the resources to challenge the decision in court.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Everything is "at the discretion of the Secretary". They publish examples of who "may" get a permit, but they are by no means standards. We would all love to see some standard put in place.

 

[Immigman]

Everything is "at the discretion of the Secretary". They publish examples of who "may" get a permit, but they are by no means standards. We would all love to see some standard put in place.

Teratos-I'm totally not disagreeing with you.

With that said there is a legal requirement that all administrative agencies act in a way that is not arbitrary or capricious. I'll purposely use an extreme example to illustrate the point. The Secretary would likely get judicially overruled as abusing his discretion, if he bans all persons who own yellow shirts from permit eligibility. It's highly unlikely that they would be able to establish that such a decision isn't arbitrary. Likewise, making unambiguous policy statements on form instructions, then deviating from them has been held to be a capricious abuse of discretion.

I'm not saying the Secretary can't do it. I'm just saying there are better ways of accomplishing this without opening a door to judicial challenge. For example, change the instructions on the website. I can't imagine their States Attorneys have sanctioned this, since they would be the ones to have to defend such challenges in State court.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[redeemed.man]

See live fire requirement bolded below.

MSP interviewer (INCORRECTLY) implied that I could only carry what I qualified on. "My" opinion, which many disagree with, is to qualify on the largest caliber you have access to. I'd rather be in front of a jury with my target showing I can handle a .45 than a .22 even though I don't plan on carrying either. Think of the composition of a jury of your peers and choose the path that works for you.

My instructor put up 2 back-to-back targets and him fill out and sign both of them (his idea, great idea IMHO) so I have a copy of it if I ever have to defend myself.

I see nothing that would stop you from shooting 5 rounds each from 5 different guns in order to meet the 25 round requirement. I can understand the idea of qualifying with the largest round you may carry but what if you are involved in a shooting with a .357 or 9 mm that you decide to carry that day instead of the .45 you qualified with? It becomes a huge problem if you injure or kill an innocent bystander. If that happens you will be asked why you are carrying something you didn't qualify with even if it is smaller caliber. Bottom line, a good shoot is a good shoot and it shouldn't matter. Shooting an innocent bystander makes it a bad shoot every time and every thing you did will be picked apart by a prosecutor. Ask any LEO who has ever shot an innocent bystander and I am sure you will find that the prosecutor/internal affairs investigator will find a way to pick apart any and everything about the shooting. I have always qualified with what I owned and shot the best with at the time. At 15 yards in my situation today it would be a close call between my Glock 19, 26,or 30S. At that distance my level of accuracy is close to identical with those guns. That doesn't mean I don't carry my SP101 w/ a 2" barrel in .357 because I do on occasion. It would not be my choice to qualify with the SP101 even though 70% at 15 yards is easy enough with just about any gun.

 

[Weber]

See live fire requirement bolded below.

MSP interviewer (INCORRECTLY) implied that I could only carry what I qualified on. "My" opinion, which many disagree with, is to qualify on the largest caliber you have access to. I'd rather be in front of a jury with my target showing I can handle a .45 than a .22 even though I don't plan on carrying either. Think of the composition of a jury of your peers and choose the path that works for you.

My instructor put up 2 back-to-back targets and him fill out and sign both of them (his idea, great idea IMHO) so I have a copy of it if I ever have to defend myself.

So, by that I am exempt from the live fire requirement.

Thanks.

 

[Straightshooter]

There's still nothing in the law that States anything about calibers or restrictions to calibers dependent on what you used to complete the proficiency requirement. We need to stop reading g stuff that isn't there. The idiots in Annapolis put enough crap in this law already. We don't need to help them.

 

[igotyoubeat]

Sent off application on 3/7/14 (next day delivery). Received app back on 03/15/14 due to a discrepancy with the fingerprinting number. They requested a copy of the fingerprinting receipt. I'm guessing I put the wrong number in the field. My advice to anybody applying would be to send the fingerprinting receipt with the application. I re-sent the application back on 03/17/14 (next day delivery again). With no surprise, as of today still have not heard anything .... . I also applied for my Utah permit on 03/31/14 I am curious to see which one will come first.

 

[redeemed.man]

Sent off application on 3/7/14 (next day delivery). Received app back on 03/15/14 due to a discrepancy with the fingerprinting number. They requested a copy of the fingerprinting receipt. I'm guessing I put the wrong number in the field. My advice to anybody applying would be to send the fingerprinting receipt with the application. I re-sent the application back on 03/17/14 (next day delivery again). With no surprise, as of today still have not heard anything .... . I also applied for my Utah permit on 03/31/14 I am curious to see which one will come first.

Utah definitely will be first but I am sure you know that.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

[igotyoubeat]

Definitely knew the process was going to be long in Maryland, my GS should be no problem (MD CO). I was a little thrown off and exited when less than two weeks I had a letter in the mail from them. Only to find out they wanted my finger print receipt. I'm guessing sometime in June ...

 

[PJDiesel]

In other words, if they can find something wrong, they respond in less than 30 days. If everything else appears to be in order,..... plan on waiting 3 to 5 months.

 

[redeemed.man]

Definitely knew the process was going to be long in Maryland, my GS should be no problem (MD CO). I was a little thrown off and exited when less than two weeks I had a letter in the mail from them. Only to find out they wanted my finger print receipt. I'm guessing sometime in June ...

MD DOC? It might be quicker for you. When I was a Mo Co CO I got mine back in about 2 weeks. Of course that was a while ago. As a business owner it took 92 days.

 

[igotyoubeat]

Yeah, I'm past the two week mark .... I'm guessing its gonna take the full time. What's disappointing is we do not qualify under LEOSA due to not having "statutory powers of arrest" we do however have "powers of apprehension" unfortunately getting clarification from the department is like pulling teeth. The union is not much help, they are too busy shagging with the governors office.

 

[Scarab]

I heard that applying for a carry permit is like just flushing money down the toilet. Why should I apply if the assholes in Annapolis just disapprove them? This is a serious question. I'm looking for serious answers.

Scarab

 

[awptickes]

I heard that applying for a carry permit is like just flushing money down the toilet. Why should I apply if the assholes in Annapolis just disapprove them? This is a serious question. I'm looking for serious answers.

Scarab

If you can afford it, your money goes to dilluting the "approval rate" that they like to tout. Last I heard the MSP said the approval rate is something like 97%.

 

[swinokur]

Atfer Judge Legg's ruling, a warning was published IIRC by MSI saying that you should only apply if you can afford the possible denial. There was never any guarantee you would get a permit. Some of us applied-and were denied.

No surprises there.

 

[Scarab]

Atfer Judge Legg's ruling, a warning was published IIRC by MSI saying that you should only apply if you can afford the possible denial. There was never any guarantee you would get a permit. Some of us applied-and were denied.

No surprises there.

OK, I can live with these responses. Just can't see pissing money away on the moron club in Annapolis.

Scarab