PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

[csanc123]

Help change the "97% approval rate"

I missed the part where Judge Legg gave them a stay. If he did, that would mean the old laws were still in effect? So why were people applying?

 

[Mr H]

I missed the part where Judge Legg gave them a stay. If he did, that would mean the old laws were still in effect? So why were people applying?

Most of us applied pre-stay.

The ones who applied post-stay, I think it's fair to say, would never have dreamed this would happen.

 

[swinokur]

Um sorry, I am in "disagreance".

"...The contributors who routinely and voluntarily submit fingerprints and other criminal justice information to the FBI are very important. Their actions expand the size of the fingerprint files, thereby increasing the value of the files to all law enforcement agencies. Mutual cooperation and efficiency are resultant by-products."
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/law-enforcement-records-management-system

You may be able to make a written request to expunge your Voluntary Appeal File (VAF), but I doubt the *really* delete all the data. The probably send an electronic copy to the UK or New Zealand under some secret Presidential order, so they are exempt from complying.

Contributors are PD. and other Criminal Justice Entities, not Live Scan locations,also known as channelers, as are the MD CJIS who request FBI records checks.. 2nd background finger prints are not considered criminal justice information. After the check is run the print record is destroyed. Will try to find the FBI cite but in the meantime

check this link from Edmondsnston MD PD under "why do I have to resubmit fingerprints?"

http://edmonstonmd.gov/Fingerprinting-CrRecords.htmlingerprints of people who have been arrested, or are working in highly sensitive government positions, are on file in the FBI and the State computers.


That being the case, when you are fingerprinted for a Background Check, the fingerprint card is destroyed after the check is made. The law does not allow those fingerprints to be stored, and therefore if you apply for a new job, you must be fingerprinted and the background check done all over again.


(After all, just because a person had a clean background the last time he or she was checked, doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime since then. The fingerprints will tell for sure.)


Once again, this is the ONLY way to get a Criminal History Background Ch




I just got fingerprinted for a job I worked at six months ago, why do I have to do it all over again for this job?


Contrary to what the "conspiracy theory" people think, the government does not keep a file of everyone's fingerprints. Only the fingerprints of people who have been arrested, or are working in highly sensitive government positions, are on file in the FBI and the State computers.


That being the case, when you are fingerprinted for a Background Check, the fingerprint card is destroyed after the check is made. The law does not allow those fingerprints to be stored, and therefore if you apply for a new job, you must be fingerprinted and the background check done all over again.


(After all, just because a person had a clean background the last time he or she was checked, doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime since then. The fingerprints will tell for sure.)


Once again, this is the ONLY way to get a Criminal History Background Check in the State of Maryland. Other states may differ on procedure, but in this state there is no way to obtain a records check instantly.





I just got fingerprinted for a job I worked at six months ago, why do I have to do it all over again for this job?


Contrary to what the "conspiracy theory" people think, the government does not keep a file of everyone's fingerprints. Only the fingerprints of people who have been arrested, or are working in highly sensitive government positions, are on file in the FBI and the State computers.


That being the case, when you are fingerprinted for a Background Check, the fingerprint card is destroyed after the check is made. The law does not allow those fingerprints to be stored, and therefore if you apply for a new job, you must be fingerprinted and the background check done all over again.


(After all, just because a person had a clean background the last time he or she was checked, doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime since then. The fingerprints will tell for sure.)


Once again, this is the ONLY way to get a Criminal History Background Check in the State of Maryland. Other states may differ on procedure, but in this state there is no way to obtain a records check instantly.




I just got fingerprinted for a job I worked at six months ago, why do I have to do it all over again for this job?


Contrary to what the "conspiracy theory" people think, the government does not keep a file of everyone's fingerprints. Only the fingerprints of people who have been arrested, or are working in highly sensitive government positions, are on file in the FBI and the State computers.


That being the case, when you are fingerprinted for a Background Check, the fingerprint card is destroyed after the check is made. The law does not allow those fingerprints to be stored, and therefore if you apply for a new job, you must be fingerprinted and the background check done all over again.


(After all, just because a person had a clean background the last time he or she was checked, doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime since then. The fingerprints will tell for sure.)


Once again, this is the ONLY way to get a Criminal History Background Check in the State of Maryland. Other states may differ on procedure, but in this state there is no way to obtain a records check instantly.

 

[BUFF7MM]

Most of us applied pre-stay.

The ones who applied post-stay, I think it's fair to say, would never have dreamed this would happen.

Not that I would really want to try this, but couldn't the people who applied prestay use the fact that that they have been basically denying post stay applicants to our advantage down the road when the 90 days lapses on our permit applications as to why they didn't go ahead with our permit process under the pre stay judge Legg ruling?

 

[montoya32]

While I wish no harm to anyone. I would like to see the MSP, Gansler and O'Malley all sued because a permit was denied and someone got assaulted.

 

[cad68m_m]

I'm not sure if Gura has the time or interest to hear from MD Shooters, but I'll certainly bet SAF does.

It might not be a bad idea to let SAF know that there have been at least a couple hundred applications to MD for CCW, and that MD is now not even numerous persons are having applications returned without processing based on lack of G&S.

I spoke to SAF this afternoon, and faxed them the Permit -Return letter

 

[Patrick]

Patrick, We are thinking exactly alike, on more than one thing. Actually, if they deny at the board in bad faith...there may soon be some pathways to sue individual members of the board.

Ding.

I have had me a small theory this past week that only a lawyer could love, and it has to do with qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983/88 and who exactly Judge Legg's stay protects. I didn't want to voice it, but this action means it won't really matter.

Handgun Permit Review Board

This Board was established in 1972 (Chapter 13, Acts of 1972) to review Maryland State Police decisions regarding handgun permits. ...


Any person whose application for a handgun permit, or renewal of a permit, has been rejected or limited, or whose permit has been revoked may ask the Board to review the decision of the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. The Board can sustain, reverse, or modify the decision of the Superintendent based on a hearing conducted to establish the facts.


The Governor appoints the Board's five members from the general public to three-year terms with Senate advice and consent (Article 27, §36E).

Board members are from the general public. They are not state employees.

If I were a handgun review board member I would have called my personal attorney about the same time Woollard lit up these forums. If I were a good attorney (and I am not even a bad one), I would probably research what type of immunity exists if my client did the bidding of the politicians during the stay. I would probably study all the ways that qualified immunity does not apply to those who act in the name of the state if they are operating in violation of civil rights. Then I would take a look at the stay order from Judge Legg and try to figure out if it would apply to general public actors that are not state employees, but rather civilians who are supposed to apply independent reasoning to review and overrule government decisions when the state has been mistaken.

As a bad lawyer, I would imagine the fun that a good lawyer could have with independent, non-state actors who are denying rights - especially when the stay order forgave state employees, not the general public, from violations during this time. I would then try to figure out if the state could even assert itself as an intervenor in cases where independent reviewers - who are legally supposed to operate outside the control of the state - act to suppress or deny a right that the state also want to deny. After seeing this could be problematic - that the state might not even be able to help me if I got sued - I might even suggest to my client that the easiest way to avoid a lawsuit against them would be to not apply an unconstitutional law to the people, especially since the order might not shield them.

These are random thoughts from a guy who is not even a bad lawyer. Let's wait and see how the good ones on this forum poke holes in the theory. It's a complex area of law (immunity from 1983/88) and I cannot claim to know it all. And the question of whether someone could claim the order does not cover non-state employees who deny these rights is open. I used some specific terms here that will trigger thoughts in the smart people here.

This isn't about who might win the theoretical fight. It comes down to whether the board members even want to make the fight. Because my guess is that the state cannot cover their tab - they are not employees and technically are a check on the state police. They are supposed to be independent. I don't think the state can intervene on their behalf under federal law, because they are not even contractors (even if paid). Contractors follow orders, and this board is supposed to be above orders. They are charged only with applying the law, and there is question in my mind as to whether someone could make a case that 42 USC does not protect them from suit. Even if they might win in the end, but they lose along the way.

Again...theories from a non-lawyer and its a wild one. It all comes down to whether the state can defend these people.

But if board members thought this were even slightly possible, stopping the review board from reviewing applicants at that magic 90 day mark would be a big goal for the MSP.

 

[pcfixer]

While I wish no harm to anyone. I would like to see the MSP, Gansler and O'Malley all sued because a permit was denied and someone got assaulted.

Me too! That would be a good law suit to follow!

 

[Mr H]

Not that I would really want to try this, but couldn't the people who applied prestay use the fact that that they have been basically denying post stay applicants to our advantage down the road when the 90 days lapses on our permit applications as to why they didn't go ahead with our permit process under the pre stay judge Legg ruling?

I'm not that savvy, but I think that's pretty close to where this should play out.

Those of us who are pre-stay just need to ride it out, I think. If you get a call for an interview, call it a positive. If you don't then each day is one more to 90, provided your check was cashed.

Note that this is just my opinion... I'm trying to mind-meld and absorb from those more legal-ey than me.

 

[gfmgp]

I am in western Maryland. I sent my app in on 3-15-12 and my check was cashed on 3-21-12. I got a call this afternoon from a trooper and set up a interview for tomorrow morning. On the phone the trooper ask why I wanted a permit. (Self defense,lawabiding) Ask me if I Had any threats (No).

 

[BUFF7MM]

I am in western Maryland. I sent my app in on 3-15-12 and my check was cashed on 3-21-12. I got a call this afternoon from a trooper and set up a interview for tomorrow morning. On the phone the trooper ask why I wanted a permit. (Self defense,lawabiding) Ask me if I Had any threats (No).

Where is your interview??

 

[gfmgp]

Where is your interview??

Lavale baricks. Cumberland.

 

[jfox]

Ding.

I have had me a small theory this past week.

Well, we were thinking the same thing, exactly. Well stated, and I believe there is some merit in the approach. But I don't expect MD to be that stupid. Let's find out.

 

[OnTarget]

In their efforts to be the victor, don't think that Gansler's gang isn't reading everything on this site for strategy. We give away a lot of ideas on MDS. Think about it. Sometimes silence goes a long way!

 

[vector03]

Ding.

I have had me a small theory this past week that only a lawyer could love, and it has to do with qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983/88 and who exactly Judge Legg's stay protects. I didn't want to voice it, but this action means it won't really matter.

Board members are from the general public. They are not state employees.

If I were a handgun review board member I would have called my personal attorney about the same time Woollard lit up these forums. If I were a good attorney (and I am not even a bad one), I would probably research what type of immunity exists if my client did the bidding of the politicians during the stay. I would probably study all the ways that qualified immunity does not apply to those who act in the name of the state if they are operating in violation of civil rights. Then I would take a look at the stay order from Judge Legg and try to figure out if it would apply to general public actors that are not state employees, but rather civilians who are supposed to apply independent reasoning to review and overrule government decisions when the state has been mistaken.

As a bad lawyer, I would imagine the fun that a good lawyer could have with independent, non-state actors who are denying rights - especially when the stay order forgave state employees, not the general public, from violations during this time. I would then try to figure out if the state could even assert itself as an intervenor in cases where independent reviewers - who are legally supposed to operate outside the control of the state - act to suppress or deny a right that the state also want to deny. After seeing this could be problematic - that the state might not even be able to help me if I got sued - I might even suggest to my client that the easiest way to avoid a lawsuit against them would be to not apply an unconstitutional law to the people, especially since the order might not shield them.

These are random thoughts from a guy who is not even a bad lawyer. Let's wait and see how the good ones on this forum poke holes in the theory. It's a complex area of law (immunity from 1983/88) and I cannot claim to know it all. And the question of whether someone could claim the order does not cover non-state employees who deny these rights is open. I used some specific terms here that will trigger thoughts in the smart people here.

This isn't about who might win the theoretical fight. It comes down to whether the board members even want to make the fight. Because my guess is that the state cannot cover their tab - they are not employees and technically are a check on the state police. They are supposed to be independent. I don't think the state can intervene on their behalf under federal law, because they are not even contractors (even if paid). Contractors follow orders, and this board is supposed to be above orders. They are charged only with applying the law, and there is question in my mind as to whether someone could make a case that 42 USC does not protect them from suit. Even if they might win in the end, but they lose along the way.

Again...theories from a non-lawyer and its a wild one. It all comes down to whether the state can defend these people.

But if board members thought this were even slightly possible, stopping the review board from reviewing applicants at that magic 90 day mark would be a big goal for the MSP.

Is this along the same lines as North Carolina state troopers putting their assets in their spouses names because of recent court cases/rulings? Exposure to personal liability while performing state duties.

Sure sounds like it.

 

[Mr H]

I don't disagree, but we have no private way to discuss strategy, really.

If we move it to the WC, what's to keep anyone from creating an account, just to read it? Should there now be a 50-post minimum for WC access too? Or make the 2A folders opt-in?

Not being confrontational... it's just reality as we know it.

 

[LCPIWB]

I'll be curious to see how many others, upon returning home from work today, have a letter waiting for them in today's mail.

More like a turd in an envelope.

 

[OnTarget]

Lavale baricks. Cumberland.

Only four more weeks for them to get from Cumberland to Oakland
Or maybe they're heading from Cumberland to Hagerstown!

 

[gmhowell]

In their efforts to be the victor, don't think that Gansler's gang isn't reading everything on this site for strategy. We give away a lot of ideas on MDS. Think about it. Sometimes silence goes a long way!

Let 'em. Who cares? My guess, if they do read, is that they either dismiss the ideas (possibly out of hubris, possibly out of well founded legal reasons) or have already thought of them.

 

[Patrick]

In their efforts to be the victor, don't think that Gansler's gang isn't reading everything on this site for strategy. We give away a lot of ideas on MDS. Think about it. Sometimes silence goes a long way!

Understand the concern. There is a reason I kept this to myself until now. But if even partly true, nothing I posted is super-secret anymore. If anything, it could start a seed in the mind of a board member. That would not be bad.

The state can read it all they want. It isn't as if the state is going to suddenly start sending applications back or something.

Oh..wait.

Like I said: this was a dumb move.