MSP SOP - Processing of Handgun Permit Applications

JPG · Sep 8, 2015

Interesting read. I did notice that MD State Police still use LOTUS NOTES.

SOP 29-15-007 (Issued 9/1/15)
http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Document D...essing of Handgun Permit Applications (1).pdf

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.
4. Personal protection - Personal protection requires:
a. Tangible evidence or evidence that may be documented and affirmed that the applicant’s life is in imminent danger and/or
b. Tangible evidence or evidence that may be documented or affirmed that the applicant is currently being targeted by individuals wishing to do the applicant harm.

G. Restrictions / Handgun Permit Categories
Provided the required documentation parameters are met, the handgun permit language will read as identified in the below subsection, consistent with the appropriate handgun permit category.
1. Personal Protection: NONE (MD ONLY)(Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
2. Police Officer; Active: Off Duty hours while maintaining employment as a police officer with any recognized law enforcement agency. (MD ONLY) (Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
3. Police Officer; Retired: NONE (MD ONLY)( Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
4. Business Owner: Valid only while conducting business as owner of _______ (MD ONLY) (Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.) OR Valid only while conducting business as employee/position of _______.
5. Security Guard: Between residence and (or) Armed on any Maryland Licensed Security Guard (or) Private Detective agency job assignment or property only, and while actively engaged as a certified Armed Security Guard (or) Private Detective for same. (ON DUTY IN MD ONLY) (Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
6. Private Detective: Between residence and (or) Armed on any Maryland Licensed Security Guard (or) Private Detective agency job assignment or property only, and while actively engaged as a certified Armed Security Guard (or) Private Detective for same. (ON DUTY IN MD ONLY) (Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
7. Armored Car Driver: Between residence and (or) Armed on , name of agency job assignment or property only, and while actively engaged as an Armored Car Driver/Guard for same (ON DUTY ONLY) (Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
8. Special Police Officer: Between residence and (or) Armed on, name of agency job assignment or property only, and while actively engaged as a Special Police Officer for same (ON DUTY, IN MD ONLY)( Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
9. Bail Bondsman: Between residence and while acting as an employee or agent of a property bail bondsman or licensed bail bondsman (ON DUTY IN MD ONLY) (Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
10.Correctional Officer: Off Duty hours while employed as a Correctional Officer (MD ONLY)(NOT VALID for any other employment purposes)( Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)
11.Private Security Officer: Between residence and (or) Armed on, name of agency job assignment or property Only, and while actively engaged as a title requested by company for same (ON DUTY IN MD ONLY)( Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.)

divingraven · Sep 8, 2015

Very interesting read. They are supposed to contact you if they haven't processed your new application within 90 days (30 days for renewal). It also seems like the restriction line for business permits is getting rid of "financial transactions", and simply making it business transactions. Still unconstitutional in my opinion, but I guess we know what we're dealing with a little bit better.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

GrimReaper · Sep 8, 2015

"Date issued 9/1/15"

This just proves that Palozzi and Hogan aren't doing shit.

divingraven · Sep 8, 2015

GrimReaper said:
"Date issued 9/1/15"

This just proves that Palozzi and Hogan aren't doing shit.

Or this

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

JPG · Sep 8, 2015

How can you get a CCW for "personal protection", but not be able to carry where firearms are prohibited?

You can't carry within 100 yards or in:
A park
A church
A school
A public building

I guess if I was a "smart criminal" and was out to get someone I knew had a CCW I would get you in church.

kalister1 · Sep 8, 2015

JPG said:
I guess if I was a "smart criminal" and was out to get someone I knew had a CCW I would get you in church.

What a minute there, they are GUN FREE ZONES! Not gonna happen.

Jaybeez · Sep 8, 2015

personal protection is a g&s under reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

applying reasonable precaution against apprehended danger to weapon other than a handgun requires no "tangible evidence" be provided to msp 90-120 days in advance of an attack. it only requires a judge or jury to decide you had no criminal intent while carrying that weapon other than a handgun in the event it isnt a clear cut case of self defense.

where did this "new" definition of "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" with regards to handgun carry originate from? its not found in Maryland law. 121 years of md law sayd its not what msp is currently enforcing.

carrying a handgun with a license doesnt absolve one of guilt in the event of an unlawful use. a permitted person would still have to prove to a judge or jury that their actions were lawful in the event the pwrmitted firearm was used in a non clear cut self defense situation. so what purpose does this made up definition serve?

Jaybeez · Sep 8, 2015

JPG said:
Interesting read. I did notice that MD State Police still use LOTUS NOTES.

http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organizati...essing of Handgun Permit Applications (1).pdf

i see the whole sop document as a net positive. it means they know the way things were was a mess. they need to get things to work well before anything can be fixed.

for example just look at the delays withbgetting board hearings and wait times. that system in the state it was couldn't possibly process any more apps than it was. it needs to be fixed first.

make things work the way they claim it is supposed to. then identify redundancies and stteamlining efforts. increase productivity and speed. ect ect.

moojersey · Sep 9, 2015

Jaybeez said:
i see the whole sop document as a net positive. it means they know the way things were was a mess. they need to get things to work well before anything can be fixed.

for example just look at the delays withbgetting board hearings and wait times. that system in the state it was couldn't possibly process any more apps than it was. it needs to be fixed first.

make things work the way they claim it is supposed to. then identify redundancies and stteamlining efforts. increase productivity and speed. ect ect.

How is it a net positive? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just really not understanding. I read this as them solidifying the process already in place and putting it on paper. I mean unless that is the positive. That they've put it on paper. I guess process wise it is good. I don't see this as a great leap for our cause though. Although you really didn't say that.

PJDiesel · Sep 9, 2015

GrimReaper said:
"Date issued 9/1/15"

This just proves that Palozzi and Hogan aren't doing shit.

And, no one really needed any further proof. :sad20:

Wheres my squirrel jpg, I can hear him squeaking about some backroom campaign promises right now! :rolleyes:

esqappellate · Sep 9, 2015

Jaybeez said:
i see the whole sop document as a net positive. it means they know the way things were was a mess. they need to get things to work well before anything can be fixed.

for example just look at the delays withbgetting board hearings and wait times. that system in the state it was couldn't possibly process any more apps than it was. it needs to be fixed first.

make things work the way they claim it is supposed to. then identify redundancies and stteamlining efforts. increase productivity and speed. ect ect.

I agree, a net positive, if only because it necessarily indicates awareness of the need to revise the restriction language to make it clearer.

Jaybeez · Sep 9, 2015

moojersey said:
How is it a net positive? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just really not understanding. I read this as them solidifying the process already in place and putting it on paper. I mean unless that is the positive. That they've put it on paper. I guess process wise it is good. I don't see this as a great leap for our cause though. Although you really didn't say that.

the board is hearing appeals from almost a year ago. that's how slow the handgun permit section is going. and that's with the small amount of applicants they have. imagine double the normal amount of applicants. a 2 year wait time?
if you read the whole document, many of our complaints with the processing "as is" are addressed.

Straightshooter · Sep 9, 2015

esqappellate said:
I agree, a net positive, if only because it necessarily indicates awareness of the need to revise the restriction language to make it clearer.

The standard business restriction has been changed to the wording I was preparing to ask that mine be amended to. Should be no problem now that it's SOP.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

dblas · Sep 9, 2015

moojersey said:
How is it a net positive? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just really not understanding. I read this as them solidifying the process already in place and putting it on paper. I mean unless that is the positive. That they've put it on paper. I guess process wise it is good. I don't see this as a great leap for our cause though. Although you really didn't say that.

No that it is on paper, we can go through it and compare it to state statute and COMAR, and we can go after them for any discrepancies. We can also inquire if things are missing that we think should be there.

Baby steps, or as Mr. H likes to say, small bites of the elephant.

dblas · Sep 9, 2015

GrimReaper said:
"Date issued 9/1/15"

This just proves that Palozzi and Hogan aren't doing shit.

Actually, before you can improve a process or correct a process failure, you 1st have to know what the process is. Now that it is on paper, it can be reviewed, improved and corrected. So, I would say that the Secretary is indeed working on things. Are they happening at the rate you want them to happen (yesterday), probably not, but it is a move and a change in the correct direction.

dblas · Sep 9, 2015

Jaybeez said:
the board is hearing appeals from almost a year ago. that's how slow the handgun permit section is going. and that's with the small amount of applicants they have. imagine double the normal amount of applicants. a 2 year wait time?
if you read the whole document, many of our complaints with the processing "as is" are addressed.

And the HPRB wants to hear more cases, so they can get caught up. The last meeting was supposed to have 10 reviews, instead of the four that were heard. MSP did not have the files ready for the HPRB.

redeemed.man · Sep 9, 2015

dblas said:
And the HPRB wants to hear more cases, so they can get caught up. The last meeting was supposed to have 10 reviews, instead of the four that were heard. MSP did not have the files ready for the HPRB.

Sounds like obstruction to me....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Bob A · Sep 9, 2015

Am I missing something? The quote from the OP reads:

"4. Personal protection - Personal protection requires:
a. Tangible evidence or evidence that may be documented and affirmed that the applicant’s life is in imminent danger and/or
b. Tangible evidence or evidence that may be documented or affirmed that the applicant is currently being targeted by individuals wishing to do the applicant harm."

Imminent danger, or being targeted, seem to be the only allowable reasons. While "imminent danger" is ridiculous on its face, as it can only be determined as "tangible" after the fact, it's the only phrase vague enough to try to hang a reason on, and is obviously the method used by MSP to restrict permits.

So, where's the great breakthrough?

dblas · Sep 9, 2015

Bob A said:
Am I missing something? The quote from the OP reads:

"4. Personal protection - Personal protection requires:
a. Tangible evidence or evidence that may be documented and affirmed that the applicant’s life is in imminent danger and/or
b. Tangible evidence or evidence that may be documented or affirmed that the applicant is currently being targeted by individuals wishing to do the applicant harm."

Imminent danger, or being targeted, seem to be the only allowable reasons. While "imminent danger" is ridiculous on its face, as it can only be determined as "tangible" after the fact, it's the only phrase vague enough to try to hang a reason on, and is obviously the method used by MSP to restrict permits.

So, where's the great breakthrough?

The breakthrough and progress would be the fact that they actually have and posted the process for issuing wear and carry permits. First time that it has been available and known. Now we can pick it apart.

PJDiesel · Sep 9, 2015

There was always a process, just as arbitrary as this,.... they know it when they see it. They still only (really) "know it" when they see it.

MSP SOP - Processing of Handgun Permit Applications

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Banned

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Past President, MSI

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics