Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Separate facts, and fragments thereof, assembled into the statement are individually true, but create an incomplete and intentionally misleading context. Certainly not the "whole truth".

    What makes you believe it is intentionally misleading. They have set a high standard and the courts have accepted that standard. Do you have data that indicates they are turning people away that meet this high standard? Do you even know how many voluntarily withdraw their application?
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    What makes you believe it is intentionally misleading. They have set a high standard and the courts have accepted that standard. Do you have data that indicates they are turning people away that meet this high standard? Do you even know how many voluntarily withdraw their application?

    The data I'm working with is from a small sample size, but I have no reason to believe it wouldn't extrapolate to a larger population of similar demographics.

    Based on discussions within my social group (friends and coworkers), roughly 16 people, none prohibited persons, have expressed an interest in obtaining a concealed carry permit. Of those 16, 13 didn't bother to apply, for a variety of reasons:
    • No G&S as defined by MSP
    • Deterred by fees for training and application, with no guarantee on a return on investment
    • Some had G&S, but were unable to obtain documentation necessary. This is particularly true of folks with clearances who have uncooperative security personnel at their places of employment. If someone meets G&S criteria, the ability to obtain a permit shouldn't be dependent on 3rd parties' willingness to voluntarily provide data.
    Of the 3 who did apply, two were approved with restrictions, 1 was turned down.

    As for the high standards, it's those standards, as well as the concept of licensing an enumerated right in the first place, that the court is being asked to decide on. Asserting that the existence of a policy is the justification for the policy is circular reasoning.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,142
    That’s the plan. $$$ to apply and any John Q knows they’ll be rejected.

    The same folks that decry common sense limits on other rights sure have double standards on things they don’t like.

    Last I heard Hawaii doesn’t deny any new requests for permits. 0% denial rate.

    Everyone has learned they will be denied and they stopped asking.

    If they dont bother to apply, they cant be counted as a rejected by MSP...
     

    Nobody

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,810
    Easy solution. Put on the ballot a question. Would you apply for a permit If Maryland was shall issue.

    Nobody
     

    Don H

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 17, 2013
    1,845
    Hazzard County
    The data I'm working with is from a small sample size, but I have no reason to believe it wouldn't extrapolate to a larger population of similar demographics.

    Based on discussions within my social group (friends and coworkers), roughly 16 people, none prohibited persons, have expressed an interest in obtaining a concealed carry permit. Of those 16, 13 didn't bother to apply, for a variety of reasons:
    • No G&S as defined by MSP
    • Deterred by fees for training and application, with no guarantee on a return on investment
    • Some had G&S, but were unable to obtain documentation necessary. This is particularly true of folks with clearances who have uncooperative security personnel at their places of employment. If someone meets G&S criteria, the ability to obtain a permit shouldn't be dependent on 3rd parties' willingness to voluntarily provide data.
    Of the 3 who did apply, two were approved with restrictions, 1 was turned down.

    As for the high standards, it's those standards, as well as the concept of licensing an enumerated right in the first place, that the court is being asked to decide on. Asserting that the existence of a policy is the justification for the policy is circular reasoning.

    I seriously considered applying for a permit but according to the application I don't have G&S. The app also says your fee is non-refundable if you're denied. I don't have an extra $90 (fee at the time) to give to the State.

    In fact the reason why i joined here and my first post on MDS was about how to apply (post #846 and #851 on the sticky "How to Apply for a Maryland Carry Permit"). The common knowledge advise I got here was unless I had documentation that I met the G&S criteria I was wasting my time.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,687
    I seriously considered applying for a permit but I according to the application I don't have G&S. The app also says your fee is non-refundable if you're denied. I don't have an extra $90 (fee at the time) to give to the State.

    Never doubt that the "non-refundable" clause was intended to be coupled with the MSP's minions explaining - in advance of payment - that the applicant probably wouldn't qualify.

    It's all of a piece with such ploys as the HQL, which does nothing practical aside from creating financial barriers to inhibit firearm ownership.

    You think you have rights, subject? What's in your pocket. (Anyone know what poll taxes were about? MD is still using tactics from the Jim Crow era.)
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Wasn't the training course previously allowed to be taken after your G&S was accepted, changed in the last ~5 years to require the course be completed prior to application? Or am I thinking of another state's processing system and MD has always required the course be completed beforehand?
     

    ShafTed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 21, 2013
    2,212
    Juuuuust over the line
    I'm pretty sure Maryland has always been before application. You might be thinking of post-Wrenn, now Shall Issue DC. They give you some period of time after everything else is approved to take the class.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,687
    The option of taking the class after G&S acceptance was floated, but shot down by the MD GA.

    It does not fit with their philosophy, which is based on maximum deterrence; Maryland does not want movement toward an armed, polite society.
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    It's all of a piece with such ploys as the HQL, which does nothing practical aside from creating financial barriers to inhibit firearm ownership.

    The HQL gives the state a list of residents who (probably) have firearms.....
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,687
    The HQL gives the state a list of residents who (probably) have firearms.....

    Hell's bells, anyone who bought a regulated firearm in MD is on the list. They have my name on serial numbers of guns I bought back in the 1970s.

    Anyone remember O'Malley's map of gun owners? He was so proud of it. Stinking effing nazi-wannabe.
     

    1841DNG

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 17, 2016
    1,143
    Wasn't the training course previously allowed to be taken after your G&S was accepted, changed in the last ~5 years to require the course be completed prior to application? Or am I thinking of another state's processing system and MD has always required the course be completed beforehand?

    I thought there were special cases for death threats and imminent danger but I could be miss remembering.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Seems that I was thinking of California, some of their counties allow you to apply, receive a tentative answer on your application, then take the training class to receive the license.
     

    doublins

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2015
    105
    AA County
    Seems that I was thinking of California, some of their counties allow you to apply, receive a tentative answer on your application, then take the training class to receive the license.



    DC gives you 45 days post provisional approval


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Steel Hunter

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2019
    548
    I thought there were special cases for death threats and imminent danger but I could be miss remembering.

    This is Maryland. You think they give two hoots and hollers about your personal safety? They specifically deny people their right to carry even with fairly high risk occupations unless they are the business owner.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    This is Maryland. You think they give two hoots and hollers about your personal safety? They specifically deny people their right to carry even with fairly high risk occupations unless they are the business owner.

    They used to offer immediate processing for those that appeared in person at the Licensing Division who met a heightened criteria. It had to be an extreme need (like you just became the state's star witness against the mob on live tv), but you'd leave with a temporary permit that day for use until your real permit was processed. If you didn't qualify for the temporary permit, they just took your application and added it to the pile.

    They also processed any police officer who appeared at the building under the same timeline, but they always left with the temporary permit.

    I'm not sure if those pathways are still offered, they were the policy in 2004ish.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,551
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom