A stumper

Ok, MD has no reciprocity with any other state for carry permits, but what about MD non-resident carry permits?
I was reading the permits section and I don't think it says someone has to be a state resident on the application. Is it possible for people like out of state celebrities to get a MD carry permit like.....Rosie fricken O'Donnel?
Wouldn't this handgun carry situtaion suck even worse if it was impossible for most of us Marylanders to get a permit, but people like Rosie O'Donnel can!?!

You're right. I see no specific mention of residency in Subtitle 3. I would presume that non-residents only have to meet the same requirements residents do.
I haven't talked to my bail-bondsman/recovery friend from DE in a while, so I don't know if he has a MD carry permit, but would think it quite possible that he could.

It looks like Michigan doesn't honor MD non-res permits. And I can only guess that since MD won't honor any other state's permit that's the reason most states don't honor MD permits at all.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/maps/maryland_map.gif

Maryland permits and other states

(1) One of the good things about the Maryland statute is that it does not discriminate against non-residents, and permits are sometimes issued to non-residents.

(2) The language of the current Maryland statutes do not allow recognition of any out-of-state permits within Maryland. However, the following states do recognize permits issued by Maryland: Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. (Regarding the special case of Michigan, see point no. 5 below.) (No permit is required to carry concealed in Alaska or Vermont.)

(3) Maryland's permit issuing system is sometimes described as "strict," but that term is somewhat misleading because it suggests very rigid, narrow criteria. As I have discussed in past postings, the Maryland system is better described as "highly discretionary." There are a number of states that do not recognize Maryland-issued permits precisely because the Maryland law theoretically allows permits to be issued to persons who would not qualify under the other state's laws -- that is, they consider the Maryland law too lax in certain respects. For example, the Maryland permit is not recognized in Kansas because in Kansas you must be age 21 to obtain a permit, and in Maryland a permit could be issued to an 18-year-old. I doubt that many 18-year-olds actually hold Maryland permits, and certainly there are thousands of Kansas permit holders who would never qualify for permits from Maryland, but nevertheless the Maryland law is in this respect more permissive on its face, and this prevents recognition by some states. Maryland is never a candidate for true reciprocity (mutual recognition by agreement), since the Maryland law contains no provision to allow it.

(4) It should be noted that anyone who meets the criteria in the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) can carry concealed in Maryland without a permit; the number of persons so qualified certainly exceeds 700,000 and may be much higher.

(5) While many believe that out-of-state permits are only valid in Michigan if they are issued by the permit holder's home state, that is not really clear. The Michigan State Police website says, "If you are a non-resident of Michigan with a valid concealed pistol permit from your home state, Michigan will recognize your permit," but it does not say anything about non-home-state permits. In 2003, a man named Mark E. Blumer, Acting Assistant in Charge of the Criminal Division of the Michigan Attorney General's office, issued this statement: "The issue of whether Michigan will honor CCW permits issued by other states to non-residents has never been formally decided by Michigan. What is firmly decided is that Michigan will honor permits issued by other states to their own residents (by statute) and Michigan will not honor (here) permits issued by other states to Michigan residents (by Court of Appeals decision and by Attorney General Opinion)."

(4) It should be noted that anyone who meets the criteria in the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) can carry concealed in Maryland without a permit; the number of persons so qualified certainly exceeds 700,000 and may be much higher.

Click to expand...

Yes and NO ..................... It does require each LEO to obtain a "Permit" issued by the State AFTER passing a firearms qualification WITH the "Type" of weapon you will be using -- Revolver or Semi-Auto. This qualification must be renewed as required by the State.

So just becuase you are a retired LEO, for instance, doesn't give you the right in Maryland to carry unless the above guidelines have been followed.
Apparently Federal Law allowed the States to require/ impose qualification Mandates as a predicate to the State issued carry permit. I thought the Federal Law would remove States from the process, but apparently not.

JF.

No permit required, but certification for retirees

sniper350 said:

[The federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act] does require each LEO to obtain a "Permit" issued by the State AFTER passing a firearms qualification WITH the "Type" of weapon you will be using -- Revolver or Semi-Auto. This qualification must be renewed as required by the State. So just becuase you are a retired LEO, for instance, doesn't give you the right in Maryland to carry unless the above guidelines have been followed. Apparently Federal Law allowed the States to require/ impose qualification Mandates as a predicate to the State issued carry permit. I thought the Federal Law would remove States from the process, but apparently not. JF.

Click to expand...

There are two parts to the LEOSA (18 U.S.C. 926B and 926C). A person who qualifies under either part may carry a concealed firearm in Maryland without a Maryland carry permit, which is what I said.

18 U.S.C. 926B covers the "qualified law enforcement officer." This part of the law covers persons who are currently employed as various types of law enforcement officers, who are allowed to carry guns as part of their regular employment, and who meet a few other criteria. For a person who meets the criteria of 926B, there is no special credential required -- just the officer's regular ID card. The law says, "The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. According to one source I cited, there are something on the order of 700,000 current "sworn officers" of various law-enforcement agencies in the U.S., most of whom presumably eligible under 926B, and this number may omit some categories of persons who would qualify under 926B's rather broad definition of "law enforcement officer."

You are thinking, I believe, of the second part of the law, 18 U.S.C. 926C, which applies to the "qualified retired law enforcement officer." You are quite correct to observe that "just because you are a retired LEO, for instance, doesn't give you the right in Maryland to carry unless the above guidelines have been followed." The law defines "qualified retired law enforcement officer" as a person who "(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability; (2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest; (3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; OR (B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency; (4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency; (5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms . . ."

In order to exercise the right conferred by 926C, the qualified retiree must possess not a permit, but one of two types of identification that are described in the law: "(d) The identification required by this subsection is - (1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; OR (2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; AND (B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm."

Thus, a person who retired after (for example) 20 years of service as a detective for the Baltimore Police Department, and moved to another state, would be able to get the annual qualification card from his new state of residence, and carry concealed in Maryland or any other state with that card and his standard retiree ID. He does not have to have any authorization from the Baltimore Police Department, or from any state in which he may choose to exercise the right.

(The standards for firearms qualification, of course, vary from state to state. For example, in 2005, the attorney general of Florida issued an opinion that no annual testing is required for officers in that state, because the state had no such requirement in effect, and the federal law does not require a state to adopt any new qualification requirements.)

In my opinion, the federal law does not allow a state or agency to establish test requirements for retirees who seek certification for LEOSA that are tougher than the standards applied to active-duty officers in that jurisdiction -- the law says that the retiree must "meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm."

There are some other important aspects of the LEOSA -- no-carry zones and so forth -- that I don't need to get into at the moment.

Yes and NO ..................... It does require each LEO to obtain a "I.D. Card" issued by the State AFTER passing a firearms qualification WITH the "Type" of weapon you will be using -- Revolver or Semi-Auto. This qualification must be renewed as required by the State.

Click to expand...

To be more specific, it pertains to LEO's retired more than one year, when their qualification standing would naturally expire.

There fixed it ! Now it is 100% correct and I did it in less than 7 paragraphs



JF.

further discussion of LEOSA requirements

sniper350 said:

It does require each LEO to obtain a "I.D. Card" issued by the State AFTER passing a firearms qualification WITH the "Type" of weapon you will be using -- Revolver or Semi-Auto. . . . To be more specific, it pertains to LEO's retired more than one year, when their qualification standing would naturally expire.
There fixed it ! Now it is 100% correct and I did it in less than 7 paragraphs JF.

Click to expand...

The law doesn't actually require an LEO, currently employed as such, to obtain anything. The only identification/certification he requires is his regular agency photo ID. Nor does 926B make any distinction between types of handguns.

As to retirees, all of the requirements of 926C apply to a retiree regardless of whether he retired yesterday or 10 years ago, including the requirement that he possess a photo ID/certification that he has been found to meet the pertinent standards within the past year. Some agencies and some states might very well issue such a certification to a brand-new retiree without requiring him to take a new test, which would make sense to me, but he does need that ID/certification even during the first year of retirement, if he wants to carry under 926C. The law refers not to the time elapsed since retirement, but to the time elapsed since he was last found to meet the applicable standards. (Specifically, it requires "a photographic identification issued by the agency" or "a certification issued by the state" that "indicates that the individual [retired] has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found [by the agency or the State] to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.")

Nor does 926B make any distinction between types of handguns.

Click to expand...

I am sure you are correct ! But Maryland DOES

You had better not be carrying a semi-auto ......if you have qualified with a revolver .......... the destinction is clearly stated on your ID card.

JF.

Retirees must qualify with type of handgun they carry

sniper350 said:

I am sure you are correct ! But Maryland DOES. You had better not be carrying a semi-auto ......if you have qualified with a revolver .......... the destinction is clearly stated on your ID card. JF.

Click to expand...

I assume that you are referring to a retiree ID card. The retiree part of the law (926C) does indeed, as I quoted above, require certification that the retiree has met "the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm." There is nothing in the federal law to prevent a retiree from qualifying with both revolvers and semi-autos.

As I also indicated above, 926B -- the section that applies to current LEOs -- makes no distinction between types of handguns, nor does it require any special ID (beyond the LEO's standard agency ID). Neither Maryland nor any other jurisdiction can adopt narrower or more restrictive requirements than those spelled out in the federal law. Thus, someone who meets the criteria for a "qualified law enforcement officer" (not retired) under the federal law, can carry either type of handgun in any jurisdiction, subject to the general limitations contained in the federal law.

sniper350 said:

I am sure you are correct ! But Maryland DOES

You had better not be carrying a semi-auto ......if you have qualified with a revolver .......... the destinction is clearly stated on your ID card.

JF.

Click to expand...

I guess if they also got a regular MD Handgun permit, they could carry whatever they wanted in the state.

novus collectus said:

I guess if they also got a regular MD Handgun permit, they could carry whatever they wanted in the state.

Click to expand...

Yes, but in most cases a retiree would probably find it less burdensome simply to qualify (with his state of residence, or the agency for which he was previously employed) with both semi-auto and revolver, than to go through Maryland's permit-issuance process.

ThatIsAFact said:

Yes, but in most cases a retiree would probably find it less burdensome simply to qualify (with his state of residence, or the agency for which he was previously employed) with both semi-auto and revolver, than to go through Maryland's permit-issuance process.

Click to expand...

True, but before the fed law there were thousands of retired officers with the MD handgun permit and I guess if they still have the old permit active and have both permits they can carry whatever they choose in MD. With the MD handgun permit they can carry more than one firearm at a time and any of the "dangerous weapons" concealed.
I guess for a few officers it might be worthwhile, but for the rest why pay an extra hundred or so bucks for an extra permit and go through the hassle as you pointed out?! So I see your point.