Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:05 AM #211
Stoveman's Avatar
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,147
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
Stoveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abacab View Post
Has anyone else been denied on renewal for no longer being considered as having a good and substantial reason?

I was reading comar here:

http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/29.03.02.12

In section E it says:

E. Upon receipt of a properly submitted renewal application, the Secretary shall issue a renewed permit within a reasonable time if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a permit.

The entire renewal section makes no mention of having good and substantial as a precursor to a renewal - only that the application be properly submitted.

I was explicitly told that previous approvals are not considered on renewal - only what the current SOP is.

I was denied as new policy says my old reason is no longer good enough. Thoughts? Grasping at straws I know....

Without more details I couldn't offer a guess. Feel free to send a PM.
__________________
_______________
Proud CCW Cultist
Stoveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:06 AM #212
Abacab's Avatar
Abacab Abacab is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 2,504
Send a message via AIM to Abacab
Abacab Abacab is offline
Member
Abacab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 2,504
Send a message via AIM to Abacab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
I got the feeling that either he was not aware of the board's ability or he has an aversion to overturning the decision of the Secretary. Why is anybody's guess.
A Reagan boomer's love of stare decisis
__________________
Leigh: I've never had much faith in anyone coming to my rescue.
Wilson: Maybe you've been associating with the wrong kind of people.
Leigh: I've worked with police officers for five years.

-Assault On Precinct 13 (1976)
Abacab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:10 AM #213
Stoveman's Avatar
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,147
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
Stoveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abacab View Post
A Reagan boomer's love of stare decisis


Agreed. But his reliance on Snowden and Scherr have been superseded by Heller, Heller II and McDonald.

As I understand it S&S were decided before Heller confirmed that the RKBA was an individual right and that in those cases only the Superintendent's designee acted appropriately.
__________________
_______________
Proud CCW Cultist
Stoveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:13 AM #214
Stoveman's Avatar
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,147
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
Stoveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,147
It's like Groundhog Day all over again.

These are the same type of posts we saw back in 2015 when Chairman "Who are you guys?" Thomas was running the board.
__________________
_______________
Proud CCW Cultist
Stoveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:17 AM #215
Abacab's Avatar
Abacab Abacab is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 2,504
Send a message via AIM to Abacab
Abacab Abacab is offline
Member
Abacab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 2,504
Send a message via AIM to Abacab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
Without more details I couldn't offer a guess. Feel free to send a PM.
Upon reread it does say "otherwise disqualified" which could be a G&S reference. Anyway, PM in your mailbox.
__________________
Leigh: I've never had much faith in anyone coming to my rescue.
Wilson: Maybe you've been associating with the wrong kind of people.
Leigh: I've worked with police officers for five years.

-Assault On Precinct 13 (1976)
Abacab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 10:13 AM #216
daggo66's Avatar
daggo66 daggo66 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 1,563
daggo66 daggo66 is offline
Senior Member
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abacab View Post
Has anyone else been denied on renewal for no longer being considered as having a good and substantial reason?

I was reading comar here:

http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/29.03.02.12

In section E it says:

E. Upon receipt of a properly submitted renewal application, the Secretary shall issue a renewed permit within a reasonable time if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a permit.

The entire renewal section makes no mention of having good and substantial as a precursor to a renewal - only that the application be properly submitted.

I was explicitly told that previous approvals are not considered on renewal - only what the current SOP is.

I was denied as new policy says my old reason is no longer good enough. Thoughts? Grasping at straws I know....
That was the entire premise of Woolard. He was denied the renewal because MSP felt the G&S no longer existed.
__________________
-Tom-

Quote:
All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one.
daggo66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:06 PM #217
Hattie Hattie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 155
Hattie Hattie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abacab View Post
Has anyone else been denied on renewal for no longer being considered as having a good and substantial reason?

I was reading comar here:

http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/29.03.02.12

In section E it says:

E. Upon receipt of a properly submitted renewal application, the Secretary shall issue a renewed permit within a reasonable time if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a permit.

The entire renewal section makes no mention of having good and substantial as a precursor to a renewal - only that the application be properly submitted.

I was explicitly told that previous approvals are not considered on renewal - only what the current SOP is.

I was denied as new policy says my old reason is no longer good enough. Thoughts? Grasping at straws I know....
Agreed the regulation is ambiguous/poorly drafted. Md. Code, Public Safety sec. 5-309(b) seems clearer on the issue:

Renewal of permit
(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, a permit may be renewed for successive periods of 3 years each if, at the time of an application for renewal, the applicant possesses the qualifications for the issuance of a permit and pays the renewal fee stated in this subtitle.

* * *
Hattie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:08 PM #218
Hattie Hattie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 155
Hattie Hattie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattie View Post
Agreed the regulation is ambiguous/poorly drafted. Md. Code, Public Safety sec. 5-309(b) seems clearer on the issue:

Renewal of permit
(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, a permit may be renewed for successive periods of 3 years each if, at the time of an application for renewal, the applicant possesses the qualifications for the issuance of a permit and pays the renewal fee stated in this subtitle.

* * *
The "qualifications" are set forth in Md. Code, Public Safety sec. 5-306, and include G&S.
Hattie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:25 PM #219
songlaw songlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 185
songlaw songlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
I was under the impression that he was a denial. One of the negative results of Judge Thinskin's new procedures is that we don't know if an applicant is a denial or a permit restriction before their testimony begins. Under the procedures of the prior boards the MSP would read their testimony first and it was crystal clear the status of the applicant before they began to speak.

And if IIRC the reason for his denial is because the FSO at APL would not verify his TS clearance. In the intervening months he was able to obtain documentation that he produced at his hearing. Like I said before, prior boards would have used this documentation to reverse the decision of the Secretary but Judge Smails played one of his favorite cards, the mysterious "stet" docket.

I got the feeling that either he was not aware of the board's ability or he has an aversion to overturning the decision of the Secretary. Why is anybody's guess.
Stoveman:

There was no sound amplification at the hearing. Perhaps you didn't hear this part clearly. I was sitting fairly close to the front, so perhaps heard a bit more clearly. The Sgt., throughout the hearing, stated that he did not have evidence of TSC. However, toward the end, the Sgt. stated that, upon review of the docs submitted at the hearing, the Sgt. was satisfied that the appellant had TSC, and stated that they would grant.
It was marked as a "Stet" but, in all practical respects, operated as a win for the appellant.

This is the reason that I wondered if the Board, and Judge Smalkin, specifically, was trying to save the HPRB from being eliminated by the legislature. IF the board actually REVERSED, instead of placing on STET, there would be a record of MSP being reversed. This way,by placing in on Stet, it appears that MSP was not reversed (although, for all practical purposes, it was reversed).

A casual legislator, looking at the reversal record would now see that MSP is rarely, if ever, getting reversed. Thus, they might see less reason to abolish the HPRB when they come back in session. It is not what we want (a much higher reversal rate), but clearly, what we want will result in the elimination of the Board, in this climate.

I could be totally off, but it's a different angle. We will see what happens.
songlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 12:41 PM #220
CrueChief's Avatar
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,381
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
CrueChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,381
If the board is going back to the old rarely if even over turning msp then what's the point? If they stop putting restrictions on permits today who would know? and doing that would be the faster way to make the over turns rare.
CrueChief is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service