Attention 365.

[Bobby Mercer]

My reasoning behind what I'd hoped to accomplish were threefold. First, I was trying to avoid a denial which we would all have to explain in future CCW apps. Second, I was trying to keep our apps alive until SAF motions for Scotus Cert in the Woollard case. A Kachalski ( sic?) Scotus Cert doesn't help those Maryland CCW apps riding on Woollard's coattail. Third, I was trying to save Maryland taxpayers money by getting someone to see that it's common sense to hold our apps a little longer, which costs nothing, and avoid thousands of unnesscary appeal board hearings.

Maryland saying no to this shows you that they don't care about the money, time, or your inconvenience. Go ahead and appeal they said, you will be denied and your application cleared. I will say this. Gura's wait on Kacalski and not motioning Scotus Cert for Wollard hurts us in my non lawyers eye. Why not motion for Cert in both cases. Make Scotus deny two cases which are similar yet different. Maryland is tied to Woollard and New York is tied to Kalchawski. Two different cases! Maryland doesn't care if Scotus hears Kalchawski in regards to the 365 Apps. They only care about Wollard and any action or inaction of his case. This is why they are clearing our apps. If Gura had motioned Scotus in Woollard our Apps would continue to be held.

I don't know about you guys but I have third degree burns from the hot exhaust from the bus we've been thrown under.

 

[RobSky]

Perhaps in response to MSP's demand for a G&S we should ask them to provide a definition.

Nah, they don't have one - but will know it when they see it <g>.

I sent an email on Wednesday and asked the following:
Is the G & S as listed on MSP website? or will there be circumstances outside of this definition?

Waiting on response.

 

[Maverick0313]

I feel used and abused. Disappointment does not begin to express my frustration over this issue. I guess I will decide whether or not to appeal by tomorrow......

 

[Mr H]

Perhaps in response to MSP's demand for a G&S we should ask them to provide a definition.

Nah, they don't have one - but will know it when they see it <g>.

I think you may be on to something here...

We know there is nothing in the state code defining G&S... I seem to recall there is nothing in COMAR, either. All we see are "examples" (and broad ones at that).

The MSP reps at the hearing last year could not provide anything in hardcopy (or even relate verbally) about any specific criteria...

How can we meet a standard that doesn't exist??!

 

[RobSky]

Email response

My email:
I received a letter from MSP dated 5/10/13 in regards to my permit application. In the letter it states that due to recent court action, my request for a permit would no longer be held and that I have 30 days in which to provide a “good and substantial reason (G&S)” for the permit or my permit application will be denied.

A couple of questions:

1) Is the criteria for G&S still as listed at http://www.mdsp.org/Organization/SupportServicesBureau/LicensingDivision/HandgunPermit.aspx
or will other instances or circumstances beyond this definition apply?
2) Can I withdraw my application before the 30 day window (with no action by MSP) in order to avoid being “denied” ?

Response answered by Cpl
Good and substantial reason is defined as reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.
To answer your second point, yes you may cancel your application prior to the 30 days.

Handgun Permit Section
Maryland State Police

 

[fightinbluhen51]

My reasoning behind what I'd hoped to accomplish were threefold. First, I was trying to avoid a denial which we would all have to explain in future CCW apps. Second, I was trying to keep our apps alive until SAF motions for Scotus Cert in the Woollard case. A Kachalski ( sic?) Scotus Cert doesn't help those Maryland CCW apps riding on Woollard's coattail. Third, I was trying to save Maryland taxpayers money by getting someone to see that it's common sense to hold our apps a little longer, which costs nothing, and avoid thousands of unnesscary appeal board hearings.

Maryland saying no to this shows you that they don't care about the money, time, or your inconvenience. Go ahead and appeal they said, you will be denied and your application cleared. I will say this. Gura's wait on Kacalski and not motioning Scotus Cert for Wollard hurts us in my non lawyers eye. Why not motion for Cert in both cases. Make Scotus deny two cases which are similar yet different. Maryland is tied to Woollard and New York is tied to Kalchawski. Two different cases! Maryland doesn't care if Scotus hears Kalchawski in regards to the 365 Apps. They only care about Wollard and any action or inaction of his case. This is why they are clearing our apps. If Gura had motioned Scotus in Woollard our Apps would continue to be held.

I don't know about you guys but I have third degree burns from the hot exhaust from the bus we've been thrown under.

Kachalsky was denied cert.

Speculation is that Gura is waiting on IL to file petition for cert on Moore, which means he will then probably petition for cert on Woollard and ask for a hold pending Moore.

IL is starting to run out of time and it is also starting to run out of political capital. They either need to pass a law and moot the case or file a petition.

This is really what the plight of our applicants hinges upon; nothing more nothing less.

 

[Cyndi59]

This is some really lame stupid shit..there are many of us here who hold out-of-state ccws,those states have run background checks,asked for live-fire and finger prints..once passed those requirements all is well.Seems Maryland will not except us,nor give us a reasonable right to bare,with all this hoop jumping soon to come..finger prints,range live fire,to get a license to purchase a handgun..a license to purchase is more money the state will throw out to illegals and special pet projects..the criminals are not going to submit to the new game playing..MOM and his crew had it already planned..did not matter what our side had to say,it fell on deaf ears..hoping come 2014 most of the state house is sweeped clean..Lt.Brown is following MOM's footsteps..Maryland has went to the shitter and I am planning on moving from this state in 13 days,might sound like I'm giving up..point is,as long as Maryland is headed down the wrong road of taxing everything there is and taxing the present tax..only choice is friendlier state that veiws one as a true citizen..sorry about my ranting.

 

[MDFF2008]

No one has been thrown under a bus. It was made very clear, several times, that there was a risk of the lawsuit not going our way. It was repeatedly disclaimed "Do Not Apply If You Cannot Afford To Loose The Money"

There is always a huge risk in filing a lawsuit. Even going back to Heller, there was real hesitation from both sides about the case. The pro-2a side was afraid of a loss, so was the anti-2a side.

We got dealt a bad hand, we aren't the first and we won't be the last.

As Voltaire Said: "Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game."

 

[yellowsled]

No one has been thrown under a bus. It was made very clear, several times, that there was a risk of the lawsuit not going our way. It was repeatedly disclaimed "Do Not Apply If You Cannot Afford To Loose The Money"

There is always a huge risk in filing a lawsuit. Even going back to Heller, there was real hesitation from both sides about the case. The pro-2a side was afraid of a loss, so was the anti-2a side.

We got dealt a bad hand, we aren't the first and we won't be the last.

As Voltaire Said: "Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game."

Agreed... I knew there was a chance I was going to lose my money. Since the funds are already spent, I will make them earn their paycheck, and I will request to visit the board and make my comments known to them there.

 

[Merlin]

Perhaps in response to MSP's demand for a G&S we should ask them to provide a definition.

Nah, they don't have one - but will know it when they see it <g>.

I do not know why many act as if G&S is some big unknown mystery. Right from the MSP web site if you fit into any of the following circumstances, you can get a CCW in Maryland. It is as simple as that. If you don't, you do not have G&S. How come the info below is so hard to understand that you need a definition? Let us know what part of the info below you do not understand and we will try to help understand what it means.

The Md. Public Safety Code Ann. 5-301 to 5-314, Handgun Permits, and applicable case law, guides the Maryland State Police when processing applications and issuing Handgun Permits. Based on the guidance provided, Handgun Permits may be issued to applicants based on the below circumstances.

1. Owner or employee of a business
2. Professional Activities: Doctors, Pharmacists, etc.,
3. Correctional Officers:
4. Former Police Officers:
5. Private Detective/Security Guard/Special Police/Armored Car Guards:
6. Personal Protection: There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.


What more do you need? Are you ANY of the above? If you are, you have G&S. If your do not fit into anything above, you DO NOT have G&S. It's as simple as that.

G&S is not the fault of the MSP. WE ARE TO BLAME! It is OUR fault for not going to the poles to vote out of office the state leaders that want G&S.

 

[Merlin]

No one has been thrown under a bus. It was made very clear, several times, that there was a risk of the lawsuit not going our way. It was repeatedly disclaimed "Do Not Apply If You Cannot Afford To Loose The Money"

There is always a huge risk in filing a lawsuit. Even going back to Heller, there was real hesitation from both sides about the case. The pro-2a side was afraid of a loss, so was the anti-2a side.

We got dealt a bad hand, we aren't the first and we won't be the last.

As Voltaire Said: "Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game."

Right you are. And in this case how you play is to vote or not vote. And if someone does not vote, they have no right to complain. The more I talk to people around me the more and more I discover all to many people that never bother to get off their ass and go stand in the voting lines.

 

[Bobby Mercer]

No one has been thrown under a bus. It was made very clear, several times, that there was a risk of the lawsuit not going our way. It was repeatedly disclaimed "Do Not Apply If You Cannot Afford To Loose The Money"

There is always a huge risk in filing a lawsuit. Even going back to Heller, there was real hesitation from both sides about the case. The pro-2a side was afraid of a loss, so was the anti-2a side.

We got dealt a bad hand, we aren't the first and we won't be the last.

As Voltaire Said: "Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game."

But....we're playing the hand the dealer wants us to play because he stacked the deck against us. Right now Scotus is stacked with Obama appointees and judges toeing the democrats party line. In no shape, fashion, or form are there any chances of the Scotus hearing a case that challenges 2A restrictions. Not one case is going to come before them because they are ok with politicians and themselves restricting " unalienable " rights. The Supreme Court has said that any right can be restricted if it can be shown that " Public Safety " needs outweigh an individuals rights. This is why SB281 came under " Public Safety " and " Gun Safety. "

I had the money to lose. I acted on my own behalf as an individual not affiliated with any groups. Having said that and knowing what I've said above, Gura should file Cert to Scotus with each case that had been overturned instead of waiting for one which may be stronger. He should have flooded the Supreme Court with motions from Woollard, Kachalsky and any other overturned 2A rights case.

 

[MDFF2008]

Having said that and knowing what I've said above, Gura should file Cert to Scotus with each case that had been overturned instead of waiting for one which may be stronger. He should have flooded the Supreme Court with motions from Woollard, Kachalsky and any other overturned 2A rights case.

You get 1 chance at the Supreme Court, so you have to take the BEST candidate to the Supreme Court.

What happens if they accept his weak case and he looses it? Court's don't usually give do-overs.

You do know there are only 2 Obama appointees on the Supreme Court and they replaced liberals right? It's not really stacked.

 

[Bobby Mercer]

You get 1 chance at the Supreme Court, so you have to take the BEST candidate to the Supreme Court.

What happens if they accept his weak case and he looses it? Court's don't usually give do-overs.

You do know there are only 2 Obama appointees on the Supreme Court and they replaced liberals right? It's not really stacked.

Each case the SAF has is against different defendants. The fact that the cases are about 2A rights are what is in common, but they are different cases not conjoined. That means each case has a right to due process. The fact that each case was heard individually and not conjoined means each individual case has a right to motion for cert. You bombard the Supreme Court with cert motions for each individual case and make the SC deny or hear each one.

When a bomber flies over a target he doesn't drop one bomb at a time and circle back to drop another just in case one is a dud or misses the target. He dropped the whole load on the target and lets each bomb do its job.

 

[teratos]

Each case the SAF has is against different defendants. The fact that the cases are about 2A rights are what is in common, but they are different cases not conjoined. That means each case has a right to due process. The fact that each case was heard individually and not conjoined means each individual case has a right to motion for cert. You bombard the Supreme Court with cert motions for each individual case and make the SC deny or hear each one.

When a bomber flies over a target he doesn't drop one bomb at a time and circle back to drop another just in case one is a dud or misses the target. He dropped the whole load on the target and lets each bomb do its job.

It takes a lot of time and money to go forward with each of those cases. There are two good cases that SCOTUS may yet hear, Woollard and Moore. I don't think we will gain much from bombarding the lower courts with cases. If one of the above cases gets picked up, they will be put on hold pending the outcome. I am confident Gura knows what he is doing.....

 

[MDFF2008]

Each case the SAF has is against different defendants. The fact that the cases are about 2A rights are what is in common, but they are different cases not conjoined. That means each case has a right to due process. The fact that each case was heard individually and not conjoined means each individual case has a right to motion for cert. You bombard the Supreme Court with cert motions for each individual case and make the SC deny or hear each one.

When a bomber flies over a target he doesn't drop one bomb at a time and circle back to drop another just in case one is a dud or misses the target. He dropped the whole load on the target and lets each bomb do its job.

They have the right to file for cert, but once the Supreme Court accepts one and decides, it's VERY unlikely they will accept another one.

 

[Bobby Mercer]

Unfortunately, our inalienable rights come at the mercy and blessing of the SC. Since they are doing the bidding of the Democratic Party and whiping their collective asses with the constitution, we will continue to be denied these inalienable rights.

 

[Blacksmith101]

I am not one of the 365 but it seems to me that this can still be an opportunity to further the cause. Each hearing puts on record the states unconstitutional reasons for denying a God given right. I would suggest that everyone who receives a letter saying "Give us a G&S" first write back and ask what is considered a G&S? They will have to provide some answer and saying go to a web site is not a legitimate response because not everyone has computer access.

When you get an answer whatever it is I would then craft the most compelling and complete compilation of reasons I could. For example I would include that it is an inalienable right recognized by the Constitution, that I am (include any and all categories on their web site) for example "I am a Doctor and a small business owner (the medical practice) or most people are an employee of some business, and for personal protection because of the continuing threat of attacks robberies and assaults as evidenced by then give a litany of reports from your local area of multiple cases that have happened as reported in the news. Include every possible reason you can legitimately claim.

Yes they will deny you because whatever you write won't be good and substantial enough for them. Then appeal your denial, making them do the extra work, and at the hearing restate all your reasons and make them go on record that these things are not good enough for a permit. The more reasons you give the more likely they will shoot themselves in the foot and if somewhere down the road some court case finds one of those reasons is indeed good and substantial enough then your case is on record as having the same reason. Or if they ever approve a similar reason for anyone no matter how well connected. You should then get a permit or have a slam dunk lawsuit.

Large bureaucracies are not good at keeping things straight and the right hand often doesn't know what the left hand does. However, the courts love presidents and treating all people equally so you may lose now but win later or hand the rest of us some reason that works.

 

[Big Dog]

There is no doubt that the site lays out just as Merlin pasted BUT the code says nothing about documented evidence of recent threats. 5-306 ii states just what the 4th CC wrote in its decision:

ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.

Apprehended danger means perceived danger and is synonymous with fear. I know they have applied this evidence condition in the past BUT the 4th CC is what they claim they have to go on so use the ruling of the court and the words of the code to justify by showing perceived danger. I plan on using the state's brochures that tell how dangerous it is to walk the streets and drive a car. Those brochures warn me that I can lose my life so I should be cautious and leave myself escape routes. They advise me to give up my property not my life. These are admissions by the state that there is apprehended danger and the state is so concerned about it they put out brochures to warn me of the danger.

Like I said, the code does not require any documentation of recent threats and the Court did not mention that when it cited the code. I am going with that tact and will see where it gets me.

Probably denied but I will have a lot of evidence on my side when I appeal.

 

[Chowda69]

Owner or employee of a business[/B]
2. Professional Activities: Doctors, Pharmacists, etc.,
3. Correctional Officers:
4. Former Police Officers:
5. Private Detective/Security Guard/Special Police/Armored Car Guards:
6. Personal Protection: There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.


They need to take the "former police officer " off the list. I was told a couple years ago that being a former police officer is not a reason. Even though its stated on the damn application. I was told the same thing this go around. I have pointed this out to the troopers and they just shrug and say , oh well, its not enough. Yet none can answer why, or why they have "former police officer " on the application.