MSP denials

[BigWilly]

If I go up to the courthouse on Kelso Drive and ask the clerk to look up my record and nothing is there, will the investigator see anything different? I ask because I don't remember what the result of a fight in high school when i was 18. I wasn't arrested or anything. One of the questions for the HGP is if you've been charged and I honestly don't remember as it was about 25 years ago.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[MDMORT2021]

Has anyone here submitted applications with less than squeaky clean backgrounds??

I’m talking 1 maybe 2 DUIs, one being a PBJ and the other conviction…would a record like that disqualify you?

I had an attorney tell me that that would be a stretch for habitual drunkard.

 

[jrumann59]

Has anyone here submitted applications with less than squeaky clean backgrounds??

I’m talking 1 maybe 2 DUIs, one being a PBJ and the other conviction…would a record like that disqualify you?

I had an attorney tell me that that would be a stretch for habitual drunkard.

Depends how far apart were they and how long ago. I submitted with possession of alcohol underage, have not received a determination on my permit yet, but I do hold clearances, and HQL.

 

[Jagiov]

Is an arrest for dui where there are no injuries or property damage an arrest "for violation of a criminal law"? Or is it a violation of a traffic law?

 

[teratos]

(l) “Habitual drunkard” means a person who has been found guilty of any three crimes under § 21–902(a), (b), or (c) of the Transportation Article, one of which occurred in the past year.

§ 21-902.

(a) (1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

(2) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while the person is under the influence of alcohol per se.

(3) A person may not violate paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection while transporting a minor.

(b) (1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

(2) A person may not violate paragraph (1) of this subsection while transporting a minor.

(c) (1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while he is so far impaired by any drug, any combination of drugs, or a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol that he cannot drive a vehicle safely.

(2) It is not a defense to any charge of violating this subsection that the person charged is or was entitled under the laws of this State to use the drug, combination of drugs, or combination of one or more drugs and alcohol, unless the person was unaware that the drug or combination would make the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle.

(3) A person may not violate paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection while transporting a minor.

(d) (1) A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while the person is impaired by any controlled dangerous substance, as that term is defined in § 5-101 of the Criminal Law Article, if the person is not entitled to use the controlled dangerous substance under the laws of this State.

(2) A person may not violate paragraph (1) of this subsection while transporting a minor.

(e) For purposes of the application of subsequent offender penalties under § 27-101 of this article, a conviction for a crime committed in another state or federal jurisdiction that, if committed in this State, would constitute a violation of subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section shall be considered a violation of subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section.

 

[jrumann59]

Is an arrest for dui where there are no injuries or property damage an arrest "for violation of a criminal law"? Or is it a violation of a traffic law?

IANAL but I believe they are misdemeanor crimes that also straddle traffic since you can get points or license suspensions.

 

[Inigoes]

If I go up to the courthouse on Kelso Drive and ask the clerk to look up my record and nothing is there, will the investigator see anything different? I ask because I don't remember what the result of a fight in high school when i was 18. I wasn't arrested or anything. One of the questions for the HGP is if you've been charged and I honestly don't remember as it was about 25 years ago.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Look yourself up online

https://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiry-index.jsp

If you were in trouble in another state, you need to look that up as all court records are public.

 

[Preach]

There are a very few, limited circumstances where you can be approved for purchase, but not for CCW.

For example:

Form 77R only asks about convictions.
* A nolle pros, PBJ and stet are not convictions.
The CCW application asks about convictions, charges, and arrests.
* you can be charged or arrested without ever going to trial, and even if you do go to trial the charges are still there even if the result was a nolle pross, PBJ or a stet.

So there are a few circumstances where you can be approved for purchase, but not for CCW. I don't know how this all will play out though.

So I am a little confused with this part of your statement. Are you saying that after a case is over and a person was charged or arrested but not convicted because it was nolle pross, PBJ or stet that they could still be prohibited. Because I can't find anywhere except for the PBJ for domestic case that would prohibit a person. Being charged or arrested doesn't prohibit anyone unless currently under indictment as far as I can find. Am I missing something?

Also on a side note you are correct according to MD law a PBJ is not a conviction.

 

[6-Pack]

So I am a little confused with this part of your statement. Are you saying that after a case is over and a person was charged or arrested but not convicted because it was nolle pross, PBJ or stet that they could still be prohibited. Because I can't find anywhere except for the PBJ for domestic case that would prohibit a person. Being charged or arrested doesn't prohibit anyone unless currently under indictment as far as I can find. Am I missing something?

Also on a side note you are correct according to MD law a PBJ is not a conviction.

No, not at all. I'm just saying that the 77R only asks about "convictions" whereas the CCW application asks about "convictions" (guilty) as well as charges and arrests. It's just a minor difference between the 77R and the CCW application - I never said it would make someone prohibited, but rather it's more in-depth than the 77R.

 

[Preach]

No, not at all. I'm just saying that the 77R only asks about "convictions" whereas the CCW application asks about "convictions" (guilty) as well as charges and arrests. It's just a minor difference between the 77R and the CCW application - I never said it would make someone prohibited, but rather it's more in-depth than the 77R.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Biggfoot44]

So I am a little confused with this part of your statement. Are you saying that after a case is over and a person was charged or arrested but not convicted because it was nolle pross, PBJ or stet that they could still be prohibited. Because I can't find anywhere except for the PBJ for domestic case that would prohibit a person. Being charged or arrested doesn't prohibit anyone unless currently under indictment as far as I can find. Am I missing something?

Also on a side note you are correct according to MD law a PBJ is not a conviction.

Answer #1 - Incomplete records that show arrest / charging but not disposition .

Answer #2 - As product of the Investigation ( specified in the statute , still ) and examining the circumstance(s) of arrest(s) , MSP determines that a. " propensity for violent or irrational behavior " exists , and deny on those grounds .

Applicants then have 10 days to file appeal with OAH to contest . If / when OAH sides with MSP , applicant has 10 days to appeal to Circuit Court .

Do we think this is BS ? Of course .
Will such things ultimately withstand scrutiny under Bruen ? Probably not .

Will the current or next Maryland AG see the error of their ways , and both hook up the specific Applicant , And give an AG Opinion to MSP telling them to disregard previous Statute , and make the process NOT an undue burden to common citizens ? That would be great , but smart money would bet NO .

 

[tlwatkinson]

Has anyone here submitted applications with less than squeaky clean backgrounds??

I’m talking 1 maybe 2 DUIs, one being a PBJ and the other conviction…would a record like that disqualify you?

I had an attorney tell me that that would be a stretch for habitual drunkard.

No. One PBJ and one conviction. Was more than twenty-five years ago. It didn't stop mine from being approved.

 

[Burt Hammersmith]

Carry permit Approved with a nol pros for CDS poss cannabis (small amount) and pbj CDS poss paraphernalia from 2010. Both charges I have filed for expungement. Still in the works.

To anyone reading this, doing stupid things is dumb. Think long term and remember it always comes back to light sooner or later.

 

[blueharford]

MSP told me today when I asked to attach my expungement paperwork from over 5yrs ago, that the safest bet is to not “lie” say yes if you have even if it’s been expunged. And just include expungement paperwork. If you say no and in any database they check it still shows it, it’s a automatic denial. Better safe then sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burt Hammersmith]

MSP told me today when I asked to attach my expungement paperwork from over 5yrs ago, that the safest bet is to not “lie” say yes if you have even if it’s been expunged. And just include expungement paperwork. If you say no and in any database they check it still shows it, it’s a automatic denial. Better safe then sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is my plan for renewal. Answer truthfully and attached the expungement docs

 

[BigWilly]

I don't understand how a bunch of people have responded that they were told by a lawyer that once expunged they could legally answer no but yet MDSP says you should answer yes. The whole process is to wipe it out and then if you answer yes you are in effect bringing back on your record. Makes zero sense.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[eruby]

I don't understand how a bunch of people have responded that they were told by a lawyer that once expunged they could legally answer no but yet MDSP says you should answer yes. The whole process is to wipe it out and then if you answer yes you are in effect bringing back on your record. Makes zero sense.

This is liberal Statist Maryland.

Most things are stupid.

Better to just put it down.

If it's an exclusion, you'll be excluded anyway.

If it is not, you might be excluded for not disclosing.

Yes, very stupid indeed.

 

[6-Pack]

I don't understand how a bunch of people have responded that they were told by a lawyer that once expunged they could legally answer no but yet MDSP says you should answer yes. The whole process is to wipe it out and then if you answer yes you are in effect bringing back on your record. Makes zero sense.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Because those lawyers actually read the law and can cite the law (Criminal Procedure 10-109, which is copied below for reference).

Criminal Procedure 10-109
(a) Applications for employment or admission. --
(1) Disclosure of expunged information about criminal charges in an application, interview, or other means may not be required:
(i) by an employer or educational institution of a person who applies for employment or admission; or
(ii) by a unit, official, or employee of the State or a political subdivision of the State of a person who applies for a license, permit, registration, or governmental service.
(2) A person need not refer to or give information concerning an expunged charge when answering a question concerning:
(i) a criminal charge that did not result in a conviction; or
(ii) a conviction that the Governor pardoned.
(3) Refusal by a person to disclose information about criminal charges that have been expunged may not be the sole reason for:
(i) an employer to discharge or refuse to hire the person; or
(ii) a unit, official, or employee of the State or a political subdivision of the State to deny the person's application.

10-109(a)(1)(ii) says the government cannot require expunged information when applying for a license or permit.
10-109(a)(2)(i) says you don't have to refer or give information related to expunged charges that did not result in a conviction
10-109(a)(3)(ii) says the government cannot deny your license or permit for the sole purpose of failing to provide expunged charges

 

[BigWilly]

Thanks 6-Pack. It is amazing a LAW ENFORCEMENT division does not even know the law correctly. I could understand how a LEO on the street might not know this but these are desk jockeys of the F%$% licensing division. It's not a grey area, it's not an opinion, it's straight written in the law.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

I hear they’re hiring.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk