SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

[Norton]

Thank YOU...

I get 'em right once in a while

 

[awptickes]

Another piece of good news I received late last night is that the State's Attorney's Association which had opposed HB-45 is supposed to now be taking a non opposition stance in light of the Woollard decision. Today I am asking that folks who have not called in or are willing to call in again please call the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Kathleen Dumais. I will post her contact information when I get up to the State House. I had some long talks with her last night and she seems to be in a position where she could be helpful in moving HB-45 along.

Couldn't the passage of hb-45 invalidate the Woolard decision?

Please read the long explanation why I don't believe so below in the "just and update that I thought I would share" posting, (two below).

Perhaps MSI should contact him directly. I'm considering calling him myself as soon as I get a chance today.

EDIT:

Sir, I don't understand how this bill could help now that the G&S clause has been ruled unconstitutional. I, along with many of my peers are concerned that this bill could be used to invalidate the ruling and would be used to add additional restrictions on the already restrictive law regarding carrying a handgun. If your office could release a policy statement explaining this, we as Marylanders would be grateful.

However, if this is now just a bill to "clean the books," I can support that.

 

[vector03]

awptickes, can you please post his explanation for those of us who can't read it on FB?

Thanks!

 

[Patrick]

THAT is a great explanation! We need to start a thread on "How to Fill Out and Apply" and include all of this and a sample app.
There are gongi to be a lot of question over the next few months, will be nice to have a place to point people to.

In work. Hope we'll have something up today.

 

[awptickes]

Here is the post to which he refers in his response to my question:

Just an update that I thought I would share, the phone calls in support of HB-45 are coming into Judiciary one about every three minutes. The secretary has about six pages phone calls. When I walked by all she did was look up and while smiling said,
"winning!"

 

[Biggie313]

Sucks. There hasn't even be any real change yet, and Im already heart broken. My work has a no weapons policy, so when/if we are able to get them, I still cant carry at work downtown.

Possessing firearms or unauthorized weapons on the company's or its clients' premises is not permitted

 

[csanc123]

Don't feel bad..most employers have a no weapons policy.

Sucks. There hasn't even be any real change yet, and Im already heart broken. My work has a no weapons policy, so when/if we are able to get them, I still cant carry at work downtown.

 

[ThawMyTongue]

The wife and I were up last night at 2 am feeding the baby talking about all this. We both want to send in applications, but we aren't planning on being in the state for more than 2 years. If (when) this goes to appeal and drags out, we might not see the fruits of our labor. But if the stars align and we get permits, it would be great to exercise a right for a few years.

We'll talk more tonight...

ETA: funds will go to MSI regardless.

 

[safecracker]

Don't feel bad..most employers have a no weapons policy.

That's why I'm self employed!!!

 

[mrjam2jab]

I'm sort of wondering what the minimum is for denying people based on background checks myself. I never looked into it before because I never believed us average joes would be able to get permits. I have an arrest from 2004 for a misdemeanor(Racing on a public highway) that was dismissed after PTD. Although it has not stopped me from buying guns or a suppressor it has stopped me from getting into the Baltimore City police department. Expongement is really not an option for me because it requires me to go to El Paso and see a judge and hire a lawyer that wanted about $4000 so I wonder if I could even get a carry permit.

Does this help?

§ 5-306.

(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds:

(1) is an adult;

(2) (i) has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor for which a sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year has been imposed; or

(ii) if convicted of a crime described in item (i) of this item, has been pardoned or has been granted relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c);

(3) has not been convicted of a crime involving the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance;

(4) is not presently an alcoholic, addict, or habitual user of a controlled dangerous substance unless the habitual use of the controlled dangerous substance is under legitimate medical direction; and

(5) based on an investigation:

(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and

(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.

(b) An applicant under the age of 30 years is qualified only if the Secretary finds that the applicant has not been:

(1) committed to a detention, training, or correctional institution for juveniles for longer than 1 year after an adjudication of delinquency by a juvenile court; or

(2) adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for:

(i) an act that would be a crime of violence if committed by an adult;

(ii) an act that would be a felony in this State if committed by an adult; or

(iii) an act that would be a misdemeanor in this State that carries a statutory penalty of more than 2 years if committed by an adult.

The wife and I were up last night at 2 am feeding the baby talking about all this. We both want to send in applications, but we aren't planning on being in the state for more than 2 years. If (when) this goes to appeal and drags out, we might not see the fruits of our labor. But if the stars align and we get permits, it would be great to exercise a right for a few years.

We'll talk more tonight...

ETA: funds will go to MSI regardless.

the permit will still be good even after you move out of state....so if you're still close.....

 

[swinokur]

For Montgomery County residents here is a company that does Livescan Finger printing.

http://www.americanident.com/index.php

Maybe when a CCW app sticky is done a list of Livescan locations can be included.

ETA Here is a more comprehensive list:

http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicservs/fingerprint.shtml

 

[Hawkeye]

Just sent another donation to MSI for the moneybomb, and I have been spending a lot of time over the past few days talking this up to people - co workers, friends, on Facebook, etc. Getting the word out there is SO important.

I will also DL the permit app later today and get started on that. I don't expect to have the card in my hand in a few months just yet, but it will feel good to do it, and I think that MSI's strategy on this one is correct. The more applicants that can be pointed to who are sitting in limbo if this gets appealed later the better. I can afford the fees, and I want my money to go where my mouth is on this one.

 

[Integrity]

can you please post his explanation for those of us who can't read it on FB?

Thanks!

Here you go.

...if nothing is done by the legislature then new regulations willl be put in place by the State police while the legislature is out of session and they will inevitably be like those which were done in both DC and Chicago. They will try to diminish the full effect of the ruling of the federal court which caused the regulations to be implemented in the first place. How long did it take DC to try to say they could still put onerous gun ownership regulations in place and to declare that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the home. That happens if nothing is done. The response is new law suits or motions are filed in Federal Court to challenge each of the new regulations that are passed.

The Attorney for the 2nd Amendment foundation stated after the decision that Judge Legg has just shifted the burden from the citizen proving they have a good and substantial reason to the State to prove the citizen does not have a good and substantial reason to keep and bear arms. As I pointed out in my excercise with the State Police Major at the hearing, under HB-45 the State merely determines whether the citizen has any of the disqualifying factors: 1) A Felony Conviction, 2) A history of significant mental illness 3) a drug addiction 4) alcohol addiction or 5) a history of a propensity for violence. If none of these factors are present then the State has failed to show a "good and substantial reason" (ie a lack of any of these disqualifying factors) and the citizen then receives a permit to carry.

You don't want to start trying to carve new language because as soon as you do you run into the problem we have now interpretation of what the plain language means. After all how much more clear could any language be than that of the Second Amendment?

I am the only Republican in the backroom with about ten members of the Judiciary Committee, we would have an agreement that no amendments would be put on any bill, (like we did today with HB-396 which will allow a police officer's family to receive his firearm after his death. There is a danger that a liberal Republican or Conservative Republican will stand up on the floor and attempt to use this bill as a vehicle to achieve a larger policy objective. We have all agreed that we will control out respective sides (except for the rough delegate that each side has who may try a solo act amendemt) this way a could but potentially dangerous bill gets passed and the landmines along the way are hopefully avoided.

The best chance we have of getting legislation passed that completely complies with the court's ruling is to pass a bill which does so. If we do nothing and wait, a court grants a stay, in which case nothing else happens until the Appellate decision and then we are then in the same situation where we are now of having to establish the perameters of the new mechanism used to determine who gets a permit to carry.

If on the other hand the court refuses to grant a stay we are in the same situation we are currently waiting for the State Police to implement new regulations through which they are going to operate the process of granting permits to carry. If we are not in session then we have to challenge the new regulations in court if we disagree with them or live under them until the next decision comes down. There is only one scenario where we control the process of granting permits to carry, and that is where we pass some legislation to determine what the process is. If we can achieve what many other States already consider to be "Shall Issue", by granting permits to anyone who is devoid of any disqualifying factors, why would we not want to do that?

I don't know all the answers, I have been working on this for ten years and have a rather good working knowledge of the politics of Annapolis. I am not working alone I met today with NRA, Md. Shall Issue and Spoke with Associated Gun Clubs, and met with McDermott and Dwyer to discuss stratedgy. We may not all agree on the path we all agree on the destination.

I am willing to pull back if it is in the best interest of our success in this effort. Last Summer I argued to law suits in the Circuit Court, Smigiel v. State and Roope v. State (which I did pro-bono for a citizen of Cecil County who was seeking his permit to carry). After we drew a retired judge from Baltimore City to hear the cases I called the attorney's in the Woollard case to make sure that our Appeals to the Court of Special Appeals or going to the Court of Appeals would do nothing to interfere with the Federal Court Case. I was told there was a very small chance that a liberal Appellate Judge at the State level could issue some kind of order that would be problematic. I thereafter, convinced my client, Mr. Roope to allow me to not file Appeals on his or my cases so we could avoid any chance of interfering with the Woollard Appeal. It was the correct decision, I believe I am again making the correct decision by tring to proceed at this time. At anytime that I get a feeling that proceeding is not appropriate than I won't. I respect and understand your concerns, I share many of them, I just disagree on whether they are determinative of the course I should follow in an attempt to get full recognition of our Constitutional right to carry.

 

[paulstitz]

Quote:
§ 5-306.

(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds:

(1) is an adult;

(2) (i) has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor for which a sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year has been imposed; or

(ii) if convicted of a crime described in item (i) of this item, has been pardoned or has been granted relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c);

(3) has not been convicted of a crime involving the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance;

(4) is not presently an alcoholic, addict, or habitual user of a controlled dangerous substance unless the habitual use of the controlled dangerous substance is under legitimate medical direction; and

(5) based on an investigation:

(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and

(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.

(b) An applicant under the age of 30 years is qualified only if the Secretary finds that the applicant has not been:

(1) committed to a detention, training, or correctional institution for juveniles for longer than 1 year after an adjudication of delinquency by a juvenile court; or

(2) adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for:

(i) an act that would be a crime of violence if committed by an adult;

(ii) an act that would be a felony in this State if committed by an adult; or

(iii) an act that would be a misdemeanor in this State

Does anyone know off the top of thier head how this differs from the requirements to purchase a regulated weapon?

Except for:
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.

 

[2much2do49]

Just found a few links that talk about the ruling (hope this wasn't already posted):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...permit-ruling/2012/03/06/gIQAFbPLvR_blog.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-gun-law-appeal-20120306,0,6673248.story

 

[csanc123]

Ughhh..Frosh is such an ahole.

“It’s a very radical decision, and I doubt that it will be sustained on appeal,” Frosh said. “I think we have a policy in Maryland that is safe and sane, and the idea that the presumption would be that anyone who wants wants one can walk around with a gun strapped to his hip or her hip is a dangerous one,” Frosh said

Just found a few links that talk about the ruling (hope this wasn't already posted):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...permit-ruling/2012/03/06/gIQAFbPLvR_blog.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-gun-law-appeal-20120306,0,6673248.story

 

[AliasNeo07]

I've been reading these updates for the last few days, speechless for the most part.

The main thing I want to get off my chest is THANK YOU to the MSI crew who worked so hard for this. And to the SAF if they're reading. But seriously, MSI (I don't want to list names cause I feel like I'll leave people out.) thank you. Seriously. I know I'm speaking for everyone when I say I appreciate all the hard work and money you've put into this.

If you guys want to go apply for permits, go ahead, but I strongly suggest you send a donation to MSI and SAF. I'll be doing that first, then worry about a permit.

 

[jimbobborg]

Sucks. There hasn't even be any real change yet, and Im already heart broken. My work has a no weapons policy, so when/if we are able to get them, I still cant carry at work downtown.

Don't feel bad..most employers have a no weapons policy.

I can't even leave mine in my truck when I'm at work. At least you can keep yours until you get out of your vehicle!

 

[adoy]

I've been reading these updates for the last few days, speechless for the most part.

The main thing I want to get off my chest is THANK YOU to the MSI crew who worked so hard for this. And to the SAF if they're reading. But seriously, MSI (I don't want to list names cause I feel like I'll leave people out.) thank you. Seriously. I know I'm speaking for everyone when I say I appreciate all the hard work and money you've put into this.

If you guys want to go apply for permits, go ahead, but I strongly suggest you send a donation to MSI and SAF. I'll be doing that first, then worry about a permit.

Well Said!
Let me echo your words.
THANK YOU

 

[JavaDan]

I can't even leave mine in my truck when I'm at work. At least you can keep yours until you get out of your vehicle!

It depends on the wording of your employer's written policies and the circumstances of ownership and leasing that it involves. For example, my employer policy states weapons are not allowed in "Employer Name" property. They lease the building from a corporate park. The parking lot, however, is provided by the corporate park, and is not legally the property of the "Employer Name" per the lease.

I am LEOSA, so I can carry. I installed a steel safe in the console of my pickup truck into which I secure my gun when parking the truck. I am therefore not violating my company's policies, and my gun is safe and secure while I'm at work.

Use what you have to your advantage is all I'm say'in. Your mileage may vary.

http://www.consolevault.com