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

[Patrick]

Greetings, we are processing the many applications that have arrived with limited manpower. *Thanks for your continued patience, my staff is doing the best they can, even on overtime. *Thank you.*

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:40 AM, < wrote:
Trooper Jones,

I am writing to inquire as to the status of my handgun permit application. It has been over 90 business days since the date of the application. I am aware of the stay that is currently in place by Judge Benson Legg. My application was received after the March decision, but before the stay was granted. COMAR says that there should be a decision made on permit applications in 90 business days. 90 business days have passed and no decision has been made.

It is my belief that the department is waiting for Judge Legg to continue, or lift the stay instead of outright denying those like me who fall under the March decision. Is this the reason for the delay in my decision, or can I expect my handgun CCW permit in the mail.
Please update me on my status.



--
Maryland State Police
Handgun Permit Section Supervisor
Sergeant Michael Angelo Jones

"Your Need Is Our Business"

They are sitting on those. It has been acknowledged, and by doing it they are actually helping you out. The alternative is you will be denied under existing law. That means you would need to re-apply and then start all over, including paying your fees. It's your call on what to do, but were I you I would sit for a few days and see where this goes. If you want to push, demand a review board hearing. That should set your process back about 120 days. Or you could wait 5.

The 4th Circuit is the thing to watch. Everyone is waiting on them (including MSP). Until then, we are all on hold.

 

[fatboyloball]

They are sitting on those. It has been acknowledged, and by doing it they are actually helping you out. The alternative is you will be denied under existing law. That means you would need to re-apply and then start all over, including paying your fees. It's your call on what to do, but were I you I would sit for a few days and see where this goes. If you want to push, demand a review board hearing. That should set your process back about 120 days. Or you could wait 5.

The 4th Circuit is the thing to watch. Everyone is waiting on them (including MSP). Until then, we are all on hold.

I sent that e-mail back on July 19th. I got the reply Yesterday. The stay was ordered lifted on July 23rd and we all know when it goes into effect. I plan on sitting until August 8th and will contact MSP that morning for an update. Now of course if the 4CA issues a stay, I will do nothing.

 

[swinokur]

I still expect them to make him go through the application process. They might be able to issue the permit the day they receive the application and should. The background investigation still likely has to take place.

This is what UT does, When you get your permit it includes a letter specifically telling you that the permit is issued "pending a thorough background investigation" (paraphrasing here). They reserve the right to revoke if the investigation reveals a disqualifyer.

Maybe this is a process MSP can investigate.

 

[Patrick]

I sent that e-mail back on July 19th. I got the reply Yesterday. The stay was ordered lifted on July 23rd and we all know when it goes into effect. I plan on sitting until August 8th and will contact MSP that morning for an update. Now of course if the 4CA issues a stay, I will do nothing.

Everyone is waiting on that motion. I suppose they could lose it and then petition SCOTUS, but frankly I think they'd be taking one hell of a gamble in doing that.

 

[mrjam2jab]

This was in response to my email reminding them of 90 business days according to COMAR and asked if they were sitting on the applications instead of outright denials for lack of G&S while Legg decides the stay request. I wouldn't look for streamlined investigations or processing right now. The mentioned email was sent to me yesterday.

Not business days...90 days. Doesn't make a difference at this point in time, but it will later on.

This is what UT does, When you get your permit it includes a letter specifically telling you that the permit is issued "pending a thorough background investigation" (paraphrasing here). They reserve the right to revoke if the investigation reveals a disqualifyer.

Maybe this is a process MSP can investigate.

Here's the actual letter for referral

 

[CypherPunk]

This could be a bee's nest if they deny someone based on an investigation, discontinue investigations and approve others. I have an e-mail from Sgt. Jones which says they are processing many applications with limited manpower. Thanks for your continued patience as the staff is doing the best they can even on overtime.

This was in response to my email reminding them of 90 business days according to COMAR and asked if they were sitting on the applications instead of outright denials for lack of G&S while Legg decides the stay request. I wouldn't look for streamlined investigations or processing right now. The mentioned email was sent to me yesterday.

I would like nothing more to believe that the Maryland State Police will eventually honor thier oath to honestly and faithfully uphold the US Constitution. They have had that opportunity all along, simply by lawfully interpreting g&s. Instead, they have chosen to support thier political masters at the expense thier ultimate employer.

Throughout history there have been people who "enforce the law", and there have been others who serve justice and protect those who cannot protect themselves. History remembers both in different ways.

Despite claims, I have not seen the MSP do anything to demonstrate a change of attitude. The facts are that the MSP has cashed checks and approved zero permits. Would you expect anything less from a bureaucracy?

Yes, I know we are all supposed to be greatful that the MSP returned some payments uncashed, but I believe they did so for self serving reasons and not out of any altruistic purpose.

The 90 day/business day period is something they are ready to reinterpret in any way at any time to suit thier agenda. The rest of the permit requirements (interviews, references, medical records) will likely be abused the same way. Our only leverage here are the limits of the MSP resources.

Even today, the MSP is still betting on an emergency stay, and a desire to maintain the status quo, dragging this out through the courts.

Actions speak louder than words. The MSP's first loyalty is to whomever signs thier paychecks. Don't kid yourself until thier actions prove me wrong.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[swinokur]

Actions speak louder than words. The MSP's first loyalty is to whomever signs thier paychecks. Don't kid yourself until thier actions prove me wrong.

If I have a family and bills, my first loyalty would be to whoever signs my paycheck too. I live in Realville as Majha Rushie says.

 

[CypherPunk]

They are sitting on those. It has been acknowledged, and by doing it they are actually helping you out. The alternative is you will be denied under existing law. That means you would need to re-apply and then start all over, including paying your fees. It's your call on what to do, but were I you I would sit for a few days and see where this goes. If you want to push, demand a review board hearing. That should set your process back about 120 days. Or you could wait 5.

The 4th Circuit is the thing to watch. Everyone is waiting on them (including MSP). Until then, we are all on hold.

If the MSP wasn't actively hostile to the 2A, any appeal to the review board could be summarily approved with the stroke of a pen, at any time.

There is no need to wait 120 days.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[CypherPunk]

If I have a family and bills, my first loyalty would be to whoever signs my paycheck too. I live in Realville as Majha Rushie says.

Agreed. That is exactly why the Creator bestowed, and the Founders codified the inalienable right to defend ourselves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[swinokur]

But I think if the MSP moved forward in good faith like we know they will, and as time consuming the present system is, the judge will not be unhappy. The judge just said "no more G&S", he did not say anything about the MSP had to come up with a faster system.

It would be nice if the did, and I think one day they will. But as long as they are moving forward it will be considered as complying to the order.

I guess it depends on what the Court decides "good faith" is. Waiting for months because of an inefficient process is not "good faith" IMO when it comes to a Constitutional right, which is what Gura points out in his briefs.

 

[pcfixer]

I read the Motion that Alan Gura wrote from SAF for
"Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal."
This is a very wonderful and well articulated document that make Gansler really look
foolish In my opinion. For what is is any judge that reads this, I don't think Md
stands much change of getting the appeal for Stay..

 

[Inigoes]

I read the Motion that Alan Gura wrote from SAF for
"Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal."
This is a very wonderful and well articulated document that make Gansler really look
foolish In my opinion. For what is is any judge that reads this, I don't think Md
stands much change of getting the appeal for Stay..

Realistically, Odds are 50/50 until the CA4 releases their opinion on the stay.

Do I like it? No!

Remember, it can go either way...

 

[dblas]

Things Gansler considers to be an emergency are things Gansler want's, not what other people want.

Gansler is no where in the chain of command for MSP, so MSP would make that determination on their own (well, maybe with a little input from Owe'Malley).

 

[fatboyloball]

I am pretty certain there is a 100% chance the odds are 50/50 I think!

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

I am pretty certain there is a 100% chance the odds are 50/50 I think!

When you've got a 50/50 chance, you're wrong 90% of the time!

 

[Patrick]

If the MSP wasn't actively hostile to the 2A, any appeal to the review board could be summarily approved with the stroke of a pen, at any time.

There is no need to wait 120 days.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Show me where a federal court of any controlling stature defined carriage of firearms outside the home as covered by the Second Amendment.

You won't find one that answered that question prior to Woollard. To you it may be obvious. To others, the opposite seems obvious. This is why we have the Third Branch - to settle these questions.

The state legislated according to their view of the law. That view was codified over decades, by legislators elected by citizens. Absent a new set of laws - or a court telling them the ones they passed were illegal - those laws were the most legitimate ones around. Any group (MSP, DoJ, whatever) that ignored those laws were would have been against the system and enforcing their own views, instead of the ones lawfully enacted. The laws were presumed lawful. I don't want to be in a system where any government force ignores lawfully enacted systems of government, just because they disagree with it. That is a banana republic.

Now in this case, it turns out the state got it wrong all along. It took a while to prove it, but we did. Now the law says this was not a simple regulation, but a violation of a civil right. This is new. It upends previous law. And soon it will be binding.

The best we can ask from any enforcement arm of any government is to respond to that new law with the same diligence they applied to the previous law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your contention - that the law enforcers could summarily create and implement new law on their own, just because they think it is a good idea - is frightening. You suggest that today they ignore (valid until proven otherwise) state law to your benefit. But then tomorrow they can ignore valid law to your detriment. All because they felt like it. And you think this is a good idea?

So long as we (the people) have recourse to prove that laws are invalid, we still have a claim of ownership over this republic. My gripe is that the process takes too long. But when we get to the point that police forces can interpret laws on their own, contravene existing laws, or just make it up as they go along...then we have serious problems. I fear in some cases we are dangerously close, but that line has not yet been crossed for good. A strong 2A means that it might not get crossed. We'll see if the Founders got that one right.

I understand the impatience. But don't let the trees hide the forest. This is a process that was ordained and considered by the Founders, and it is working the way it was designed.

 

[fatboyloball]

Show me where a federal court of any controlling stature defined carriage of firearms outside the home as covered by the Second Amendment.

You won't find one that answered that question prior to Woollard. To you it may be obvious. To others, the opposite seems obvious. This is why we have the Third Branch - to settle these questions.

The state legislated according to their view of the law. That view was codified over decades, by legislators elected by citizens. Absent a new set of laws - or a court telling them the ones they passed were illegal - those laws were the most legitimate ones around. Any group (MSP, DoJ, whatever) that ignored those laws were would have been against the system and enforcing their own views, instead of the ones lawfully enacted. The laws were presumed lawful. I don't want to be in a system where any government force ignores lawfully enacted systems of government, just because they disagree with it. That is a banana republic.

Now in this case, it turns out the state got it wrong all along. It took a while to prove it, but we did. Now the law says this was not a simple regulation, but a violation of a civil right. This is new. It upends previous law. And soon it will be binding.

The best we can ask from any enforcement arm of any government is to respond to that new law with the same diligence they applied to the previous law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your contention - that the law enforcers could summarily create and implement new law on their own, just because they think it is a good idea - is frightening. You suggest that today they ignore (valid until proven otherwise) state law to your benefit. But then tomorrow they can ignore valid law to your detriment. All because they felt like it. And you think this is a good idea?

So long as we (the people) have recourse to prove that laws are invalid, we still have a claim of ownership over this republic. My gripe is that the process takes too long. But when we get to the point that police forces can interpret laws on their own, contravene existing laws, or just make it up as they go along...then we have serious problems. I fear in some cases we are dangerously close, but that line has not yet been crossed for good. A strong 2A means that it might not get crossed. We'll see if the Founders got that one right.

I understand the impatience. But don't let the trees hide the forest. This is a process that was ordained and considered by the Founders, and it is working the way it was designed.

Patrick, you had me until you quoted Guru's brief about the trees hiding the forest.

 

[Patrick]

Patrick, you had me until you quoted Guru's brief about the trees hiding the forest.

Ha. Unintentional. I must have been subconsciously channeling.

 

[dlmcbm]

Patrick, you had me until you quoted Guru's brief about the trees hiding the forest.

It was a test to see how many people actually read it. That one really stuck out to me also.

 

[dblas]

If the MSP wasn't actively hostile to the 2A, any appeal to the review board could be summarily approved with the stroke of a pen, at any time.

There is no need to wait 120 days.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Ummm, you do realize the review board and MSP are two entirely different entities?

One has nothing to do with the other, other then the Superintendent and the Review Board members are appointees of the Governor.