Successful CCW reasons

[300RUM]

Look at it this way; If you have a permit and are carrying, how would anyone know you were carrying?

Most likely if the police are involved with you/your permit it because you needed it(hopefully you have the training/knowledge on when to use it).

At that point I would not care what restrictions I had. To be perfectly honest if I knew I would absolutely need a gun today I would carry without a permit.

 

[teratos]

Ever listen to news reports of crimes against inocent people that occur on a daily basis? What percentage happens during the activity you consider most likely to be a target? The answer is, not many. You are always subject to such crimes and thus should have the "Unrestricted" ability to defend yourself anywhere.

Agreed. The 2 ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Blaster229]

I have been in the LEO business the better part of 16 years now. If tomorrow I couldn't carry anymore legally, I would still carry. I carry probably 80% of the time now. The other times is when I know I'll have a few adult drinks and times when I just wanna be brain dead and not be dialed in (which is very tiring) sometimes.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

I have seen the "while transporting business currency" restriction on several permits. The two people I know well who have them simply carry a deposit slip and a $100 bill in their wallet at all times. At that point you have a strong case for a 24/7 permit.
Violating your permit restriction doesn't carry criminal penalties. The sanctions for violating the restrictions are simply administrative which worst case scenario means you lose your permit. Since as previous people have noted no ones going to look at the terms of your permit unless you use the pistol it seems like a decent risk with minimal downside.

 

[Blaster229]

I have seen the "while transporting business currency" restriction on several permits. The two people I know well who have them simply carry a deposit slip and a $100 bill in their wallet at all times. At that point you have a strong case for a 24/7 permit.
Violating your permit restriction doesn't carry criminal penalties. The sanctions for violating the restrictions are simply administrative which worst case scenario means you lose your permit. Since as previous people have noted no ones going to look at the terms of your permit unless you use the pistol it seems like a decent risk with minimal downside.

I am pretty sure "transporting business currency" means from the place of business to the place of deposit.

 

[Kharn]

Depends, if he/she commonly makes business purchases with cash then he'd be ok almost anytime. Never know when you're going to find business-related tools, etc, on the side of the road for sale or stop at Home Depot or Walmart for whatever.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

I am pretty sure "transporting business currency" means from the place of business to the place of deposit.

I'm not

Here is the exact wording: "Between residence, XYZ Inc/bank or while transporting business currency as partner of same."

 

[Blaster229]

I'm not

Here is the exact wording: "Between residence, XYZ Inc/bank or while transporting business currency as partner of same."

I would liken it to a Maryland transporter license plate. Usually for day light hours between a place of sale and let's say a mechanic. Don't get caught driving on a transporter plate at 2 am from the bar or late night movie.

I have never had any experience dealing with a CCW holder when I wore a uniform. Would I make a big deal of it if I were confronted with someone "outside" of their limitation? Nah. Now if we came in contact under some sort of aggravated circumstance? Then that changes the scope of things I think.

I really do feel for people in this dilemna. So vague.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Definitely vague but then in the long run vagueness usually works to the benefit of the CCW holder. I think in this case the significant word is "or" which differentiates the second clause from the first.

 

[hvymax]

Definitely vague but then in the long run vagueness usually works to the benefit of the CCW holder. I think in this case the significant word is "or" which differentiates the second clause from the first.

NOT

 

[montoya32]

Quick question. When filling out the application, there is a place to write in your reasons for requesting the permit. You can write any reason. If you get your permit, will the MSP specify the exact reason they issued it? I am thinking of writing in carries cash, enters abandoned properties in dangerous areas at various times of day, carries expensive equipment and am licensed professional. Would the MSP reject some reasons and approve some or will they just approve/reject the entire permit app?

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

NOT

care to be more specific?

 

[miles71]

The biggest problem is it doesnt matter what any of us say or think about the restrictions, it matters what the LEO who stops you thinks. The fact it could be taken more than one way is way scary and creates a situation in which you cannot prepare for.

TD

 

[Dead Eye]

Quick question. When filling out the application, there is a place to write in your reasons for requesting the permit. You can write any reason. If you get your permit, will the MSP specify the exact reason they issued it? I am thinking of writing in carries cash, enters abandoned properties in dangerous areas at various times of day, carries expensive equipment and am licensed professional. Would the MSP reject some reasons and approve some or will they just approve/reject the entire permit app?

IMHO, having gone through the process, been rejected, and having been grilled as to what the State accepts and does not from ONE MDSP, I offer the following, with reasons:

"Carries Cash" - The State, or so I am told, views this as a means of your life being placed in danger. Chances are, you will have to prove that you make deposits that are substative in nature, and frequent. If issued a permit, it will more than likely be restricted based on the fact that you can only carry while making deposits.

"Enters Abandoned Properties" - No good. No personal or direct threat has been levied against you personally. It is only your fear, at this point, and that does not meet the "Good and Substantial" clause.

"Carries Expensive Equipment" - Like cash, this can be seen as a threat against you, so if the value is significant, and you carry frequently, same-same as cash, with the same restrictions applied.

"Is a licensed professional" - They could care less.

My two cents worth, if you want to play the successful odds, stick to the cash and valuables, don't mention the others, and you should get granted a restricted permit to be used while you carry cash and valuables.

 

[Dead Eye]

I'm not

Here is the exact wording: "Between residence, XYZ Inc/bank or while transporting business currency as partner of same."

These days, there is an ATM on every corner that accepts deposits. They are open 24/7, and to my knowledge, don't have a limit as to how much they will accept. I don't know if this would fly with the legal system, but it might be something worth considering.

 

[SOMDSHOOT]

I would love to see a comprehensive list for reasons to carry. I would allow a pizza delivery person to carry. I can imagine what silliness comes from this list.

 

[Dead Eye]

I would love to see a comprehensive list for reasons to carry. I would allow a pizza delivery person to carry. I can imagine what silliness comes from this list.

The final hurdle, is that you must meet the "good and substantial" clause.

From what I have been told by MDSP...

Retired LEO clears the hurdle, because as I was told, they took people's personal liberties from them, and therefore, they "might" want to retaliate.

Same for Judges, and certain politicians, once they get to the "State", "County", or Baltimore City, level. Being the Commissioner of Rising Sun, doesn't get it.

Pizza delivery doesn't get it, because you are not carrying enough cash.

A business owner that carries substantial amounts of cash, or valuables that someone might want to take their life for.

Someone telling you specifically, that they are going to kill you, and you have documented evidence to prove it, via police reports, or credible eye witnesses, other than family. Must be a death threat, it must be against you specifically, and it must be documented. As you can see, however, as in teh Woolard case, if your perp doesn't act within a few years, the permit will be taken because the threat supposedly no longer exists. In my case, my perp went to jail, so he is no longer a supposed threat.

 

[Nats Fan]

Does the same policy with retired LEO apply to " former" LEOS?

 

[krucam]

The final hurdle, is that you must meet the "good and substantial" clause.

From what I have been told by MDSP...

Retired LEO clears the hurdle, because as I was told, they took people's personal liberties from them, and therefore, they "might" want to retaliate.

Same for Judges, and certain politicians, once they get to the "State", "County", or Baltimore City, level. Being the Commissioner of Rising Sun, doesn't get it.

Pizza delivery doesn't get it, because you are not carrying enough cash.

A business owner that carries substantial amounts of cash, or valuables that someone might want to take their life for.

Someone telling you specifically, that they are going to kill you, and you have documented evidence to prove it, via police reports, or credible eye witnesses, other than family. Must be a death threat, it must be against you specifically, and it must be documented. As you can see, however, as in teh Woolard case, if your perp doesn't act within a few years, the permit will be taken because the threat supposedly no longer exists. In my case, my perp went to jail, so he is no longer a supposed threat.

And this all is a complete FAIL under Equal Protection or Due Process. Judges and retired LEO's don't need to have the criteria above in BOLD.

From the Woollard Complaint:

COUNT II
U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV, EQUAL PROTECTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.
33. Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry permit applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of this provision.

I understand I'm preaching to the choir here...
[/rant]

Hopefully some Judicial Relief is incoming...

 

[Dead Eye]

Does the same policy with retired LEO apply to " former" LEOS?

This is just PURELY my personal opinion... I would put former LEO's in the same category as politicians. For instance, if you were former MDSP AND you left on good terms, I'd say you stand a chance. If, however, you are former LEO from Rising Sun, good luck with that. What I'd do, again just pure opinion, is first try and run the business angle, or make a compelling case based on former cases that you handled. Surely you put some bad hombre away that made some foul gesture regarding your personal health.

And this all is a complete FAIL under Equal Protection or Due Process. Judges and retired LEO's don't need to have the criteria above in BOLD.

From the Woollard Complaint:


I understand I'm preaching to the choir here...
[/rant]

Hopefully some Judicial Relief is incoming...

Exactly! There is no guarantee that every former LEO encountered some sort of death threat in their tenure.