For your viewing pleasure:
Be sure to subscribe to the MSI YouTube page for more
https://www.youtube.com/c/marylandshallissue
Be sure to subscribe to the MSI YouTube page for more
https://www.youtube.com/c/marylandshallissue
Congrats on getting the restriction lifted from this particular permit holder!
I have a CCW permit, and have the restriction on my permit, as well. I wrote MSP for a clarification as to what that meant, as I did not want to unknowingly violate the restriction. I got my permit at the end of January 2017, and wrote MSP, prior to the deadline to do so,for a clarification, or, in the alternative, a hearing. I received no response. A couple of months later, I wrote again. Again, no response. I am about to do so again.
I am a solo practice attorney, and "conduct business" 24/7. I have my office phones forwarded to my cell when I leave the office. I often receive phone calls while at dinner, and sometimes, at 2:00 a.m. I go meet clients after-hours. I advertise evenings and weekends. As such, sometimes I meet a client at 9:00 on Tuesday, or 4 p.m. on a Sunday, outside most others' work hours.
It seems to me that, should I get arrested because law enforcement believes that I am acting outside the scope of "conducting business," because of the vagueness of the restriction, I would eventually prevail in court. However, obviously, the goal is to avoid being arrested in the first place.
Has there been any clarification by MSP or any other LEA as to what "conducting business" means?
I appreciate any response.
For your viewing pleasure:
Be sure to subscribe to the MSI YouTube page for more
https://www.youtube.com/c/marylandshallissue
DISCLAIMER: This is by no means a dig at Mr. Pennack. He is brilliant and hold more knowledge in his pinkie than I will ever achieve.
Something struck me. The board allowed the "expert witness" to speak and testify, but when I myself was asked by an applicant to accompany him into closed session, because the SP was afraid of their secret recipe being broadcast to the world, I was told I could not speak in support of the applicant.
I enjoyed the video immensely and I am glad the board sided with the permit holder.
I still question how this helps the $15 hour ditch digger in md to get an unrestricted permit using self defense as g and s. the msp ld scheme is still for those with enough clout, money and time to get a permit.
I thought the same thing. I believe that any successful overturning is a move in the right direction. As the ball keeps rolling these victories will pave the way for those who do not have the clout. Once enough unrestricted permits are out there hopefully those people start pushing for the ones who do not have one. Have to start somewhere.
As nice as the legal argument was by MSI President, the discussion after made no mention it was a determining factor. The atty on HPRB even stated, "Each case stands on it's own merits". More like the Napoleonic code. That tells me that case law isn't anything to rely on at HPRB. Flame away..
Before this board, yes. At a different time in the future with a different governor I can see many unrestricted renewals either failing or having restrictions applied. I doubt a dem governor would try to stop issuance of all handgun permits but I can totally see the restrictions coming back with full force and the existence of a HPRB board made up of folks like we had under O' Malley.According to the MSP and the AG each case stands on its own. They certainly treat it as such. While that may be the case, for now at least, the argument against restrictions (the Pennak letter) has been working quite well.
According to the MSP and the AG each case stands on its own. They certainly treat it as such. While that may be the case, for now at least, the argument against restrictions (the Pennak letter) has been working quite well.
Handgun permit holders commit less crime than police officers.
Permit holders are just looking for a fair, objective permit approval process and a clear understanding of what the laws are they need to abide by.
Show me a decision citing that as basis. If that is anywhere in the record as a determining factor, how could the HPRB not consider this their own case law, applicable to every appellant pointing to a previous overturn on that basis. If you find that basis quoted in a decison, please post it so others can waltz in without spinning the prize wheel by repeating previous testimony and see if it sticks for them. It's a kangaroo court that is still with us due to the late entrance of a Bill last session to kill it. The board has the power to overturn MSP w/o people making the trek to Crownsville. Why have they surrendered that?
The board doesn't use past decisions like "case law". I don't know enough about the intricacies of the law to know if that is legitimate or not. Currently, each applicant has to make their own argument. Lately, if they do it correctly, the board has been favorable in removing needless restrictions. If I ever get my letter back from the AG who's sitting on it, then I'll share it with you.
Neither are the Maryland State Police influenced by past decisions of the Board in deciding if applications meet their G&S scheme.
It's like the movie Groundhog Day with MSP pointlessly denying or restricting handgun permits... and applicants making the same successful arguments over and over again - each time, as if it were a new argument.
A terrible waste of limited Police and government resources, solely for political purposes, against a group who statistically commits fewer crimes than police officers.
Gov. Hogan promised to put the state on a new path and change Maryland for the better.
I look forward to the Gov. and Col. Pallozzi fixing this circus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro