Skip to main content

UPDATE 7:24 PM PT: SCOTUSblog showing denied. Looks like the petition was denied?

h/t Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:11:44 PM PDT

The diary and title have been edited accordingly.


Maryland requires that individuals who apply for a concealed carry permit submit evidence that they have a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun for self defense. After defending his family during a violent home invasion in December 2002, Raymond Woollard applied fro a concealed carry weapons permit (CCW), which was issued in 2003. His permit was renewed in 2006 but his second renewal application was denied in 2009 because it was incomplete. It did not include any evidence from the prior three years to support his continuing claim that "the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."

United States Supreme Court building at dawn.
United States Supreme Court building at dawn
Mr. Woollard and the Second Amendment Foundation sued and the District Court of Maryland struck down the law, (Woollard v. Sheridan, March 2, 2012, pdf 65kB), finding that the law "impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment" because it is "insufficiently tailored to the State’s interest in public safety and crime prevention.'' The Appeals Court reversed, (Woollard v. Gallagher, March 21, 2013, pdf 155kB), and now Mr. Woollard is appealing to the US Supreme Court to review the law. The case was distributed for conference on October 11th, which was last Friday. In ~3 weeks we will know whether the court will accept or deny the petition. If accepted for review, [On Monday October 15th, SCOTUS declined to accept the case.] [T]his case may [WILL NOT] become the next ground breaking case in firearms law.

Join us below the fold for an introduction to Woollard v. Gallagher and the plaintiff's petition for a Supreme Court writ of certiorari to review the 4th Circuit's analysis of Maryland's "good cause" law.

INTRODUCTION

In Heller and McDonald the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment articulated a constitutional right to own and use a gun in one's home for self defense and "other lawful purposes." They inferred that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home, but they did not define how they will apply individual rights theory when they evaluate the constitutionality of laws that regulate firearms in public. It seems that the Supreme Court was vague for at least two practical reasons.  First, they left plenty of room after Heller for state legislatures to experiment when reviewing and changing state and local gun laws. Second, they have waited for the lower courts to articulate legal arguments supporting various interpretations of post-Heller  individual rights theory and Second Amendment doctrine.

New readers of Firearms Law and Policy may prefer to start with our primer diaries on the Second Amendment and Concealed Carry Law. This diary is an announcement that Woollard v. Gallagher is a case to watch. Future diaries will use this case as a starting point 1) to delve into Maryland firearms law, 2) to study legal theories surrounding "good cause" laws that regulate handguns in public, 3) to study development of Second Amendment doctrine, specifically when to apply strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis review.  


MARYLAND IS A MAY ISSUE STATE FOR PERMITS TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN

Maryland is considered a May Issue state with respect to concealed weapons permits. That means the Maryland Legislature passed a law directing the State Police to use discretion when deciding whether to issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public.

[p 8] Handgun permits are issued by the Secretary of the Maryland State Police or the Secretary's designee. See Md.Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5€-301(d)-(e). The Secretary must issue a permit upon making enumerated findings, including that the applicant is an adult without a disqualifying criminal record, alcohol or drug addiction, or propensity for violence. Id. § 5€-306(a)(1)-€“(5)(i). Pursuant to the good-and-substantial-reason requirement, permit eligibility also necessitates the Secretary's finding, following an investigation, that the applicant 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. [See p 7 for exceptions to MD's permit requirement.]

FOUR CATEGORIES OF "GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REASON" TO OBTAIN A CCW PERMIT
[pp 9-10] The Handgun Permit Unit has identified "four primary categories" under which an applicant may demonstrate "good and substantial reason" to obtain a handgun permit:
(1) for business activities, either at the business owner’s request or on behalf of an employee; (2) for regulated professions (security guard, private detective, armored car driver, and special police officer); (3) for "assumed risk" professions (e.g., judge, police officer, public defender, prosecutor, or correctional officer); and (4) for personal protection.
J.A. 57-58.1 Regarding the first three of those categories, "the ‘good and substantial reason’ is usually apparent from the business activity or profession itself." Id. at 58. As for the fourth category — personal protection — the Permit Unit considers whether the applicant needs a handgun permit as a safeguard against "apprehended danger." Id. at 59-60.

The Handgun Permit Unit is guided by precedent of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, recognizing that "‘whether there is "apprehended danger" to the applicant’" is
an objective inquiry, and that apprehended danger cannot be established by, inter alia, a "‘vague threat’" or a general fear of "liv[ing] in a dangerous society." Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Bd., 880 A.2d 1137, 1148 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005) (quoting Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Bd., 413 A.2d 295, 298 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1980)). That same precedent, as the Permit Unit interprets it, "caution[s] the Unit against relying exclusively on apprehended threats." J.A. 60 (explaining that "failure to meet [the apprehended threat] criterion is not dispositive"). So, the Permit Unit examines such factors as

(1) the "nearness" or likelihood of a threat or presumed threat; (2) whether the threat can be verified; (3) whether the threat is particular to the applicant, as opposed to the average citizen; (4) if the threat can be presumed to exist, what is the basis for the presumption; and (5) the length of time since the initial threat occurred.
Id. The Permit Unit treats those factors as nonexhaustive, however, and "takes the applicant’s entire situation into account when considering whether a ‘good and substantial reason’ exists." Id.

1Citations herein to "J.A...." refer to the contents of the Joint Appendix
filed by the parties in this appeal.


A TWO STEP INQUIRY FOR EVALUATING CONSTITUTIONALITY2

My current understanding of the 2-prong approach is:

    Question No. 1. Does the firearms activity of this case fall within the scope of the
     Second Amendment?

          If no to No. 1, then stop.

          If yes to No. 1, then No. 2.

    Question No. 2. Is the protected firearms activity unconstitutionally burdened by
     the permitting scheme?

Like several of our sister circuits, we have found that "a two-part approach to Second Amendment claims seems appropriate under Heller." See United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir. 2010)); see also Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185, 194 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510, 518 (6th Cir. 2012); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1252 (D.C.Cir. 2011); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 703-€“04 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792, 800â€-01 (10th Cir. 2010). Pursuant to our two-part Chester inquiry, [t]he first question is whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee. This historical inquiry seeks to determine whether the conduct at issue was understood to be within the scope of the right at the time of ratification. If it was not, then the challenged law is valid. If the challenged regulation burdens conduct that was within the scope of the Second Amendment as historically understood, then we move to the second step of applying an appropriate form of means-end scrutiny.


THE OPINION Woollard v. Gallagher [4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]

In answer to both questions above, the District Court in Maryland said "Hell yes!" and the 4th Circuit Ct. of Appeals said, "Wooooah! Not so fast!"

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of § 5-€“306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on having "good and substantial reason"€ to do so. Necessary to the entry of the court's injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly burdened by Maryland's good-and-substantial-reason requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F.Supp.2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court's conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second Amendment.[my bold]

If SCOTUS accepts this case it [Since SCOTUS has denied cert Maryland's "good cause" law] will [not] become the next landmark case for post-Heller gun law. It will be 2-3 weeks before SCOTUS indicates whether they will accept or deny [The Supreme Court announced on Monday October 15th that the] Woollard v. Gallagher petition [is denied]. (h/t Mote Dai) This diary presents an introduction to the case, to Maryland's concealed carry permit law, and to the important legal terms "intermediate scrutiny" and "strict scrutiny." Future diaries will go into each topic in more detail.


~~~~~~~~


Additional Background Reading


Date Woollard v. Gallagher Proceedings and Orders
Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013)
QUESTION PRESENTED
This Court has held that the Second Amendment "€œguarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Maryland generally prohibits the carrying of handguns for self-defense absent a permit, issued only to individuals who first prove a “good and substantial reason” for doing so. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 3-506(a)(5)(ii).

The question presented is: Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “good and substantial reason” for doing so.

Jul 9 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Aug 6 2013 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 9, 2013.
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. (pdf 150kB)
Aug 12 2013 Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners Foundation, et al. filed. (pdf 150kB)
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The American Civil Rights Union filed. (pdf 90kB)
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association, Inc. filed. (pdf 166kB)
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. (pdf 146kB)
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Academics for the Second Amendment filed. (pdf 749kB)
Sep 9 2013 Brief of respondents Denis Gallagher, et al. in opposition filed. (pdf 109kB)
Sep 24 2013 Reply of petitioners Raymond Woollard, et al. filed. (pdf 88kB)
Sep 25 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 11, 2013.
Oct 15 2013 Petition DENIED. (h/t Mote Dai)


Distributed for Conference at the Supreme Court of the United States

The process is quite simple. Each week of the year, the clerk'€™s office distributes petitions, due for distribution to the justices€™ chambers, for a conference, which is generally held, if the Court is in session, 2½ weeks later. Each chamber receives a copy of each petition....

Prior to the conference, the Chief Justice circulates a "discuss list"€ containing any petitions he deems worthy of further discussion. Each justice can add to the list any petition he or she deems worthy. Very few, if any, petitions on the discuss list are granted. The remaining petitions, as I have stated, are automatically denied.

...Continue reading Distributed for Conference

DEFINTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY (from Legal Information Institute)

Intermediate scrutiny is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. As the name implies, intermediate scrutiny is less rigorous than strict scrutiny, but more rigorous than rational basis review. Intermediate scrutiny is used in equal protection challenges to gender classifications, as well as in some First Amendment cases.
 

STRICT SCRUTINY (from Legal Information Institute)

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws.  To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.  A famous quip asserts that strict scrutiny is "strict in name, but fatal in practice."  

For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification.  Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

Compare to intermediate scrutiny and rational basis.

The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you would like to write about firearms law please send us a Kosmail.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

2Caveat: I grew up with guns but only started paying attention to gun law much later in life. It will be obvious to many that I am not a lawyer. This diary is a layman's attempt to present a layman's understanding of gun law. Constructive feedback on the content and structure of the diary is welcome. Corrections to any errors will be posted as marked edits or updates. The Firearms Law and Policy Group is not taking an editorial position on whether SCOTUS was correct when the majority interpreted the 2A in terms of individual rights theory. Personally, I think there is plenty of legal scholarship and common law logic in the  decision. Members of FLAP hold a range of opinions about the decision and membership in FLAP does not imply agreement with LilithGardener or with individual rights theory.

Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:20 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Maryland Kos, and notRKBA.

Poll

Do you think Maryland is has a right to require a "good and substantial reason" for a CCW permit?

59%41 votes
0%0 votes
26%18 votes
1%1 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
2%2 votes
8%6 votes
0%0 votes

| 69 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (21+ / 0-)

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:20:11 PM PDT

  •  Did Plaintiff follow the law? (8+ / 0-)

    Nice diary.

    From my reading of your first paragraph, I understand that the plaintiff (Mr. Woollard) did not complete the application for a gun permit as required by the state of Maryland.

    If that is correct, I for the life of me cannot see how he can claim that the law is unconstitutional.  Is his complaint that any law requiring him to submit an application is unconstitutional?

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:32:19 PM PDT

    •  His complaint is that the requirement (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, Glen The Plumber, WakeUpNeo

      to show a "good and substantial reason" is a violation of the constitutional RKBA.

      I don't know whether there was no evidence of an ongoing threat or whether he had evidence, such as a police report,  and chose to withhold the evidence.

      As I've been reading about the case I note that his first renewal was pre-Heller, and his second renewal application was post-Heller.

      The lawyers arguing for Heller and the Second Amendment Foundation are the same lawyers representing Mr. Woollard, so it's possible that after Heller, Mr. Woollard approached the Second Amendment Foundation and/or the law firm.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:37:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So is "may issue" unconstitutional? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

        So, the Appeals Court struck down the law saying it was unconstitutional for the state of Maryland to ask gun owners for a good and substantial reason why they should have a CC permit.

        Doesn't that mean that any law Maryland has directing the the police to use discretion in giving out CC permits is likewise unconstitutional?  

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:47:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't know (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lujane, WakeUpNeo

          The District Court Maryland said: Fuck Yeah! It's a violation of the 2A.

          Then the 4th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, said, NO, not so fast, and they laid out the 2 prong approach for applying Heller and McDonald. IIRC, they had laid out the 2-prong test in a prior case, but that case didn't go all the way to SCOTUS (Masciandro).

          This petition is appealing the decision of the 4th Circuit Ct of Appeals, which includes any case coming up from Maryland.

          The corresponding laws in NY (2nd Circuit) and NJ (3rd Circuit) have been upheld, and when the NY case petitioned the Supreme Court denied cert, Kachalsky v. Cacace.

          Alan Gura also represented Kachalsky. A very brief overview is available from wikipedia.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:59:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is the position of the Foundation? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

            I wonder what is the position of the Second Amendment regarding "may issue".  Does the 2A Foundation think that "may issue" permitting is unconstitutional?

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:04:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes - they think that no one should be required (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WakeUpNeo

              to give a reason for needing to exercise their RKBA.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:06:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who funds this Foundation? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Agathena, WakeUpNeo

                Gee, I wonder if the gun industry provides any  funds to this 2A Foundation?

                In the world of science, you are required to state your conflicts of interests along with any public statements you make.  Else-wise, you are considered to be acting unethically.

                But this is a case of law, in which the ethics are not relevant (insert favorite lawyer behaving badly joke here).

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:53:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry. That should be ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WakeUpNeo, LilithGardener

              I wonder what is the position of the Second Amendment Foundation regarding "may issue".  Does the 2A Foundation think that "may issue" permitting is unconstitutional?

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:06:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                The Second Amendment Foundation has a number of projects advocating for expanded RKBA.

                This case is just one of their projects.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The Second Amendment Foundation is a plaintiff (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WakeUpNeo

              along with Woollard.

              They offer 5 reasons why SCOTUS should review the case.

              Woollard Petition

              [page numbers are in the pdf version of the petition for certiori]

              REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .... 17
              I. The Federal Courts of Appeals and State High Courts Are Divided Over Whether
              the Second Amendment Protects the Use of Firearms Outside the Home .................. 17

              II. The Lower Courts Are Deeply Split Regarding the Level of Deference Afforded the Political Branches in Restricting Second Amendment Rights ....................... 22

              III. The Fourth Circuit, and the High Courts of Several States, Are Split Regarding the Application of Prior Restraint Doctrine to Secure the Right to Bear Arms ...... 29

              IV. The Court Below Decided an Important
              Question of Law In a Manner Contrary to This Court’s Precedent .............................. 34

              V. This Case Presents an Exceptional Vehicle to Clarify the Law ................................ 38

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:17:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  And yes, he did follow the law as far as I can (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, CenPhx, WakeUpNeo

      He's a farmer and lives in a remote part of Maryland. The night of the home invasion (by his ex son-in-law) it took 2 hours for the police to arrive. The perp was prosecuted, served time, and Woollard received his first CCW permit before the perp was released from prison.

      I don't know what evidence there is that the perp is a continuing threat to Mr. Woollard. Bear in mind that this case does not interfere with Mr. Woollard's right to keep guns at home for self defense.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:20:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If he didn't complete the application.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WakeUpNeo

        If he did not complete the CC permit application, he did not follow the law.  He cannot claim his rights have been abridged by Maryland law, because he did not follow the law.

        If I had been a judge hearing the case, I would tell Woollard to go complete all parts of the application, and then we'll see if your rights are being abridged by the law.

        To my (non-legal) way of thinking, he cannot claim that Maryland's law is preventing him from exercising his rights.  He has yet to comply with the law.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:58:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are correct (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

        The Maryland State Police deemed that the threat from the son-in-law no longer existed, so Woollard no longer had any reason for the CCW permit.  There has to be an ongoing need for the renewal, and that wasn't met.  As you detailed in the diary, the law is pretty clear on the requirements for approval and re-approval.  Same thing goes for people with an occupational need, if you lose the job or close the related business, the CCW application is not renewed.

        I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

        by Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 08:03:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Your Excellent Diary in Tagxedo, Lilith (5+ / 0-)

    Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue - A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma

    by JekyllnHyde on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:36:58 PM PDT

    •  Beautiful! Thank you JnH! (3+ / 0-)

      I still haven't gotten that to work. It appears that all I need to shut down my computer and restart. I can't do that simple task until I sort through and name the hundred open files that have captured my thoughts/notes/research in the past 2 weeks.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maryland CCW law (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

    Maryland really scrutinizes the applications as well.  The CCW permits are mostly given to those that carry cash, jewelry, firearms, or other items of value.  And you can only carry when transporting or possess the items in the justification.  So, if you have a MD CCW because you are a gold coin dealer, you can ONLY carry when you have gold coins in your possession.  It is not a permit to carry at all times (unless your reason to carry is personal defense related).  At least that is my understanding of the MD CCW permit rules.

    Unless you have a good reason (occupational or person defense) the CCW permit application is usually denied.  

    I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

    by Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 06:50:47 PM PDT

    •  That's interesting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mote Dai, WakeUpNeo

      How hard is it to get a Maryland gun permit for home or business? As opposed to getting a CCW permit?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:07:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent question (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

        The permitting law in MD for handguns just changed on Oct 1, 2013.  Now, you must get a "Handgun Qualifying License" for a handgun transfer (with some minor, but very important exceptions).  The HQL process is somewhat complicated and involves a training course, fingerprinting and multiple background checks.  I think it is good for five years.  I am not sure of the total cost once you add in the prints and permit fees.  

        One of the notable exceptions is for Curio and Relic firearms.  If the handgun is a C&R, then no HQL is required for the transfer (but a background check still is required).  There are many C&R semi-automatic handguns that will probably becoming a booming mini-industry within the state.  Handguns like the many flavors or the Com Bloc Tokarevs and Makarovs, P-64, CZ-82 (which are relatively modern handguns but are deemed Curios because of the octagonal rifling), M1911s models older than 50 years, WW2 Lugers, etc all are C&R handguns that do not require the HQL.  

        Someone that has a C&R Federal Firearms License (FFL) can still purchase C&R firearms (including handguns) online (outside of MD) and still have them shipped directly to their door.  No registration is required because the transfer occurred outside the State.

        I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

        by Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:55:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's very interesting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mote Dai, WakeUpNeo

          So any guns on the C&R list just got a boost in value?

          What is octagonal rifling? What was it good for? What kind of rifling replaced octagonal rifling?

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 08:23:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  C&R guns (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

            Well, I think the C&R handguns might get a small premium, but probably not much.  The 10-round magazine capacity transfer restriction is still applicable for C&R handguns, but many of them have mags of 6 to 10 rounds.  The CZ82 has a double-stacked mag that holds 12-rounds, but new 10-round mags are now available.  More than likely, there will be an increase in C&R FFL holders in the State and they will just buy the handguns online instead of in state.  It will bypass the HQL and registration requirements.

            Octagonal (polygonal) rifling is an alternative rifling technique that is distinct from the "lands and groove" method that many think of when imagining a rifled barrel.  If you look down a CZ82 barrel, it is sometimes hard to see the obvious rifling and it looks almost like a smooth bore.  

            So how did this relatively modern firearm become a C&R handgun?  Individuals are allowed to petition the ATF to add "curios" to the C&R list.  Someone requested that the CZ82 be added because of the rifling (or so goes the story) despite the fact that the handgun was made in the 1980s and is not over 50 years old.  Many of the CZ82s sold as surplus in the US were former police sidearms in the former Soviet Union.  They are becoming quite popular and people do carry them despite the frame thickness.

            I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

            by Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 08:50:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A word on the CZ-82 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              I bought one and was amazed at two things. First, the recoil was much more than expected: I knew the blowback system would be rougher, but I wasn't expecting that much kick for a 9X18 cartridge. Second was the amazing accuracy: with my first magazine, I managed to put shots right on top of each other close to bull's-eye. And this is with the stock sights... I am very curious what upgrading them would look like (modern CZ-75 sights, including night sights and fiber optics, apparently fit)

              I don't carry, but I can understand how someone would choose this as a carry weapon. It's small, accurate, and remarkably simple in design.

              •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

                Are there any diaries that discuss what's involved in shooting accurately? E.g. including the need to adjust the sites on a firearm for each new shooter.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 02:31:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            The C&R market is a diverse one. You can find cheap Moisin-Nagant rifles (~$150) to WW1 Colt 1911s worth thousands.

            Some firearms are more rare than others, and some have a distinct historical background that draws collectors (this is more the "relics" part of curios and relics). Plus there is always the question of how much surplus is out there.

            Going back to Moisin-Nagants, they are still very inexpensive purchases, but they used to be even cheaper. Still plenty in circulation, though, even with it being one of the first purchases a new C&R license holder usualy makes (I am one of the rare exceptions). Not too long ago, surplus FN Herstal Hi-Powers were all over the place (Israel's police offloaded a ton of them for resale), and I've seen a lot of CZ-82s up for sale lately (not sure about the background for the sudden upsurge). But finding an East German Makarov, for example, is a lot trickier (and pricier than the CZ-82).

            For the record, while federal law allows 03 FFL holders to receive C&R weapons directly, states can regulate the process more closely. In California, I can receive a C&R long arm directly, but a handgun must go through a 01 FFL with the attendant background check, safety demonstration, and exorbitant transfer fees.

            •  There is so much diversity in state law (0+ / 0-)

              especially w how handguns are regulated. Your comments suggest we may need a primer diary about FFLs, the different requirements for each kind of business.

              With universal background check laws, I've wondered why there couldn't simply be a new level of FFL solely for the purpose of background checks. Someone who would hold no inventory, make no repairs, etc,. no wholesale or retail sales.

              Instead, it would operate similar to a notary service, and for a nominal fee. The seller and buyer (or the gift giver and the gift recipient) would meet at the new FFL who would check id, residency, etc., run the background check, ensure state and federal laws are met, and keep the appropriate permanent records of the transfer.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 02:41:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  So, it's O.K. to defend money..... (4+ / 0-)

      but lives are meaningless.

      We used to castigate people who promoted that idea around here.

      But it seems to be just dandy when talking about guns and the Proletariat.

      Very sad.  

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 07:47:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  P.S. My apology for the late comments.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, oldpunk

      been busy lately, just now catching up on my reading.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 07:48:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A small group catching up on their dead threading? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      How does this happen? Person A drops a retort comment into a dead thread and it gets a bunch of immediate up rates very soon thereafter.  

      How do 5 different people just happen to stumble into the same diary that was published 9 days earlier? Can anyone of the up raters explain this phenomenon please?

      So, it's O.K. to defend money..... (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
          OMwordTHRUdaFOG, gerrilea, 43north, oldpunk
      but lives are meaningless.

      We used to castigate people who promoted that idea around here.
      But it seems to be just dandy when talking about guns and the Proletariat.
      Very sad.  
      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 07:47:30 AM PDT

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 12:44:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  for what it's worth (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        I was going through a backlog and couldn't resist jumping in on the short (but worthy of being expanded) C&R discussion. I think this is an area that a lot of people who don't own guns are unaware of (and a fair number of gun owners, too, for that matter).

        This is an area of gun ownership that allows for direct delivery of firearms without a background check. A 03 FFL holder can buy a C&R firearm from a private party online or in person without a background check or going through a 01 FFL holder. While states can put limits (e.g., California won't allow a handgun to be shipped directly to a 03 FFL), for the most part, you can buy a C&R firearm by simply providing a signed copy of the license and your ID to the seller, then have it shipped straight to your doorstep.

        That privilege comes at the cost of license fees (three year renewal period), the requirement to keep a bound book log of purchases and sales (this must include information on the buyer or seller, such as driver's license/state ID or FFL info), having your fingerprints on file with federal agencies, notifying your local law enforcement of your license, etc.

        •  Thanks andalusi (0+ / 0-)

          I too find the C&R part of the market to be fascinating.

          What's the best resource to understand the different levels of FFL more generally?

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 02:28:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  SCOTUSblog showing denied. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo, 43north

    Looks like the petition was denied?

    I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

    by Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:11:44 PM PDT

    •  Thank you - good catch! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mote Dai, WakeUpNeo

      This diary was originally written for publishing on Friday! It was my understanding that it would take 2 weeks before they decided, so I never thought to look for a decision  TODAY!

      I will update the diary. Thank you so much!

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:22:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Must have been updated very recently (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

        I think the decision was released this afternoon, but there hasn't really been much press about it.  I don't know why?  I guess maybe the shutdown news has drowned it out?

        I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

        by Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 07:57:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was pretty anti-climactic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WakeUpNeo

          to say the least, and I really appreciate that you were on the ball. It never occurred to me to check SCOTUS or the SCOTUS blog for an update today.

          The case is still worth studying and we will do at least 2 diaries on it after we review Heller and McDonald. One about the reasons given for the risk of handguns in public, and one going into detail about the 2-prong test.

          I edited the diary and the title.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 08:14:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look forward to reading the other posts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

            I am not surprised that the SC passed on this one.  I think the policy of "may issue" vs "shall issue" is fairly well-established in more than just Maryland.  Woollard no longer met the requirements and his application was denied.  CCW permits in Maryland aren't like tenure...once you have it you have it for life...it is re-evaluated upon renewal.  

            Maryland's other firearm-related laws are somewhat confusing because they generally regulate transfer of items, not possession.  For example, someone can own a magazine over 10-rounds, they just cannot buy or sell one in the State.  They cannot be shipped into the state, so they cannot be purchased online (unless sent disassembled as "parts").  BUT someone can drive out of state to purchase one in person and just bring it back across the state line.  And given the proximity to Virginia, it probably happens all the time.

            I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

            by Mote Dai on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 09:21:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The decision may have been affected by the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WakeUpNeo, LilithGardener

              circumstance that he had gotten a permit before when proving need, and that the refusal came on the third round when (it sounds like) he declined to fill in the blank concerning continuing need. And there are other permitted grounds for obtaining a CCW. So he is not in the position of having been flatly denied with no context, which may have put him a lot closer to the things Scalia in Heller said that a state could legitimately do.

              And leaving blanks in a mandatory form did not help his case, as you have to be able to show that the alleged wrong done you did not come from something you were supposed to do and didn't in the licensing process, as opposed to the pure denial arising not from the form but from the Second Amendment. Nobody gets permits when they don't comply with the fill in the blank rules. Nobody gets anything from licensing authorities  when they don't comply with the fill in the blank rules.

              •  That seems really simple & I think you're right (0+ / 0-)

                You might be right that it really is that simple.

                From the Woollard v. Sheridan decision

                In 2009, however, when Woollard again sought to renew his permit, he was informed that his request was incomplete. He was directed to submit evidence “to support apprehended fear (i.e. –copies of police reports for assaults, threats, harassments, stalking).” Letter from M. Cusimano, Handgun Permit Section Supervisor, to Robert Woollard (Feb. 2, 2009), Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, Docket No. 12-3. Because Woollard was unable to produce evidence of a current threat, his  application was denied.
                He appealed his decision through appropriate administrative channels and was denied again in November 12, 2009.

                His suit (Woollard v. Sheridan was filed many months later.

                On July 29, 2010, Woollard filed the instant suit, arguing that Maryland’s handgun  permitting scheme is facially violative of both the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He avers that, separate and apart from any concern he may have regarding Abbott, he wishes to wear and carry a handgun for general self-defense. [my undereline]
                My understanding of a facial challenge is that it's an assertion that he shouldn't have to offer any reason for expressing a constitutional right.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 09:39:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for another very educational diary. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, Oh Mary Oh

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site