The issuance (or lack thereof) of HANDGUN PERMITS in the State of Maryland seems to be one of the most frustrating topics for our citizens. The problem arises from the requirement of a good and substantial reason. A requirement that was once overturned by a judge who deemed this requirement to be unconstitutional. I believe the court erred greatly when this decision was overturned. And, I base my opinion on personal experience. What is, Good and substantial? When I was assigned as the Commander of the Maryland State Police Licensing Division, I could not find one person that could give me a consistent and reasonable definition or explanation of what, “Good and substantial” is. The closest explanation I could get was from a trooper that claimed to base his decisions on established case law, primarily referring to Snowden v. State of Maryland. He would measure all of his decisions based upon on a quote in the Snowden case, “An apprehended fear of danger is more than one’s personal anxiety.” (See Carl Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. April 17, 1980) I would also be referred to another relevant court opinion; Scherr v. State of Maryland. In this case, the Department of State Police denied the applicant’s permit to carry a handgun because the applicant’s “level of threat and/or danger” was not any greater than that of an ordinary citizen. In the Scherr decision the court would also refer to the previous decision inn Snowden. (See Robert Scherr v. State of Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, in the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland, 2004) If you review Maryland law closely, as well the decision in Snowden v. State of Maryland, you will see that nothing requires an applicant to show that his level of threat and/or danger needs to be GREATER than an ordinary citizen. Rather, in the decision of Snowden v. State of Maryland, the court determined that an individual must have a need for a “reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” And that danger must be more than one’s PERSONAL anxiety or fear. It does not say that anxiety or fear needs to be GREATER than another citizen’s fear. During the handgun permit review board hearing for Scherr, he represented himself. The following exchange occurred with Detective Sergeant Galloway of the Maryland State Police; Q [MR. SCHERR] What is your criteria to determine whether a person has a good or substantial reason to carry a handgun? A Whether or not that person’s level of danger warrants the issuance of a Handgun Permit. Q What is an acceptable level of danger, and what is not an acceptable level of danger? A An acceptable level of danger is that which is more than the average person would expect to encounter. Unacceptable would be anything other than that. And we require that you have police reports to substantiate that, because often, people come to us and say that they’ve been involved in activities or have been threatened and assaulted, when it never occurred. And the only way for us to know that it actually did occur is whether or not there’s been something to substantiate it, reports of witnesses, something, other than the person just coming to me and saying, you know, I was threatened, I was assaulted. Q All right. So what you’re testifying to is that an acceptable level of danger to you, which would merit your issuing a permit, would be, I think you said more than the average person would encounter? A Yes. Q What would the average person encounter, in your mind? I’m just trying to figure out what all your, what your standards are. You said that an acceptable level of danger to get a permit would be more than the average person would encounter. I’m asking you, what is the standard that an average person would encounter, so that I can determine what’s more and what’s less? A There is no definitive standard. I look at that, and I interpret that as meaning more than someone saying, “I’m going to harm you,” or someone bumping into you or someone making gestures, that we all encounter every day. You’re at the supermarket, and someone bumps into you and gives you the evil stare. We all encounter that from time to time. Someone cuts you off on the road. We all have encountered that. Verbal arguments between people. We all encounter that. We all have, and we all will. But there is no definitive standard that I’m aware of. We have to use good judgment. Q So your testimony, then, is that the definite – you have indicated that an acceptable level of danger to you, which would then – based on that, you would then issue a permit. That is more than what – you said, is more than an average person would encounter. That phrase is your own . . . A Yes. Q . . . thinking, right? A Uh-huh. Q In other words, for lack of a better word, you made that up? A Yes. Is you fear of apprehended danger more than your own personal anxiety? I would argue that thousands of Marylanders have a fear of apprehended danger when traveling into high crime areas of our cities. I believe that SHARED fear is more than ones own personal anxiety. My efforts to change the way good and substantial is evaluated was quickly halted...obviously for political reasons. Please share this information. This process of arbitrary approvals needs to be challenged.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:52:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015