Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Concealed Carry affect on Open Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1

    Concealed Carry affect on Open Carry

    I am somewhat new to following these forums as I was just recently brought to light on the ridiculous laws our state faces, when I decided I wanted to get a carry permit. I am a little confused as to the current laws for open carry. I fully understand the concealed carry laws and am thankful for the court's recent decision, but how does this affect Marylanders' rights to open carry?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    The MD PCH (Permit to Carry Handgun) has no caveate as to mode of carry. Don't expect the average knuckledragger back there to know that, particularly one in uniform. Especially brown uniforms. Due to the habit of referring to the 'permit' as a CCW by one and all. it's assumed (wrongly) that the permit is limited to concealed carry only. It is not. No 'law' will specify what you 'can' do... only what you can't.

    Don't exect to get a permit anytime soon just because Judge Lotte says you should.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    I did read the Maryland decision (a cursory overview). If upheld on appeal, the immediate effect on OC is the same as on CC. To do either, currently, you need the same pointless carry permit and that permission slip just got a bit easier to obtain in that you, the applicant, no longer will have to prove a need to carry for self-defense. Everything else that was difficult and convoluted about Maryland's draconian application process unfortunately remains intact.

    However, the Judge's opinion noted that technically OC is the right being protected (not CC). The Judge hinted that the Maryland legislature could keep a requirement that an applicant must prove his or her need to carry a concealed weapon, but only if the applicant did not have to do so with respect to open carry. But since the same permit is required to carry either way in Maryland, the State is no longer able to enforce this requirement (so CC gets a free ride).

    The Maryland legislature would have to create separate 'open carry' and 'concealed carry' permits if it wanted to keep the requirement that concealed carry permit applicants prove a need. But until then, so long as the only available permit covers both carry options, the law is now less restrictive for both OC and CC alike (assuming the decision is upheld on appeal).

    Forgive me if you're still confused. I just gave you the Cliff notes. I don't have the time to get into all the gritty details.

    The rest of the opinion was bad, because the Judge wrongly decided that 'bearing' of arms is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Apparently, 'keeping' arms is subject to strict scrutiny but 'bearing' is not, go figure!

    Intermediate scrutiny basically boils down to permits, licenses, and hoop-jumping being upheld as constitutional but otherwise the people get to exercise their 'privilege'.

    Strict scrutiny hopefully would mean that most (but unfortunately not all) of the 'mother may I have permission' crap will be struck down as unconstitutional. I.e the people will actually get to exercise a 'right' (small 'r' since undoubtedly 'shall not be infringed' won't entirely be true).
    Last edited by OC4me; 03-07-2012 at 10:57 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    There is no state law that prohibits open carry of a handgun in MD--if you have a "Maryland Permit to Carry a Handgun".

    However, many cities, municipalities and some counties have laws on the books that prohibit "public display of a firearm" which in effect makes OC illegal.

    State law says, however, that it is perfectly legal to transport a handgun in a "fully enclosed holster" (if you have a MD PCH) so TECHNICALLY, you COULD OC a handgun if it were in one of the old-style flap-top military-style holsters.

    Personally, I don't know if I'd want to be the test case on that one, because my guess is the lawsuit would have to be filed by my surviving relatives if I tried to carry that way--even with a permit in MD...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    There is no state law that prohibits open carry of a handgun in MD--if you have a "Maryland Permit to Carry a Handgun".

    However, many cities, municipalities and some counties have laws on the books that prohibit "public display of a firearm" which in effect makes OC illegal.

    State law says, however, that it is perfectly legal to transport a handgun in a "fully enclosed holster" (if you have a MD PCH) so TECHNICALLY, you COULD OC a handgun if it were in one of the old-style flap-top military-style holsters.

    Personally, I don't know if I'd want to be the test case on that one, because my guess is the lawsuit would have to be filed by my surviving relatives if I tried to carry that way--even with a permit in MD...
    I think there are some local ordinances to that effect... but they're difficult to find. It's for that reason that most people assume that CC is the ONLY means of carry. I wouldn't expect any cop to actually 'know'... and you'd prob'ly get shot on sight carrying a holstered pistol these days. MD's going to have a long hard row to hoe w/o full pre-emption of all these vassel locality ordinances. I suspect MSP is going to be particularly obstinant... at least 'til they're sued enough to back off and obey the actual 'law' themselves. I found they tended to make things up as they go... even when I was a cop.

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    It is my understanding after reading the ruling that if you were to go apply for a MD permit to carry, they could not refuse you. I know they are going to ask for an injunction to stay that until an appeal is heard, but I do not think they will get their injunction (Just my Opinion there)...either way, that all takes time.

    Anyway, My approach would be that as their law requiring a "cause" has been declared unconstitutional and not in forceable, now is the time to go put your paperwork in for a permit, and my attitude would be if they say we cannot issue a permit because we don't have a law...then they have just said they have gone to permitless carry.

    My problem is: I cannot quite figure out exactly how much of their firearms law has been declared unconstitutional. All? of the permit to carry....or only the "just cause" part.

  7. #7
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    The only part Judge Legg declared unconstitutional was the MSP policy based on SS 5-306 (5ii) requirement to provide "Good and sufficient" reason for the issuance of a permit. He simply ruled the 2A is all that is required for a reason, not some made up arbitrary one by the MSP.

    Look at 5ii of MD 5-306

    5ii of the code is what Judge Legg declared unconstitutional:

    Maryland Public Safety Section 5-306


    Article - Public Safety
    § 5-306. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds:

    (1) is an adult;

    (2) (i) has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor for which a sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year has been imposed; or

    (ii) if convicted of a crime described in item (i) of this item, has been pardoned or has been granted relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c);

    (3) has not been convicted of a crime involving the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance;

    (4) is not presently an alcoholic, addict, or habitual user of a controlled dangerous substance unless the habitual use of the controlled dangerous substance is under legitimate medical direction; and

    (5) based on an investigation:

    (i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and

    (ii) 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.

    (b) An applicant under the age of 30 years is qualified only if the Secretary finds that the applicant has not been:

    (1) committed to a detention, training, or correctional institution for juveniles for longer than 1 year after an adjudication of delinquency by a juvenile court; or

    (2) adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for:

    (i) an act that would be a crime of violence if committed by an adult;

    (ii) an act that would be a felony in this State if committed by an adult; or

    (iii) an act that would be a misdemeanor in this State that carries a statutory penalty of more than 2 years if committed by an adult.
    Last edited by swinokur; 03-14-2012 at 08:30 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    The only part Judge Legg declared unconstitutional was the MSP policy based on SS 5-306 (5ii) requirement to provide "Good and sufficient" reason for the issuance of a permit. He simply ruled the 2A is all that is required for a reason, not some made up arbitrary one by the MSP.

    Look at 5ii of MD 5-306

    5ii of the code is what Judge Legg declared unconstitutional:
    OK, Good, now go put in for your CPL and put down, "any legal purpose". They can't refuse you...if they do they should be in contempt of court, No?

  9. #9
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    That's exactly what I did. I put down "self defense and all legal purposes"

    we'll see if the stay is granted.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Also, I note that in both the statute AND the application form, there is no MD residency requirement, even though it says on the MSP website that you have to be a MD resident.

    So I guess non-residents can now apply too, because they can't be turned down for not being a resident (no statutory requirement) and they can't be denied a permit because being a non-resident no longer violates the arbitrary "G&SR" clause which has been ruled unconstitutional.

    Hmmm... I see a LOT of apps being submitted in the next few weeks, and a LOT of lawsuits being filed in the next few months when people are turned down in violation of the Courts rulings in Woolard.

    Things are going to get REALLY interesting in the MD courts and in Pikesville this summer...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  11. #11
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Also, I note that in both the statute AND the application form, there is no MD residency requirement, even though it says on the MSP website that you have to be a MD resident.

    So I guess non-residents can now apply too, because they can't be turned down for not being a resident (no statutory requirement) and they can't be denied a permit because being a non-resident no longer violates the arbitrary "G&SR" clause which has been ruled unconstitutional.

    Hmmm... I see a LOT of apps being submitted in the next few weeks, and a LOT of lawsuits being filed in the next few months when people are turned down in violation of the Courts rulings in Woolard.

    Things are going to get REALLY interesting in the MD courts and in Pikesville this summer...
    We're estimating that there have already been applications submitted exceeding 1000, just in the past week and a half (and that's just among a small sampling of handgun owners).

    Statewide, and among GenPop??? The flood could be staggering.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •