Maryland: "Md. Police: Disabled Man Has 'No Good Reason' For Handgun"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuchulainn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200301\NAT20030120a.html

Md. Police: Disabled Man Has 'No Good Reason' For Handgun

By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
January 20, 2003

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The State of Maryland has denied a physically disabled citizen a permit to carry a concealed handgun because he does not have a "good and substantial reason" to be armed.

Dan Sullivan worked as an emergency trauma nurse before muscular dystrophy severely limited the use of his legs. He can now walk only with the assistance of two canes.

What Sullivan calls his "visually obvious physical disability" makes him an attractive target for criminals, he believes. It also makes it almost impossible for him to flee or physically defend himself from an assault. Despite those facts, Sullivan was denied a concealed handgun permit by the Maryland State Police.

"Maybe I need to go get a prescription at night, and I'm leery about going out at night because I can't run away from the criminals," Sullivan explained. "The elected officials seem to have very little concern for the safety of the disabled, you know. We're not a real concern to them."

Police in Maryland require that concealed handgun permit applicants who seek the permit for personal protection provide "documented evidence of recent threats and/or assaults, supported by police reports and/or notarized statements."

Erich Pratt, spokesman for Gun Owners of America, called the requirement "ridiculous."

"People may die getting all of this documentation," Pratt said. "That's just crazy."

Sullivan said the prerequisite led him to ask state officials what he believed was an obvious question.

"Exactly what type and how many threats and assaults have to be endured before one would qualify?" he asked.

The state police licensing division told Sullivan he could appeal its determination to the Handgun Permit Review Board, which he has done. Two Maryland politicians were somewhat more responsive to Sullivan's inquiry.

"It is disturbing to think there are citizens who feel that they have to remain confined in their homes because it is not safe to be on the street," wrote Maryland Senate President Mike Miller (D). "However, I am not sure that carrying a weapon is the solution to that problem."

Miller offered no alternative solution, other than to refer Sullivan's letter to someone else. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D), who lost her bid for governor in November 2002, agreed with Miller on both counts.

"It is disturbing that some of our disabled citizens fear they will be attacked because of their disability if they leave their homes," Townsend wrote. "But I also agree with Senator Miller that allowing these same citizens to carry concealed weapons simply because they are disabled is not the answer to the problem."

Pratt was appalled at both letters.

"How callous for people who have police protection themselves throughout most of the day to say to an average citizen, 'You don't need to have a gun to defend yourself,'" he said.

"These would be atrocious letters written to anybody, but it's made worse by the fact that here's a guy who can barely walk," Pratt continued. "To tell him that he can't protect himself basically says that he will have to stay at home."

But Pratt added that, based on the vehement anti-Second Amendment records of both Townsend and Miller, he's not surprised by the content of the letters.

"It's elitist. It's callous. And obviously," Pratt concluded, "it's written by people who don't care whether this man lives or dies."

CNSNews.com asked Maryland Assistant Attorney General Mark Bowen, who works with the state police, to explain the criteria to meet the requirement that a citizen have a "good and substantial reason" to obtain a concealed handgun permit.

"To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any," Bowen said. "It turns out to be whatever's accepted by the Handgun Review Board as acceptable. And again, there is no specific list of what that constitutes."

Sullivan said he feels caught between the criminals and the police, an uncomfortable place to be in a state with one of the highest violent crime rates in the country.

"The police aren't responsible for our safety," Sullivan said, referring to both Maryland and U.S. Supreme Court decisions that police cannot be sued for failing to protect a citizen from criminals. "Yet the state is denying us our own ability to protect and defend ourselves. I think that's a significant problem."

The Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board will review Sullivan's application appeal Feb. 5.

All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2003 Cybercast News Service.
 
The State of Maryland has denied a physically disabled citizen a permit to carry a concealed handgun because he does not have a "good and substantial reason" to be armed.

...other than that whole "right" thing, that is. :banghead:
 
CNSNews.com asked Maryland Assistant Attorney General Mark Bowen, who works with the state police, to explain the criteria to meet the requirement that a citizen have a "good and substantial reason" to obtain a concealed handgun permit.

"To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any," Bowen said. "It turns out to be whatever's accepted by the Handgun Review Board as acceptable. And again, there is no specific list of what that constitutes."

If there are no written requirements, then the HRB can arbitrarily
decide who can exercise their rights. I wonder if the members of this board are elected or are the appointed? If they are appointed, by say an extremely anti-gun governor, I would imagine that the decisions are most likely based on the applicants political contributions, or someother equally important qualification, NOT if the applicant actually had a reason like Mr. Sullivan.
 
Just another indication that your rights will only be there for you if you're willing to fight for them.
 
Take the idiot that denied his permit, break both of that clown's ankles, take away his carry weapons, and see how long it is before he gets "rolled" by the bad guys.

Not too long, I would guess. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Anyone that denies protection to the "average Jon/Jane Q Citizen" should be made to deliver pizzas on the evening/night shift for 90 nights somewhere really good, Like Chikago, ILL or maybe even DC. UNARMED Delivery.
 
Yet another case where the public servants think they're noblemen. What a sick case.
 
"How callous for people who have police protection themselves throughout most of the day to say to an average citizen, 'You don't need to have a gun to defend yourself,'" he said.

When will the people in this country wake up and realize that they are mere subjects, that their individual lives mean nothing to the powers that be, and that the only protection an average Joe can depend on is that afforded to himself.

Folks if they can deny you the right to protect your own life, TIME IS RUNNING OUT IF IT IS NOT ALREADY TO LATE.:cuss:
 
I hope Ehrlich puts a stop to this bullsh*t.

This is why, folks, shall-issue needs to be the law of the land, either that or Vermont style carry.

Not to make light of this, but in the paste, local law enforcement have been known to deny renewals to gay people who had permits but were outed during the permit term. Oh, they'll deny it for other BS reasons, but it leaves people like me in a lurch, and so would people like the unfortunate soul in this article.
 
Seems to be that his handicap was the only reason given for not obtaining the permit; at least no other reason was cited except the board's not seeing why he did need one. Given that, don't the anti-discrimination laws say that you cannot be discriminated against because of a physical handicap? I'd like to see them open a can of worms in MD like Jim March did in Cali about the arbitrariness of gun boards and how and who they give permits to.
 
Dang! That makes me so mad I don't even know what to say about it! That's just straight up wrong.

bluboomteamenforcer.gif
 
The thing about this story that is truly amazing is that some people out there still do not realize the potential for great mischief and harm that comes from allowing bureaucrats and political appointees the final decision on what might well be LIFE AND DEATH QUESTIONS.

As for the offerings of State Senator Miller and Ms. Kennedy, lets see what happens if they were dropped off in a bad neighborhood, unarmed and divested of their police protection, which the ordinary citizen lacks anyhow. Let's listen for their protests, and cries. Let's then see how badly they "need" to carry concealed arms. I believe that I can hear their doubletalk, their doublethink, from where I sit, which isn't real close to Maryland.
 
The "elite" of this country are so far removed from the day-to-day lives of the people that they "govern" that they really believe this bull:cuss: that they spew out on a daily basis.

Any student of history will know that the time is getting short until the next revolution is due.
 
Now this may be an appropriate ADA lawsuit. I hope he files one and wins.

The ADA has been too long misused by the obese and their ilk to gain "rights" they don't deserve. This guy has been denied a right based on his disability and that is perfect for an ADA action.
 
I'm hardly a radical...but there comes a time when you simply do what you have to do. When the state no longer protects you, and forbids you to protect yourself, it is time to ignore the state.
 
Getting shall issue CCW in Md. will be an uphill battle. This argument can be reframed as the Politicians not trusting the citizens of Md. with carry guns. The border states of Virgina, Penn. and West Virginia all have better CCW laws. Ask the politicians if the People of Md. are to irresponsible to have shall issue, are we too ignorant unlike the citizens of 32 other states? Do they think that shall issue will cause blood in the streets and road rage shootings in Md. unlike 32 other states. Do you elitest SOB's think that little of the citizens of Md? Al in Md
 
Ehrlich is on record as not being comfortable with CCW, I strongly suspect that he will ultimately prove to be a disappointment for gun owners, to say the least.

Shall issue CCW in MD is a long way off, and yes, it makes me angry to think that people are going about completely unprotected from the animals that roam the East of the state.

From what I gather talking to fellow gun owners here, a significant number carry anyway, and say screw the politicians.

That's what happens when people perceive laws as unjust.

Newton
 
I'd say an ADA suit is in order.

And, if the state has no defined criteria, it's a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

Sue. Sue again. Sue more. Bury them in lawsuits until they get the hint.

Hey, they're doing it to us, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top