Gun Crimes

Published on: June 23, 2023

Ten Indicted after Massive Anne Arundel County Drug Bust

Anne Arundel County Police recently executed the largest cocaine bust in their history, and now ten adults have been indicted in a drug conspiracy that spanned multiple jurisdictions over the past year. The investigation picked up steam last summer after multiple alleged drug traffickers were identified by law enforcement. Police observed dozens of controlled drug transactions, likely through the use of confidential informants, and were also successful in obtaining a warrant for a wiretap. This information led to the execution of search warrants in Glen Burnie, Severn and Baltimore City that yielded cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, MDMA, marijuana and 21 handguns. Two of the handguns were reported as stolen and one of the guns was a homemade ghost gun. Most of the search warrants were executed back in the Summer and Fall of 2022, but the investigation into the source of supply continued until the aforementioned cocaine bust.

Working alongside the DEA, Anne Arundel County officers turned their focus to one individual they believed was supplying the mid-level dealers. This suspect, a 42-year-old man from Glen Burnie, was allegedly importing large amounts of CDS into Maryland through his shipping business. Law enforcement ultimately learned that the suspect was hiding illegal drugs within automobiles that were shipped to the state on car carriers. Back in April police intercepted a vehicle they had probable cause to believe contained CDS, and after searching it found 17 kilograms of cocaine sewn into the seat cushions. The defendant, who is currently on probation for a drug offense, was arrested on the same day of the drug bust and charged with various felonies by way of statement of charges. The other defendants were not charged until the indictment became unsealed in June. It appears that most were issued summonses to appear in court, while the main defendant is still being held at the Anne Arundel County Detention Center.

The main defendant has been charged with a violation of the Maryland Drug Kingpin law, which provides significantly higher penalties for organizers, supervisors, financers or managers who participate in a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute or transport CDS in Maryland. This offense, criminal law section 5-613, carries a 40-year maximum penalty and a $1,000,000 fine. The real bite of the law comes in the form of a 20-year mandatory sentence that cannot be suspended. This mandatory minimum is only surpassed by the mandatory life sentence associated with first degree murder. The alleged organizer was also charged with CDS importation, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison under criminal law section 5-614 and with CDS possession of a large amount. Large amount possession still carries a 5-year mandatory sentence for those convicted of possessing more than 448 grams of cocaine, 50 pounds of marijuana, 28 grams of heroin or 5 grams of fentanyl.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 5, 2023

Two Virginia Men Arrested in St. Mary’s County on Gun Charges

By Benjamin Herbst

Deputy Sheriffs recently arrested two Virginia men for gun possession in Saint Mary’s County. After being booked on the misdemeanor gun charges, the pair were taken before a District Court Commissioner and both were released on a $5,000 unsecured bond. This type of bondwould only become due in the event of a failure to appear in court. The arrest occurred after a traffic stop in Lexington Park that was initiated after a Deputy observed an alleged equipment violation. According to the report, the stopping Deputy immediately noticed a firearm wedged between the passenger seat and the center console upon approaching the vehicle. After the occupants were ordered out of the vehicle and detained a more thorough probable cause search was performed. Deputies recovered one .40 caliber Glock handgun with an extended magazine from the aforementioned location by the passenger seat. Another magazine was recovered in the passenger door compartment, and both the magazine and the Glock were loaded with live rounds. Police also recovered a .22 caliber handgun in a bookbag on the passenger floorboard. This gun was unloaded, but the bag also contained two .22 caliber magazines that were loaded with live ammunition.

The 32-year-old driver was charged with one count of handgun in vehicle, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison and a $2,500 fine. The driver was charged under the same Maryland law that prohibits wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun. This law, section 4-203 of the weapons crime title, also carries a 30-day mandatory sentence, but the mandatory is seldomly imposed. In order for the State to even request the mandatory sentence it must file notice on the defense at least 30 days before trial. Additionally, the judge can circumvent the mandatory sentence by granting probation before judgment, as the mandatory only applies upon conviction. The passenger of the vehicle was charged with one count of handgun in vehicle for the same firearm as the driver, and another count of loaded handgun in vehicle for the Glock that was recovered within his reach. Loaded handgun in vehicle carries the same maximum penalty as handgun in vehicle, but could result in more significant penalties for repeat offenders. In fact, a person convicted of possessing a loaded handgun after having a prior handgun conviction faces a 5-year mandatory sentence.

As a result of the passenger and driver being charged with misdemeanor offenses, it is safe to assume that they have no prior convictions for crimes of violence or felonies. With these convictions, both would have been classified as prohibited persons, and thus subject to a 5-year mandatory prison sentence under the Maryland Public Safety code. They also would likely have been held without bail by the District Court judge instead of being granted unsecured bail. This case brings up a recurring issue that the Blog has been the topic of prior posts. Maryland has some of the toughest gun laws in the region, and out-of-state residents from states such as Virginia, North Carolina and Florida often fall victim to these tough laws. For example, Virginia is an open carry state that allows drivers to transport a gun without a permit as long as they are not prohibited from possessing a gun. The firearm can be loaded, and the only requirement is that it must be placed in a container or a case such as the glove compartment or center console. The container does not have to be locked. While the two individuals arrested in Lexington Park were not in strict compliance with Virginia law because the guns were not stored in a latched container or case, they realistically may have thought their actions were legal. One would think the passenger would have made an attempt to conceal the handgun from plain view of the Deputy Sheriff if he thought he was breaking the law.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 12, 2023

Multiple Gun Bills Approved by General Assembly

By Benjamin Herbst

The House and Senate approved Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 824, and both will almost certainly become law on October 1, 2023. House Bill 824 did not receive much fanfare, but will further tighten Maryland’s already strict gun laws. The Bill, which was introduced by a Delegate who also serves as an Assistant State’s Attorney in Anne Arundel County, expands prohibitions on regulated firearm possession under the Public Safety Code. Starting in the Fall anyone who is one supervised probation for an offense that carries a maximum penalty of 1 year or more in jail will not be able to possess a firearm. The new prohibition also includes those on probation for DUI or DWI under the §21-902 (a) and (b) of the Transportation Article. Defendants on probation for violating a protective order would also be prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm. This provision only applies to individuals who are placed on supervised probation after being convicted, which means that those granted probation before judgment would not be subject to a charge under the Public Safety Code for possessing a firearm while on probation. It is important to remember that those on supervised probation are typically prohibited from possessing firearms unless a judge specifically allows it. This is standard condition of probation in Maryland, though a violation would be considered a technical probation violation and not a new offense. Technical violations of probation carry a presumptive maximum penalty of 15 days in jail, while a violation of this new provision in the Public Safety Code would be a misdemeanor with a 5-year maximum penalty.

House Bill 824 also prohibits a person from obtaining a Maryland wear and carry license if he or she has been convicted of a violation of criminal law section 4-104, which prohibits storing or leaving a loaded firearm in a place where an unsupervised minor could gain access to the firearm, and an injury or death resulted. If there was no injury the prohibition would only extend to a person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this provision. Offenders who receive a conviction for child’s access to firearms after October 1, 2023 will have to wait five years from the date of the conviction to apply for a handgun permit. The bill also raised the permit fee to $125, up from $75.

Senate Bill 1 received most of the media attention, and will likely continue to create news headlines after it becomes law in October. We wrote about this bill previously, and the version that passed the General Assembly was not substantially altered from our last post. This law will have major restrictions on where licensed individuals can possess firearms, including prohibiting possession at schools, concerts, sporting events, organized youth and adult sports leagues and state government buildings. A violation under this new law would result in a misdemeanor that carries up to 90 days in jail for a first offense, and up to 15 months for each violation thereafter. Firearm possession is already illegal in federal facilities and buildings in Maryland under federal law regardless if a person holds a Maryland concealed carry permit.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 15, 2023

Controversial Gun Bill Passes Senate

By Benjamin Herbst

Senate Bill 1 sparked heated debate when it was first introduced at the beginning of the 2023 Maryland Legislative Session. The debate was heated for good reason, as the bill originally proposed massive restrictions on where a licensed individual could possess a firearm. We were skeptical from the outset about some of the bill’s language, which included banning all otherwise legally owned and possessed firearms within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation. The phrase public accommodation included basically all public indoor spaces such as restaurants, stores and shopping centers, and even included outdoor spaces where people gather to eat, shop or be entertained. Possession of a lawfully owned firearm would have also been prohibited at hotels and inns under the original proposal. The overly broad language in the first proposal would have never stood a chance at surviving constitutional challenges, and enforcement would have been a nightmare even if it did temporarily become law. As such, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee did its job and drastically modified the bill in order to give it a shot of passing Constitutional scrutiny, and as of this week the bill has officially been approved in the Senate.

The revised version of Senate Bill 1 has several new restrictions that take the place of the original public accommodation language in the first draft of the bill. If the current SB 1 becomes law, holders of a Maryland wear and carry permit would be prohibited from carrying in an area for children or vulnerable individuals. This section would apply to daycares and public or private secondary schools, youth camps, health care facilities and shelters for runaway youth. The proposal would also prohibit firearm possession in Government or Public Infrastructure areas, which include buildings owned or leased by the state or local government, college or university buildings, polling sites and electrical plants or storage facilities. Additionally, the bill prohibits firearms at organized sporting or athletic activities between three or more individuals competing in the same league. One of the broadest prohibitions would concern Special Purpose Areas, which include locations licensed to sell or dispense alcohol or cannabis for on-site consumption, and thus guns at bars would be outlawed. Special purpose also includes stadiums, museums, live theater performances and concerts where the audience is required to pay or possess an admission ticket, fairs, carnivals, racetracks and video lottery facilities.

Law enforcement officers, active-duty military, correctional officers and even ROTC members are mostly excluded from these prohibitions, and not subject to the potential penalties that would include up to 90 days in jail and a $3,000 fine for a first offense and up to 15 months in prison and a $7,500 fine for subsequent violations. Anyone who violates this law with the intent to injure another person faces the same 15-month penalty in addition to any other criminal violation found to have occurred. There is also a provision in the bill that prohibits an individual from trespassing on another person’s property with a firearm after being warned that firearms are not allowed on the property. Such a violation could bring misdemeanor charges that carry up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 8, 2023

New Gun Bill Sparks Heated Debate

By Benjamin Herbst

Nearly eight months ago the Supreme Court ruled that the carrying a handgun in public is a constitutional right protected by the Second Amendment. In fashioning this ruling, the court declared that state and local governments shall issue concealed carry permits to qualified individuals who can satisfy objective requirements such as background checks and completion of gun safety courses. The flip side is that the court did away with laws that gave state and local governments the ability to arbitrarily decide who may receive a concealed carry permit. These “may issue” laws required a person to prove to the government that they were worthy of a permit, and denials were routinely handed out without further explanation.

Maryland was once a “may issue” state that required residents to prove a good and substantial reason to carry a gun, but since June the State Police has been ordered to issue permits to all qualified applicants. Since the ruling there have been upwards of 80,000 concealed carry applications compared to 12,000 in all of 2021. The spike in applications has been a major source of concern for some lawmakers in Annapolis who are now attempting to chip away at the Supreme Court’s ruling. Citing the exponential rise in gun violence and a suspected connection between an increase in legal gun purchasing with an increase in illegal guns on the street, so called public safety advocates have sponsored a bill that would restrict where a licensed individual can carry a firearm. Senate Bill 1, which was debated this week, would criminalize the possession of a firearm within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation. This new misdemeanor offense would carry a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail, and apply to all citizens regardless of permit status. The new law would be codified under 4-111 and 4-112 of the criminal law article, rather than the Maryland public safety code where many gun laws are listed.

The obvious question is how the legislature will attempt to define “place of public accommodation”, as the law rests entirely on this arbitrary definition. As of now the definition of public accommodation includes inns, hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, sports arenas, concert halls and all other entertainment venues. It would also include all retail establishments that offer goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation. Basically, the bills authors tried to include all public indoor spaces and outdoor spaces where people gather to eat, shop or be entertained. Anyone with time to kill could probably think of a place that the authors missed, but the definition seems comprehensive. It might be more productive to think of the places that were left out, as the main ones appear to be parks and anywhere a person is in transit such as driving on a highway or walking down a sidewalk. On the other hand, the provision that you cannot be within 100 feet of one of these establishments will create a host of issues. You could hypothetically be breaking the law if you have your legal firearm in your vehicle while driving past a store, going to pick up food at and even walking down the sidewalk. For this reason, the law as written stands very little chance of hitting the governor’s desk. Regardless, gun rights advocates showed up in force in Annapolis this week to protest, and the protests will only grow stronger if the law progresses.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 16, 2022

Teen Arrested in Ocean City Carjacking Appears in Court

By Benjamin Herbst

Four Baltimore teenagers and a 12-year-old were recently arrested in Ocean City for an armed carjacking that resulted in the victim being taken to the hospital. In addition to being charged with multiple felonies including carjacking, armed robbery and motor vehicle theft, the 19-year-old defendant was also charged with 13 traffic infractions including attempting to elude a uniformed officer by fleeing on foot and reckless driving. The criminal and traffic infractions were scheduled for preliminary hearing today in the Ocean City District Court, but the hearing was waived. The State will now decide which charges to file in the Circuit Court for Worcester County in Snow Hill. According to reports, police responded to the scene of the robbery where a 73-year-old victim advised he had been approached by three young men in Downtown Ocean City. One of the men brandished a handgun and pointed it at the victim while demanding items. The male with the handgun then hit the victim in the back of the head with the gun and drove off with the vehicle.

Officers in the area spotted the stolen vehicle at a convenience store a few blocks away and attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but the driver took off. Two other stolen vehicles fled the scene as well, and all were tracked by law enforcement. One of the stolen vehicles attempted to flee town using the Route 50 bridge, but police were able to disable the vehicle using stop sticks in West Ocean City. This 19-year-old suspect then attempted to run from police but was apprehended by Worcester County Sheriff’s Deputies before being handed back over to the OCPD. The carjacked vehicle was located a short time later in Wicomico County, and its 15-year-old driver was arrested and charged as a juvenile. The third stolen vehicle made it the furthest before crashing in Dorchester County and then catching fire. Three juvenile defendants were arrested after attempting to flee on foot. One of the juvenile defendants in the third vehicle was in possession of a stolen handgun. This defendant was 17 and charged as an adult in Dorchester County with similar charges as the 19-year-old defendant, but with additional charges for possession of a firearm by a minor, possession of ammunition and possession of a stolen firearm. The juvenile court does not have original jurisdiction over violent crimes and gun offense when the defendant is 16 or 17. Rather, these cases will be sent directly to adult court and would only be transferred back to juvenile court if a judge grants what is known as a reverse waiver. The two youngest defendants, ages 12 and 14, were charged and released to their parents by police. Further investigation revealed that numerous vehicles had been broken into that evening in Downtown Ocean City, and a handgun was stolen out of one of them.

The Blog will continue to follow the adult defendant’s case, and may post a follow up article when there is a resolution in the Circuit Court. All juvenile cases are sealed from public view, so we will not be able to follow up on the three youngest defendants. Although the 17-year-old defendant was charged as an adult, his case is also shielded from public view due to the fact that he is a juvenile. Shielding adult cases is a new policy in Maryland, which assures that the privacy of juvenile defendants is protected. This is especially important due to the high percentage of cases that are waived back down to juvenile court, where a defendant or respondent receives the benefit of privacy from the beginning. If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime, contact Maryland juvenile criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin has successfully defended dozens of juveniles charged with some of the most serious offenses including carjacking, armed robbery, motor vehicle theft, and firearm possession. He specializes in gun crimes in Maryland Eastern Shore locations such as Worcester County, Wicomico County and Dorchester County, and also handles drug and DUI charges in Ocean City. Call Benjamin anytime at 410-207-2598 for a free consultation about your case.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 2, 2022

Two Juveniles Arrested in Glen Burnie Gun Shop Burglary

By Benjamin Herbst

Anne Arundel County Police recently arrested two teenagers ages 14 and 16 for attempting to steal firearms from a Glen Burnie gun store. Just before 4 a.m. in the morning police observed a white Ford van that crashed into the gun shop, and soon thereafter located two juvenile suspects in the process of stealing firearms from the store’s gun cases. The juveniles were arrested without further incident and charged with multiple criminal offenses, and could be facing more charges according to media reports. Police learned that the van in question was also involved in an attempted burglary in Pasadena earlier in the night. Two other gun stores, including one in Anne Arundel County and one in Montgomery County, were also recently burglarized over the last couple of weeks and suspects had not been apprehended and charged at the time of this latest incident. The Montgomery County burglary occurred on the night of Thanksgiving, just after midnight. According to police this incident involved five or six individuals who rammed a stolen black sedan into the front of the gun shop, and then fled the scene with multiple firearms. The same store was unsuccessfully targeted just one week prior.

The ATF is investigating all of these burglaries to see if there is any connection, and federal charges would likely follow if any of the thieves turn out to be adults. Juveniles can be prosecuted at the federal level, but state prosecutions are far more common even in crimes that could be charged federally. Theft of a gun from the premises of a licensed firearms dealer is punishable under 18 U.S.C. section 842(h), and a violation of this law carries up to 10 years in prison. The logic behind making this a federal crime is that all firearms dealers must have a FFL or Federal Firearms License that is issued by the ATF. The feds must approve anyone who chooses to sell, import or manufacture guns, so stealing from one of these licensees was established as a federal crime. This is akin to bank robbery being a federal crime due to almost all banks being insured by the FDIC.

The exact charges in the Anne Arundel County case have not been announced publicly, as all juvenile cases and adult charges involving juvenile defendants are sealed from public view and inspection. This was not always the case, as until recently juveniles that were charged as adults had their cases entered on Maryland judiciary case search, which is easily accessible to the public. This has been a source of contention for the criminal defense community, as many of these charges ended up being dismissed or transferred to juvenile court after the damage of public knowledge was already done. Thankfully, changes occurred that now protect juvenile defendants. In addition, recent case law from the Maryland’s highest court has moved the needle in favor of transfer if there is any possibility of the juvenile benefiting from programs or services provided by DJS.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 19, 2022

Two Baltimore Men Guilty of Firearm Possession in School Zone

By Benjamin Herbst

One Baltimore man was sentenced and another recently pleaded guilty to the federal charge of illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone. Both cases were prosecuted at the Baltimore City federal courthouse, and both defendants were originally chaeged in state court before the feds took over. The first defendant, a 22-year-old man, was arrested back in March of 2021 for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and firearm charges. Law enforcement including the DEA recovered multiple firearms and upwards of 6 kilograms of fentanyl from a Pikesville stash house that was tied to the defendant. The defendant’s case was transferred from the District Court to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, but then was dismissed after the feds decided to prosecute. There is rarely one specific reason why the feds choose to pick up a state case, but when a defendant is arrested in the city with a combination of fentanyl and firearms its certainly going to attract their attention. Federal prosecutors have been focusing on fentanyl cases in the Baltimore and D.C. metro areas over the last couple of years, and had already been heavily involved in prosecuting illegal firearm possession. Any time both are present there is a good chance the case will be picked up by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. In this particular case the young man received a 9-year federal prison sentence for illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, which means he will likely serve close to 8 years behind bars. There is no parole in the federal criminal justice system, so early release can only be granted based on the defendant’s conduct and the availability of re-entry programs.

Shortly after the first defendant was sentenced, another Baltimore man pleaded guilty to the sole charge of illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone. This defendant, a 31-year-old man, was apparently riding around the city on his bicycle with a construction hat, orange safety vest and a loaded .40 caliber handgun sticking out of his waistband. A call for a potentially armed man was made to Baltimore Police, who were able to locate the suspect on city watch CCTV cameras a short time later. Officers then stopped the suspect for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk, which is violates a city ordinance. The man then allegedly tried to flee but was found a short time later knocking on the door of a random house. Upon detaining the suspect, police located the .40 handgun, which had an obliterated serial number and 15 rounds of ammunition. The suspect then uttered several spontaneous statements claiming ownership of the firearm. This case could easily have been prosecuted by the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, but the feds likely picked up the case due to the defendant’s proximity to a school upon his arrest. The Gun Fee School Zones Act of 1990 made it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, and despite being modified several times over the last few decades, the law is still very much intact. Violation of this provision is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison, which is significantly harsher than the 3-year penalty for wear, transport or carry a firearm under Maryland law. The defendant in this case negotiated a plea deal to serve two years in prison, so he is likely not a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The Blog will continue to follow all noteworthy drug and gun cases in Maryland, and will post on federal prosecution of traditional state charges. If you or a loved one is facing adult or juvenile criminal charges contact Maryland gun lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation at 410-207-2598. Benjamin specializes in charges involving possession with intent to distribute CDS such as heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and marijuana. He also has extensive experience defending clients facing probation violations and gun charges such as possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a firearm in a federal facility. Contact Benjamin today to learn what defenses may be available in your state or federal case. Benjamin is also licensed to practice in Florida, where he has successfully defended clients in numerous offenses such as drug trafficking, carrying a concealed firearm and aggravated assault.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 7, 2022

Montgomery County Police Arrest Suspect in 1971 Murder

By Benjamin Herbst

In October of 1971 an off-duty Montgomery County Police Captain was shot while working as a security guard. Law enforcement arrived at the scene shortly after the shooting, but the officer succumbed to his injuries three days after being shot. Numerous suspects were interviewed, but no arrests were made and the case had remained cold for decades. Last October marked the 50^th anniversary of the homicide, and police detectives decided to take a fresh look at the case in hopes that a new set of eyes could finally bring justice to the family of the fallen officer. After reviewing the voluminous files and hours of recordings, the detectives honed in on a then 19-year-old witness who had given a statement to police shortly after the shooting, but had never been labeled as a suspect. A recording of this witness’ interview with police was sent to the FBI where technicians were able to convert the old tape into a digital format. The digital recording was clear enough for detectives to determine that the witness knew more about the incident than was possible- unless he was involved in the shooting. This witness also had a criminal record, lived near the scene of the crime and subsequently changed his name. Detectives then spent weeks trying to track the witness down, and finally located him living and allegedly quiet life in Upstate New York.

Montgomery County homicide detectives traveled to New York to attempt to interview the witness, and left with a confession to the 51-year-old shooting. The witness turned defendant, who is now 70 years old, apparently admitted to detectives that he was committing a burglary in the area, when the off-duty police captain intervened as he was attempting to flee in a getaway vehicle. The defendant claimed the shooting was accidental, but nonetheless detectives immediately applied for an arrest warrant for first-degree murder. An arrest warrant was issued that same day, and the defendant was taken into custody in New York. He was officially served with the warrant upon arrival at the Montgomery County Detention Center one week later. He was denied bail by a District Court Commissioner at his initial appearance, and again by a District Court Judge at his bail review. A preliminary hearing is set for this Friday, but the defendant will almost certainly be charged in the Circuit Court.

This case brings up a host of interesting legal issues. One involves the statute of limitations, which under Maryland law varies greatly depending on the crime. Almost all felonies including murder, first-degree assault and robbery have no statute of limitations, and the state could prosecute at any time. Many misdemeanors have a 1-year statute of limitations, but there is no limit if the crime is punishable by a prison sentence. In Maryland a prison sentence is a year and a day or more, so any crime with a maximum penalty of 18 months or higher can be charged at any time. This means common misdemeanor crimes such as second-degree assault and fourth degree burglary have no statute of limitations in Maryland. There are several crimes that carry two and three-year limitations such as manslaughter by vehicle, tax offenses, election law violations and Medicaid fraud that carry a 3-year limit. Crimes charged under the Natural Resources Article and fraudulent driver’s license crimes carry a 2-year limitation.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 27, 2022

Maryland Concealed Carry Applications Skyrocket

By Benjamin Herbst

In an opinion that was hardly a surprise, the Supreme Court recently struck down a New York law that required citizens to prove a good reason why they should be able to carry a firearm outside of the home. This case was of particular interest here due to the fact that the Maryland concealed carry permit law is almost indistinguishable to the New York law. The Maryland State Police has long since required citizens to provide a good and substantial reason why they should be granted a concealed carry permit (officially known as a Handgun Wear and Carry Permit). This clause is located in the Public Safety Code of the Maryland statutes under Title 5, which governs firearms. Section 5-306 requires proof of a good and substantial reason to protect against apprehended danger, and typically only been satisfied by those whose occupations place them in reasonable fear for their life when outside of their home. Certain business owners who carried large amounts of cash, or who operated in high crime areas had been some of the few who qualified for this permit. The MSP has taken the official stance that they want all qualified individuals to be licensed to carry, but the good and substantial reason requirement still left many out in the cold when it came to permits.

Over the last month the tide has drastically shifted, as soon after the Supreme Court opinion was released the Maryland Governor and the Attorney General directed the State Police to immediately suspend the good and substantial reason requirement. Currently applicants must only state their reason for the permit is for personal protection, and are not required to provide any sort of documentation to this effect. The Supreme Court decision and subsequent change to the permit application has not gone unnoticed, and it seems that prospective applicants have been waiting on this news for some time. From mid-June to mid-July of 2021 the MSP received roughly 1,000 Handgun Wear and Carry Permit applications. During that same timeframe this year there have been over 7,000. This number will likely continue to rise dramatically over the rest of the year, with one of the only holdups being the availability of licensed instructors. Almost all civilian applicants are still required to possess and HQL and complete 16 hours of firearm training. Instructors are booked solid, and handguns are in short supply at Maryland gun shops. Still, the supply will eventually catch up and applications will continue to soar this year before eventually leveling off.

While the good and substantial reason requirement has been eliminated, applicants still face strict background checks. Anyone with a prior criminal conviction or even a protective order faces the possibility of being denied. Maryland law prohibits anyone who has been convicted of a crime that carries more than 1 year in jail from obtaining a concealed carry permit. It does not matter if the applicant never actually served a day in jail, as the maximum penalty is the only relevant factor. Dozens of non-violent misdemeanors carry more than 1 year in jail in Maryland. An applicant with no prior criminal record could still be denied a permit if he or she has exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person’s possession of a handgun a danger. This is where protective order or peace order findings could come into play and result in a denial of a conceal carry permit.

Continue reading →