The HPRB conducts public meetings. You can attend and record them. We need to begging creating a "database" of videos and recordings for our own use.
If I get denied for the same set of facts that someone else got approved, tell me how I'm going to know this. There needs to be a judicial ruling, which is public, for precedent. 99% of applicants are not going to consume their life digging and sniffing around other applications, even if they were public record. I doubt they are. Your PIA did not reveal details why people were approved.
Even administrative bodies issuing quasi-judicial decisions are bound to Equal Protection, non-arbitrary decisions, and stare decisis. Yes, it might involve a little work and coordination.
The HPRB conducts public meetings. You can attend and record them. We need to begging creating a "database" of videos and recordings for our own use.
Tomato/tomato
Sorry if I confused you, but the AAG that works assigned to the MSP and the AAG that works assigned to Public Safety & Correctional Services are BOTH subordinates to Frosh. Two different bodies potentially same result.
I know the HPRB can reverse a denial and relax restrictions on permits. They cannot tighten restrictions and obviously do not get the opportunity to reverse the issuance of permits. If one person get a denial reversed and/or has restriction relaxed, then the SP must issue permits with attached restrictions per the HPRB's decision.
For example, if the SP denies me, but then the HPRB reverses that based on the information in my app, then from here on out the SP must issue permits to applicants with the same reasons I used.
Also, if the SP saddle my permit with XYZ restrictions and the HPRB relaxes or all together removes them, then the SP must issue permits to applicants using the same "g&s" reasons as I did. The SP will be forced to rewrite their policy based on the ultimate results from the HPRB. It will be up to the GA to legislate against, lessen or strengthen any decisions the HPRB hands out.
If only it worked that way, I would bet that they treat each application and each finding as it's own and not use it as the ability to set precedent for the next permit.
It would be interesting to do a PIA request to the HPRB and ask for the number of reversals and what the reason for request was.
If only it worked that way, I would bet that they treat each application and each finding as it's own and not use it as the ability to set precedent for the next permit.
It would be interesting to do a PIA request to the HPRB and ask for the number of reversals and what the reason for request was.
To the extent that any administrative agency treats like circumstances differently, that is the essence of arbitrary and open to attack on that basis. Rational decision making is a basic due process requirement.
To the extent that any administrative agency treats like circumstances differently, that is the essence of arbitrary and open to attack on that basis. Rational decision making is a basic due process requirement.
After sitting through several of the HPRB hearings, I am of the opinion (and my opinion only) that the HPRB has no clue that they set precedent for each application or renewal denial they overturn. It would, however, be nice to have MSP on the record as to wether or not the findings of the HPRB on those applications that are overturned, are indeed used as guidance for future applications?
Being that approvals can't really be scoured through, seems like a huge burden of proof charging arbitrary and irrational. If someone is approved, there is documentation why? I always thought the way they throw out "not disapproved" for gun purchases was some kind weasel wording too. I would think that only disapproval of CCW are documented as to why, but silent on if approved.
What we know, at least from the boiler plate/form letters MSP is sending out, and from MSP's website, is that MSP is erroneously still relying on Scherr and Snowden despite intervening 2A case decisions. This is apparently under the belief that the HGPRB is still relying on those two cases as well. Whether they both act uniformly in their decisions is important, but what we really need is to get them to adopt an updated/revised definition of G&S. This can come directly from Pallozzi through the exercise of his unquestioned statutory authority, or by getting the HGPRB to understand Scherr and Snowden are no longer appropriate precedence. The former requires leadership and the exercise of discretion. The letter requires open minds and good faith consideration, and perhaps judicial intervention.
What we know, at least from the boiler plate/form letters MSP is sending out, and from MSP's website, is that MSP is erroneously still relying on Scherr and Snowden despite intervening 2A case decisions. This is apparently under the belief that the HGPRB is still relying on those two cases as well. Whether they both act uniformly in their decisions is important, but what we really need is to get them to adopt an updated/revised definition of G&S. This can come directly from Pallozzi through the exercise of his unquestioned statutory authority, or by getting the HGPRB to understand Scherr and Snowden are no longer appropriate precedence. The former requires leadership and the exercise of discretion. The letter requires open minds and good faith consideration, and perhaps judicial intervention.
Good luck with that. Del. Mike tried Smigiel v. Handgun Permit Review Board