HPRB October 20, 2015 Meeting

[Straightshooter]

Do we need to organize a rescue team?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[Jaybeez]

Must be one heck of a performance going on in there.

 

[Straightshooter]

The 4th new board member should have appeared tonight. Maybe the last of the old guard has gone rogue.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[Jaybeez]

The TM has texted me. He is alive. he says to send guns, money, and lawyers...

...and a copy of md firearm transport regulations.

 

[moojersey]

Wow so nothing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dblas]

It has been an interesting night so far, we are still here listening to appeals.

Tim has been taking notes, except for his own case, he should have a good run down when we are done.

 

[montoya32]

My hearing was given a continuance so that my witness could attend. I am very grateful for the board offering me his opportunity. I will be heard again on Nov 17th.

 

[dblas]

And they let Schipperke in as well.........

 

[Straightshooter]

I'll send the stand down code to the rescue team.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[dblas]

I'll send the stand down code to the rescue team.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

LOL, keep them on standby just in case they have run out of lake trout by the time we are done.

 

[AntiGun]

I'm sure it's been said in past threads but since that was my first visit I'll say it, the chairman is befuddled.

 

[Stoveman]

I'll give you the Readers Digest version as it is late and I was at work early this morning.

Meeting started ~20 mins late.

Three reviews and Montoya's hearing.

Two out of three they overturned MSP and the other I think they would have except that he was convicted in the late 90's of a misdemeanor in DC that after 10/1/13 makes him prohibited in MD. Total BS but they had no choice.


I think White is finally coming into her own, I heard her speak more during one case tonight than I have in totality of the other meetings. She voted to overturn in the two cases.

Good to see the last seat filled.


Met Schipperke and he's a regular Joe like the rest of us, it was my pleasure, sir.



The more I talk to Neverdun the more I like him.

 

[Stoveman]

I'm sure it's been said in past threads but since that was my first visit I'll say it, the chairman is befuddled.

You're being kind.....

 

[DC-W]

Got to see folks I haven't seen in a while and met some others.

I left my notebook at home, so I'll refrain from trying to give a comprehensive summary.

Short story -- MSP was overruled twice in regards to restrictions on permits. Another case was upheld due to the applicant being a prohibited person.

We'll get a sequel to Tim's meeting next month

 

[2nd=Good+Substantial]

.... the chairman is befuddled.

July can't come soon enough.

 

[LCPIWB]

Summary of #81181 (AKA LCPIWB): LCPIWB got the shaft.

A long story short-ER:
My case WAS to be reviewed today, however Juergen(sp?) read a decision after a long closed session that my case was already heard September 2014.

I will post the WHOLE story in a separate thread sometime this week or weekend now that my case has reached a dead end, but will give you the highlights on how I feel I got the shaft. I will also post in a separate thread all my supporting documentation so others can potentially benefit from my supporting documentation.

So the highlight reel.
A Wollard 365er. Had informal review. Requested a formal review via certified letter twice, nothing. It is true that I received a letter from the board stating that they reviewed my case July 17, 2014 and I was not invited or notified until after...So here is where the story takes a turn. I began attending the HPRB meetings in June of this year and brought up to the Chairman and Ms. Street that I was never given an opportunity to present any evidence, nor do I know what evidence was presented to them by MSP which is completely one-side. Via email with Ms. Street, and verbally with the Chairman at the next meeting in June. "We have not record of us reviewing your case".
Me, "So that means it has not been heard and I am intitled to a review/hearing."
Ms. Street via email "You will be scheduled and in the line up."
Fast forward to 9/10/2015, email from the chairman, "Submit your supporting documentation by 9/14/2015".
More follow-up emails, "please confirm my documentation was received."
Eventual reply "You case is scheduled for 10/20"...

The end result. You heard it read by Juergen, and probably had no idea what was actually presented. It was presented as if my "supporting evidence" was arguing I deserved a hearing and they said no....
But the truth is I supplied 12 email attachments because I was lead to believe my case was going to be reviewed.
If I was not going to be given a review, why the **** you going to jerk my chain, say you are going to schedule me, and ask me to provide supporting documentation. Then say that your review was already held when they could find no evidence of a hearing/review being heard previously.

In short my supporting documentation was that I was entitled to a permit like the Disabled Veteran issued a permit via HPRB overturning MSP decision.

Like I said I will post all my supporting documentation and timeline of events in a separate post hopefully later this week.
I do plan on submitting another application, and hope that it is denied, and request a formal review skipping and informal review. But maybe my case was strategically pushed out the backdoor because I was using a HPRB decision as a justification for issuance of my permit. This is why it is important we monitor and record these decisions.

 

[LCPIWB]

I would like to comment on the PI who had an arrest and conviction for illegal carry of firearm in DC.

if I was him I would have made the argument. What was the equivelent crime/punishment for such crime in MD in 1996, not 2015..Also, he made the argument that he was transporting a firearm according to MD standards of firearm transport. It was unloaded, and ammo separate. So how can MSP equivocate to the a Maryland crime, when he was transporting his firearm with MD transport guidelines.
I am no lawyer, but I like to think I am when I am drunk.(like now).LOL.

 

[Stoveman]

Summary of #81181 (AKA LCPIWB): LCPIWB got the shaft.

A long story short-ER:
My case WAS to be reviewed today, however Juergen(sp?) read a decision after a long closed session that my case was already heard September 2014.

I will post the WHOLE story in a separate thread sometime this week or weekend now that my case has reached a dead end, but will give you the highlights on how I feel I got the shaft. I will also post in a separate thread all my supporting documentation so others can potentially benefit from my supporting documentation.

So the highlight reel.
A Wollard 365er. Had informal review. Requested a formal review via certified letter twice, nothing. It is true that I received a letter from the board stating that they reviewed my case July 17, 2014 and I was not invited or notified until after...So here is where the story takes a turn. I began attending the HPRB meetings in June of this year and brought up to the Chairman and Ms. Street that I was never given an opportunity to present any evidence, nor do I know what evidence was presented to them by MSP which is completely one-side. Via email with Ms. Street, and verbally with the Chairman at the next meeting in June. "We have not record of us reviewing your case".
Me, "So that means it has not been heard and I am intitled to a review/hearing."
Ms. Street via email "You will be scheduled and in the line up."
Fast forward to 9/10/2015, email from the chairman, "Submit your supporting documentation by 9/14/2015".
More follow-up emails, "please confirm my documentation was received."
Eventual reply "You case is scheduled for 10/20"...

The end result. You heard it read by Juergen, and probably had no idea what was actually presented. It was presented as if my "supporting evidence" was arguing I deserved a hearing and they said no....
But the truth is I supplied 12 email attachments because I was lead to believe my case was going to be reviewed.
If I was not going to be given a review, why the **** you going to jerk my chain, say you are going to schedule me, and ask me to provide supporting documentation. Then say that your review was already held when they could find no evidence of a hearing/review being heard previously.

In short my supporting documentation was that I was entitled to a permit like the Disabled Veteran issued a permit via HPRB overturning MSP decision.

Like I said I will post all my supporting documentation and timeline of events in a separate post hopefully later this week.
I do plan on submitting another application, and hope that it is denied, and request a formal review skipping and informal review. But maybe my case was strategically pushed out the backdoor because I was using a HPRB decision as a justification for issuance of my permit. This is why it is important we monitor and record these decisions.

Damn, I didn't realize that was your case he was referring to, what a pisser. That was convoluted at best.

Wish I could do more than offer my condolences and encouragement to keep up the fight.

 

[montoya32]

I would like to comment on the PI who had an arrest and conviction for illegal carry of firearm in DC.

if I was him I would have made the argument. What was the equivelent crime/punishment for such crime in MD in 1996, not 2015..Also, he made the argument that he was transporting a firearm according to MD standards of firearm transport. It was unloaded, and ammo separate. So how can MSP equivocate to the a Maryland crime, when he was transporting his firearm with MD transport guidelines.
I am no lawyer, but I like to think I am when I am drunk.(like now).LOL.

This is where the laws passed in 2013 screw tons of citizens. It is my opinion, that even though he was transporting the firearm in the appropriate manner, he was not allowed to have it at all. Remember, just because it is unloaded and away from the driver, you cannot tote a gun around with you. It has to be to/from the range, between residences.....

 

[montoya32]

October 20, 2015 HPRB Meeting Notes and Audio

Here are the notes I took this evening except for my time having the playful banter with Knaub.

MEETING AUDIO


Meeting is beginning without the newest member at 6:16pm.

I was advised I would have from 7:00pm-7:30pm for my hearing.

438-83826A : Mar 3, 2015 Permit reason for work as private detective. Permit issued, from residence during activities as P.I. Applicant asking for restriction to be removed. Applicant says he is on call and at danger. Prior employee of DC dept of corrections. MSP states being on call is not “G&S” for unrestricted permit. Employment with DC dept of corrections ceased in 2001 and applicant waited more than 10 years to apply for a permit. Applicant stated that several times he has been threatened with words of “this is not over”, “I will see you again”.

Jurgena motions to remove remove restrictions. Wilson and White agree, Thomas opposes.

438-86229 : Reason for permit, owns rental property and collects cash. Applicant was convicted in DC of unlawfully carrying a firearm. Applicant is prohibited in MD from owning or carrying a firearm. MSP states that the applicant is a prohibited person and is not eligible to own, wear or carry a firearm. MSP DID give the applicant to explain the conviction and applicant wrote a letter about “crime” that occurred in 1996. Case was reduced from a felony to misdemeanor. Applicant was employed in DC in corrections(fugitive transport) and got pulled over on his way home from work and had his unloaded service weapon locked and under a seat. Applicant is a designated collector in MD.

Wilson motions to sustain MSP decision. Jurgena agrees as well as Patricia West.

438-87344 :The Montoya Case(ha ha ha) I responded to the MSP’s argument and was offered the opportunity to have a continuance of my case. My hearing is being held over until November 17 to allow my witness to attend.

Board recessed for administrative reasons @ 7:50pm.

Discussed multiple documents in a applicants file and MSP verified documents were duplicates.

Board opened session at 8:55pm.

438-81944 : Reason for permit is banking purposes as self-employed psychotherapist. Disgruntled client’s spouses. Appliance was denied and conducted an informal review. Has been confronted by angry abusers of patients, but cannot file police reports because police reports would escalate the violence of the patients and abusers. Applicant’s current permit is for financial transactions and is looking to have restriction removed.

Jurgena motions to issue unrestricted permit. Wilson seconds, all board members agree.

Wilson suggests to address admin issues, Thomas would like to address at another meeting.

Meeting adjourned.