HPRB November 17, 2015 Meeting Thread

[protegeV]

Also, who needed to pick their jaw up from the floor like I did when Lazuick stated that Heller was ONLY in regards to firearms possession in DC?

WTF?

yeah, I heard that too

 

[Gryphon]

Also, who needed to pick their jaw up from the floor like I did when Lazuick stated that Heller was ONLY in regards to firearms possession in DC?

WTF?

Me. The trooper waded in way over his head with his characterizations of what the case law stands for. It tells me that they simply don't care to understand, or worse, they do and . . .

 

[protegeV]

Me. The trooper waded in way over his head with his characterizations of what the case law stands for. It tells me that they simply don't care to understand, or worse, they do and . . .

They are the pOlice. They don't need to understand anything....

 

[Schipperke]

WWLRD ?

 

[protegeV]

WWLRD ?

 

[DC-W]

WWLRD ?

Grumble... Legislature... I know people... You're ruining my hobby... I'm moving to SC anyways... Grumble... Grumble...

 

[PJDiesel]

WWLRD ?

 

[Gryphon]

There is a vacancy on the HGPRB . . .

 

[PJDiesel]

Shit I miss him already. Wonder if him and BB every cross paths?

 

[protegeV]

There is a vacancy on the HGPRB . . .

YES. Surprised no one had mentioned that yet.

 

[Schipperke]

.... It remains unclear what Mr. Neverdon's role is, but it is clear he exercises some degree of influence over the Board.

Only time I went it appeared he was there to reign in Parliamentary Procedure and make sure no one started practicing law.

 

[Schipperke]

YES. Surprised no one had mentioned that yet.

I read Black Man with a Gun™ has been nominated.

 

[dblas]

They had made up their mind in "closed session."

The revelations that the colonel presented in his final statements went right over the board's head. He presented his "smoking gun" and they ignored it. This due in large part because they just had no understanding of the facts presented.
I'll defer to the judgement of those who have been around longer to view the process, but IMO the whole makeup of the board is a joke. These people don't even fully understand what they're doing. You may as well put me on a NASA panel about a mission to mars.

Actually, they understood it quite well, the issue was several ways to handle it and the board decided to table the issue "pending MSP completing the investigation", instead of approving the permit. The board only has three choices and they have to have a legal reason for those reasons; Uphold the MSP decision, Overturn the MSP decision, Modify the MSP decision.

Technically they cannot "table the issue pending an action."

 

[CypherPunk]

Only time I went it appeared he was there to reign in Parliamentary Procedure and make sure no one started practicing law.

Last night I thought I heard Mr. Neverdon participate at least twice;

First, to call for a closed session.

Then, at the end of the meeting, he actually moved for adjournment.

I thought, except for subjects and witnesses of a hearing, only Board members were allowed to participate?

 

[montoya32]

Short of that I'd like to see anyone who is NOT prohibited should get a hearing. It was very clear last night that during the two hearings where the applicants were in attendance that they would have liked to add or clarify information but were not allowed to speak.


If a prohibited person applies they should get a review which, short of an expungement of charges, would be very quick.

I agree. I believe an applicant should have to waive their right to a hearing. It only makes sense since some applicants are unclear as to how to complete the app, what info to include, what has been previously decided by the MSP or HPRB and so on.

 

[dblas]

It takes about 10 minutes to run the background check. It takes about 3 minutes to print the card.

How long to run the investigation per 5-306 of the public safety article?

I believe the only records check required by statute is CJIS, per 3-305, and no more, no less. So how does MSP qualify using the other 17 databases for a check? Are they saying that falls under an investigation under 5-306(a)(6) Based on an investigation......

 

[montoya32]

Last night I thought I heard Mr. Neverdon participate at least twice;

First, to call for a closed session.

Then, at the end of the meeting, he actually moved for adjournment.

I thought, except for subjects and witnesses of a hearing, only Board members were allowed to participate?

He was just kidding when he seconded to adjourn. They were all slap happy after the marathon meeting.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Also, who needed to pick their jaw up from the floor like I did when Lazuick stated that Heller was ONLY in regards to firearms possession in DC?

WTF?

Caught that. I guess the good trooper thinks that since the Supreme Court is in DC that it only applies to DC....

Well, technically that's an accurate statement. Heller upheld the right to keep arms in DC. It was McDonald that incorporated that right to the 50 states.

Now if only we could solve that pesky "bear" part of the amendment...

 

[montoya32]

I know I don't need to defend my activities or anyone else's, but when the board went into closes session, the room sprang into action and researched the situation at hand. We determined possible angles for the applicant to bring up and actually educated ourselves while there.

Yet another benefit of attending the meetings.

 

[Schipperke]

Last night I thought I heard Mr. Neverdon participate at least twice;

First, to call for a closed session.

Then, at the end of the meeting, he actually moved for adjournment.

I thought, except for subjects and witnesses of a hearing, only Board members were allowed to participate?

Exactly, he nudges to the book parliamentary procedure. If he didn't speak up both those times the board would have probably not run by the numbers that everyone is so stuck on. I'm betting he did not call or move anything without the board echoing it.