MSP Wear and Carry permit bulletin

Straightshooter · Feb 24, 2015

Giving credit where credit is due, they fixed this "2year" mistake on another page under "training" several months ago without any fanfare. Even though the mistake was published, the licensing division stated that 2 years was the correct timeframe. They fixed it within a week or so. This time, which was a short time prior to the bulletin being published, it took them literally 24 hours to make the correction to a page in the "organization" section of the site. They also emailed a thank you for bringing it to their attention. Did this have anything to do with the bulletin being issued? Who knows. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in it could have been a miss key by the person who wrote the page and it was copied and pasted into another section.

BUFF7MM · Feb 24, 2015

navycraig said:
Stop it, now. We must give credit where credit is due. They fixed an error for us. Don't you think that's just about enough for this year?

Lol, I just think it funny that some think this is such a wonderful thing, a step in the right direction, :sad20:

and we wonder why this state is so ****ed up, it's because people believe that stuff like this is such a victory.

montoya32 · Feb 24, 2015

swinokur said:
I use Firefox, and even though they warn you to use IE, I've not had a problem. They will write code for the lowest common denominator and factory installed browser IMO.

IE isn't installed on MACS is it?

No, I have to use a windows emulator/program to use IE in order to access their info.

DC-W · Feb 24, 2015

Buff7mm said:
Lol, I just think it funny that some think this is such a wonderful thing, a step in the right direction, and we wonder why this state is so ****ed up, it's because people believe that stuff like this is such a victory.

Gotta start somewhere. It could be a sign of things to come, or not. Had it been another administration though, it probably would have been business as usual...

BUFF7MM · Feb 24, 2015

swinokur said:
IIRC, it was Straightshooter who contacted MSP about the error. As pointed out, they fixed it. So apparently in this case MSP was willing to admit they got it wrong. That's no predictor of future behavior. There was nothing in FSA2013 about a live fire requirement for the HQL. MSP stuck it in there anyway.

It's funny that the MSP can do this an somehow make it so now you need training to get a permit where before none was needed , but I've heard people on this forum say that the new superintendent can't make self defense part of G&S without going thru the general assembly. How is this possible?? I see no reason that MSP can't change it, they've always said when asked the question "what is a good and substantial reason" we'll know it when we see it. And it doesn't take the general assembly for them to know it when they see it.

swinokur · Feb 24, 2015

The training requirement was put into the FSA 2013. There was nothing about a live fire requirement in FSA 2013. MSP stuck it into COMAR even though it was pointed out to them the law didn't require it.

MD law says the superintendent can determine G&S.

Inigoes · Feb 24, 2015

swinokur said:
The training requirement was put into the FSA 2013. There was nothing about a live fire requirement in FSA 2013. MSP stuck it into COMAR even though it was pointed out to them the law didn't require it.

MD law says the superintendent can determine G&S.

Which the superintendent refuses to put in the COMAR

swinokur · Feb 24, 2015

Inigoes said:
Which the PAST superintendents refused to put in the COMAR

Let's wait and see what happens.

Mr H · Feb 24, 2015

DC-W said:
Gotta start somewhere. It could be a sign of things to come, or not. Had it been another administration though, it probably would have been business as usual...

This.

At this point, I'm more ok with crumbs than nothing... as long as they're not poisoned, and we can still work on the rest of the loaf.

DC-W · Feb 24, 2015

September isn't too far off to find out. The AELR hearing will be interesting this year.

dblas · Feb 24, 2015

swinokur said:
The training requirement was put into the FSA 2013. There was nothing about a live fire requirement in FSA 2013. MSP stuck it into COMAR even though it was pointed out to them the law didn't require it.

And this opens MSP up to a lawsuit in Circuit Court.

swinokur said:
MD law says the superintendent can determine G&S.

dblas · Feb 24, 2015

DC-W said:
September isn't too far off to find out. The AELR hearing will be interesting this year.

No AELR hearing needed to change COMAR, AELR only gets involved if it is emergency updates to COMAR and need to bypass the 90 days, or if AELR requests a hearing on the statute change.

swinokur · Feb 24, 2015

dblas said:
And this opens MSP up to a lawsuit in Circuit Court.

care to share?

swinokur · Feb 24, 2015

So is something happening here? Is this part of the HQL litigation?

If you do not want to discuss I completely understand.

BUFF7MM · Feb 24, 2015

Mr H said:
This.

At this point, I'm more ok with crumbs than nothing... as long as they're not poisoned, and we can still work on the rest of the loaf.

I can't believe you're even calling this letter crumbs, it's nothing but a letter saying absoutely NOTHING. They way I read it it pretty much is calling us dumbasses for not being able to read directions.
I for one am tired of the crumbs they give us, if you can even call them crumbs, it's time that somebody down there gets a set of balls and steps out knee deep in the shit and says here's what gonna happen.

dblas · Feb 24, 2015

swinokur said:
care to share?

It is part of the equation being considered, but it does have a shelf life (timeframe to be acted on).

Gryphon · Feb 24, 2015

Ultra Vires. It's when the regulation in COMAR exceeds the authority of, or is inconsistent with, the statute. For example, one of the state procurement statutes authorized state procurement/bid protests for a broad range of issues. However, a regulation in COMAR prohibited disputes/protests based on MBE/WBE determinations. Anyone with a brain knew the regulation was inconsistent with the statute, but it didn't get resolved by the coourts, striking the regulation, until a good man that owned a contracting company with big balls and the finances contested it - up through the appellate court and won.

Mooseman · Feb 24, 2015

navycraig said:
The "original 365" were denied long ago, very shortly after the 4th decided the Woollard case.

I am one of the "365". It has not been that long ago that I was notified that I had lost my appeal at a hearing that I was not invited to or notified about. Not all of the "365" have made it that far. There are some still in limbo.

Mr H · Feb 24, 2015

Mooseman said:
I am one of the "365". It has not been that long ago that I was notified that I had lost my appeal at a hearing that I was not invited to or notified about. Not all of the "365" have made it that far. There are some still in limbo.

I was offered--and requested--an informal hearing, and responded in June 2013.

Still haven't heard a peep, so I think I'm going to go on the presumption it's still alive.

Mooseman · Feb 24, 2015

Mr H said:
I was offered--and requested--an informal hearing, and responded in June 2013.

Still haven't heard a peep, so I think I'm going to go on the presumption it's still alive.

Mine went over a year between my request for a formal hearing and my letter telling me that my hearing was held and I denied. Presume that you are still active in the process and hope for the best. :thumbsup:

MSP Wear and Carry permit bulletin

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

☠Buff➐㎣☠

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

☠Buff➐㎣☠

In a State of Bliss

Head'n for the hills

In a State of Bliss

Unincited Co-Conservative

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

In a State of Bliss

In a State of Bliss

☠Buff➐㎣☠

Past President, MSI

inveniam viam aut faciam

R.I.P.- Hooligan #4

Unincited Co-Conservative

R.I.P.- Hooligan #4

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics