PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

esqappellate · Apr 12, 2012

swinokur said:
It would seem that the MSP consider 5ii invalid from Judge Legg's ruling 3-5 until the stay 3-30. So they sit on those. With 5ii effectively reinstated after the temporary stay, they then resumed their normal BS denial since G & S is now technically legal again.

Stupid games.

Appeal for the Comar violation seems like a good idea. To me it looks like they think G & S is legal until Judge Legg issues his ruling after May 23rd.

Guys, this is what tyranny looks like, and it's ugly

This what stupidity looks like. Technically legal? Yes, but it reeks of bad faith manipulation of the process. It will likely come back and bite them.

Kashmir1008 · Apr 12, 2012

Mooseman said:
I don't think so. The application was not disapproved, it was simply returned. This is probably why they are handling applications like this. Their record will stand.

But they did put in writing that they will not process his app because he doesn't have a G & S reason.

Patrick · Apr 12, 2012

swinokur said:
It would seem that the MSP consider 5ii invalid from Judge Legg's ruling 3-5 until the stay 3-30. So they sit on those. With 5ii effectively reinstated after the temporary stay, they then resumed their normal BS denial since G & S is now technically legal again.

Stupid games.

Appeal for the Comar violation seems like a good idea. To me it looks like they think G & S is legal until Judge Legg issues his ruling after May 23rd.

Guys, this is what tyranny looks like, and it's ugly

Pretty much sums up what we know right now.

csanc123 · Apr 12, 2012

But surely they are getting direction from Gansler right? Can MSP interpret the court decision independent of Gansler?

esqappellate said:
This what stupidity looks like. Technically legal? Yes, but it reeks of bad faith manipulation of the process. It will likely come back and bite them.

Glaug-Eldare · Apr 12, 2012

There are only two legal outcomes, and they both favor us -- Issuance means we become a shall-issuel, and denial means we break Gansler's stats. This illegal "return" seems designed specifically to escape our win-win position, and cannot be tolerated.

esqappellate · Apr 12, 2012

csanc123 said:
But surely they are getting direction from Gansler right? Can MSP interpret the court decision independent of Gansler?

Speculative. It certainly looks like a calculated move to put off and refuse to process as many applications as possible. Whether Gansler made this call or not, I don't know. It would be odd if they did this without consulting the AG's office.

JMangle · Apr 12, 2012

jmcgonig said:
Every time I think this section of the board is going to get boring for a few weeks - it isn't. Its like a soap opera.

As the Woollard Turns.

5.7 · Apr 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Speculative. It certainly looks like a calculated move to put off and refuse to process as many applications as possible. Whether Gansler made this call or not, I don't know. It would be odd if they did this without consulting the AG's office.

I can't see theMSP doing this on their own, they are an instrument of the State. The AG at a minimum and wouldn't surprise me if the man at the top has his finger prints all over this, after all, this is one of his pet peeves and since the HB579 end around didn't work, does this really surprise anyone? Not me.

JMangle · Apr 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
This what stupidity looks like. Technically legal? Yes, but it reeks of bad faith manipulation of the process. It will likely come back and bite them.

How does it come back to bite them?

Less likely to get a stay?

More specific language in the injunction so they can't weasel out of doing what the Judge tells them to?

Garet Jax · Apr 12, 2012

5.7 said:
I can't see theMSP doing this on their own, they are an instrument of the State. The AG at a minimum and wouldn't surprise me if the man at the top has his finger prints all over this, after all, this is one of his pet peeves and since the HB579 end around didn't work, does this really surprise anyone? Not me.

OK - but why treat the ones before the stay differently than the ones after the stay. Is the temporary stay not retroactive to the date of the decision?

esqappellate · Apr 12, 2012

JMangle said:
How does it come back to bite them?

Less likely to get a stay?

More specific language in the injunction so they can't weasel out of doing what the Judge tells them to?

that. If i were Gura, i would highlight it in the stay papers. It makes clear in concrete terms that the state has adopted a policy that is contingent on the stay and using the stay to deny others. Part of the 4 part inquiry for a stay. Essentially the state is abusing the temporary stay.

Inigoes · Apr 12, 2012

JMangle said:
How does it come back to bite them?

Less likely to get a stay?

More specific language in the injunction so they can't weasel out of doing what the Judge tells them to?

Gansler already promised the Judge that the state would act in good faith after 3/5.

Seems that state went back on it's word after being granted a temporary stay.

PJDiesel · Apr 12, 2012

abeaty said:
OK - but why treat the ones before the stay differently than the ones after the stay. Is the temporary stay not retroactive to the date of the decision?

This is the part I don't get.

MRA · Apr 12, 2012

So, if someone receives this letter and they were a SAF member when they sent their application in they have standing and the SAF can bring this to Judge Legg's attention when the stay is lifted. Right?

esqappellate · Apr 12, 2012

PJDiesel said:
This is the part I don't get.

Administrative convenience and plausible deniability. If they had already cashed the check, they can't return it and say that they aren't processing the application. To maintain that fiction that it is not a denial, they would have to cut a refund of the check. And that makes the fiction all the more implausible. This way they can hope to cut down both on the number of applications they need to investigate and on the number of suits or administrative appeals. Note that their listing of options does not include a board appeal. That doesn't bind you, btw

esqappellate · Apr 12, 2012

MRA said:
So, if someone receives this letter and they were a SAF member when they sent their application in they have standing and the SAF can bring this to Judge Legg's attention when the stay is lifted. Right?

right, in an enforcement action. Such an enforcement action doesn't lie now because of the temporary stay permits them to do this BS.

petergriffin · Apr 12, 2012

Patrick said:
They are trying to be cute and deny without denying. They think they can say "no harm" because they didn't cash the check. Not so. Denial of a right is harm in and of itself. It doesn't matter how you cause the harm; it is still harm.

Again: dumb.

In addition to the denial of rights harm, he also spent $76.00 with Livescan for fingerprinting and background check. So there is a monetary loss as well.

Garet Jax · Apr 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Administrative convenience and plausible deniability. If they had already cashed the check, they can't return it and say that they aren't processing the application. To maintain that fiction that it is not a denial, they would have to cut a refund of the check. And that makes the fiction all the more implausible. This way they can hope to cut down both on the number of applications they need to investigate and on the number of suits or administrative appeals. Note that their listing of options does not include a board appeal. That doesn't bind you, btw

That makes sense, but returning the application unprocessed is the same as a denial since the applicant still doesn't have a permit. This is especially true since the letter referenced G & S.

Why not cash the check and hold the application as they have done for all the others? Doing what they have done makes a case for having adjudicated the application, no?

cad68m_m · Apr 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
Administrative convenience and plausible deniability. If they had already cashed the check, they can't return it and say that they aren't processing the application. To maintain that fiction that it is not a denial, they would have to cut a refund of the check. And that makes the fiction all the more implausible. This way they can hope to cut down both on the number of applications they need to investigate and on the number of suits or administrative appeals. Note that their listing of options does not include a board appeal. That doesn't bind you, btw

I was just looking for the process for an administrative appeal, do you have a link by any chance?

petergriffin · Apr 12, 2012

http://www.box.com/s/92306766413790660714

The letter attached by the original poster says the state has appealed and the 4th circuit court will hear the case. The appeal is filed, that is factual, but did the 4th circuit court agree to hear the case. Just because an appeal has been filed doesn't automaticaly mean the 4th will hear the case. If the
4th circuit court has not agreed to hear the case as of the date of the letter that was issued, the state is blatently lying and therefor had no right to return a lawful citizens application for handgun permit. Please...someone research whether the 4th circuit has agreed to hear the appeal and match the dates with this letter. I see a possible technicallity in their premature response.

PERMIT APPLICATION RETURNED

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

President, MSI

MSI Executive Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Senior Member

President, MSI

Handsome Engineer

Just trying to be free

Handsome Engineer

Not ignored by gamer_jim

President, MSI

Head'n for the hills

Banned

Active Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

Banned

Not ignored by gamer_jim

Member MSI, SAF, NRA

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics