Interview scheduled

montoya32 · Nov 19, 2015

navycraig said:
Trooper Laziuck.

10/4. Thanks. I doubt that I'd have much luck with the informal review so I may as well shoot for the moon and go to the HPRB.

You'd be surprised. I got my permit after my informal review and after I had Knaub taken off of my application. He could not understand that I was self-employed and thus a business owner. I was assigned to Knaub's superior, John Casey, and he was very professional and we had a great meeting.

dblas · Nov 20, 2015

PJDiesel said:
I'd strongly recommend you speak with MR. McCauley to see if maybe he has any ideas that can help you.

And, I'd look here too:http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=4077526&postcount=307

The nuts and bolts of it address your specific request, whether or not it's binding and can be used as precedent in front of the board, I don't know.

Also, I'm not a lawyer, and... NOT giving legal advice.

That particular case overturned MSP for requesting any reports BECAUSE MSP failed to recognize the applicant was a member of an assumed rish profession and constitutes a "police officer" under Md Cod 2-101(c)(8) of the criminal procedure article.

Not the lack of reports of threats. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

PJDiesel · Nov 20, 2015

dblas said:
That particular case overturned MSP for requesting any reports BECAUSE MSP failed to recognize the applicant was a member of an assumed rish profession and constitutes a "police officer" under Md Cod 2-101(c)(8) of the criminal procedure article.

Not the lack of reports of threats. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

I read it that they were requiring him to provide documentation of his threats rather than his spoken account. If he we going to be disapproved based on just NOT being some kind of "special police", why did the HPRB (and then courts) get into the details of any threats or lack thereof?

Also looks like the HPRB declined to participate in the proceedings. Why is that, if they are paid through taxpayer funds, shouldn't they be required to show up and testify on the boards behalf?

PJDiesel · Nov 20, 2015

And follow up comment/question:

Is there a list of "assumed risk" professions somewhere, or, is it a "we know it when we see it" case by case judgement call on the part of the MSP?

dblas · Nov 20, 2015

PJDiesel said:
I read it that they were requiring him to provide documentation of his threats rather than his spoken account. If he we going to be disapproved based on just NOT being some kind of "special police", why did the HPRB (and then courts) get into the details of any threats or lack thereof?

Also looks like the HPRB declined to participate in the proceedings. Why is that, if they are paid through taxpayer funds, shouldn't they be required to show up and testify on the boards behalf?

MSP required him to submit documentation BECAUSE they did not consider him in an assumed risk profession (MSP did not consider him a police officer). The courts smacked MSP hard for not recognizing him as a police officer per state statute definition, and thus in an assumed risk position.

protegeV · Nov 20, 2015

dblas said:
MSP required him to submit documentation BECAUSE they did not consider him in an assumed risk profession (MSP did not consider him a police officer). The courts smacked MSP hard for not recognizing him as a police officer per state statute definition, and thus in an assumed risk position.

Do you know if the permit was restricted and issued specifically for duty as an spo?

dblas · Nov 20, 2015

PJDiesel said:
And follow up comment/question:

Is there a list of "assumed risk" professions somewhere, or, is it a "we know it when we see it" case by case judgement call on the part of the MSP?

Look at the list on page 5 of this document for a "list" that is not limited to:

dblas · Nov 20, 2015

protegeV said:
Do you know if the permit was restricted and issued specifically for duty as an spo?

We, as the public will never know the actual restrictions, but if it the permit was issued to him as a police officer (As defined by 2-101 of the criminal procedure article), then his restrictions would be: Off Duty hours while maintaining employment as a police officer with any recognized law enforcement agency. (MD ONLY) (Not VALID where firearms are prohibited.) per MSP SOP 29-15-007.

redeemed.man · Nov 20, 2015

protegeV said:
Do you know if the permit was restricted and issued specifically for duty as an spo?

This likely applied to him because he is a government employee. I doubt this would apply to a SPO for a private entity.

Schipperke · Nov 20, 2015

PJDiesel said:
I read it that they were requiring him to provide documentation of his threats rather than his spoken account. If he we going to be disapproved based on just NOT being some kind of "special police", why did the HPRB (and then courts) get into the details of any threats or lack thereof?

Also looks like the HPRB declined to participate in the proceedings. Why is that, if they are paid through taxpayer funds, shouldn't they be required to show up and testify on the boards behalf?

Ordered that Petitioner Michael Fisher's request for Order of Default is GRANTED; Further ORDERED that an Order of Default is entered against the Handgun Permit Review Board and the Board will no be permitted to participate in the hearing on 10/13/15 at 1:30pm unless the default is vacated prior thereto. Clerk is to send notice of Default (ROSS). Copies mailed to Timothy Maloney Esq, Matthew Bryant and Handgun Review Permit Board.

Interview scheduled

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

montoya32

Ultimate Member

dblas

Past President, MSI

PJDiesel

Banned

PJDiesel

Banned

dblas

Past President, MSI

protegeV

Ready to go

dblas

Past President, MSI

Attachments

dblas

Past President, MSI

redeemed.man

Ultimate Member

Schipperke

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page