HPRB July 7, 2015 Meeting Thread

montoya32 · Jun 25, 2015

Schipperke said:
Lots of I's to dot and T's to cross isn't there. First time I've read you have to request to be at your own appeal. As my friend and I call panels outside of a real circuit, or district Judge, "Mickey Mouse Court"

Pretty much. That's what happens when you live in a state where the leadership set up the process to screw you.

Blacksmith101 · Jun 25, 2015

Schipperke said:
Lots of I's to dot and T's to cross isn't there. First time I've read you have to request to be at your own appeal. As my friend and I call panels outside of a real circuit, or district Judge, "Mickey Mouse Court"

I think you picked the wrong animal. The kangaroo comes to my mind. :innocent0

dblas · Jun 25, 2015

Applehd said:
I'll be corrected shortly if I am wrong... but I don't think I am... IF they close the entire meeting, they would not be able to discuss/deliberate/take a vote on any cases that evening. I was recently informed that there is a monthly record of the number of cases/hearings (not the outcome) available. If the public hears 16 cases and the record shows 20 for that month... something shady is going on down at the ole HPRB... (like what happened at the last meeting)

It is my understanding that the HPRB does not receive any information on any of the appeals until the meeting and MSP hands them the information.

Schipperke · Jun 25, 2015

Blacksmith101 said:
I think you picked the wrong animal. The kangaroo comes to my mind.

yep. We get so animated over it, the cartoon character comes up as well.

Gryphon · Jun 26, 2015

dblas said:
It is my understanding that the HPRB does not receive any information on any of the appeals until the meeting and MSP hands them the information.

No. Not from what I witnessed and heard during the last two meetings. I am pretty sure once a request for an appeal has been received by the Board, MSP forwards certain documentation from the applicants file to the Board's administrator. Frankly, it's not clear what that includes, but I would bet that it does not include the investigating troopers notes, internal MSP communications, criminal background check results, etc. Rather it seems the forwarded information is limited to the application, any attachments, and any supplemental information furnished by the applicant on which the MSP made its decision.

It is also pretty clear that for each appeal the administrator forwards one (1) copy of whatever the MSP provides to only one (1) of the Board members in advance of the meeting in which it will be reviewed. That Board member "presents" the file to the other Board members during the Open Meeting, during which questions are asked and answered among the members (if its an evidentiary hearing testimony from MSP and the applicant is taken), and then further deliberation and a vote is held in private session. Evidentiary hearing is not required. If you want one better request one. Otherwise the Board can just review the record, and issue a letter decision without your presence. By requesting and attending an evidentiary hearing (or even just attending and observing if an evidentiary hearing is not granted), you will have a better chance of knowing the record the Board has is complete. If its a hearing you can answer any questions or further argue your points.

What's my point? If you want ALL five (5) Board members to have a good faith chance to review your application and any other material, and to make sure it all makes its way into each members hands in advance, I suggest sending six (6) copies of everything to the Board with your appeal letter. One copy for the administrator, and one copy in a separate envelope personally addressed to each Board member. That will give each member an opportunity to review the case for themselves, and not be limited to just the information "presented" by one Board member.

Those of us that attended saw multiple instances of the file being "incomplete" (whether the applicant was present or not), and it was clear that 4 out of 5 Board members had not seen the file in advance. It's a shaky process at best, but I will say that the Board members seemed to be doing their best to get all of the relevant information before them, consider it, and make informed decisions. The better approach, IMO, is to get a complete copy to each member in advance, NOT relying on MSP or the administrator to distribute it, and that will give the members a better chance to fairly consider and make a decision.

Schipperke · Jun 26, 2015

Is Knaub the sole witness for the state? Then five panel members?

If so, and you bring any evidence, have six copies to provide.

Gryphon · Jun 26, 2015

Schipperke said:
Is Knaub the sole witness for the state? Then five panel members?

If so, and you bring any evidence, have six copies to provide.

MSP can send whomever they want for evidentiary hearings, but Knaub was there the last two meetings. He had a subordinate with him who presented one case at the last meeting, until Knaub couldn't control himself, and decided to jump in and "double team" the applicant. I guess Knaub didn't think his subordinate was handling it well enough on his own? The Chair could do a little better job of controlling the proceedings to prevent that. Most forums - court, arbitrations and any other administrative Board I have appeared before would never allow two attorneys or representatives on one side to be simultaneously cross examining the other side. It's improper and bad form. Someone else above commented they thought the MSP reps were frustrated, but that's no excuse. I am sure the applicant was frustrated too.

But your point is well taken, if you haven't gotten everything to each of the Board members in advance and are fortunate enough to have an evidentiary hearing bring 6 copies of anything you plan to introduce for distribution to all.

esqappellate · Jun 26, 2015

Gryphon said:
No. Not from what I witnessed and heard during the last two meetings. I am pretty sure once a request for an appeal has been received by the Board, MSP forwards certain documentation from the applicants file to the Board's administrator. Frankly, it's not clear what that includes, but I would bet that it does not include the investigating troopers notes, internal MSP communications, criminal background check results, etc. Rather it seems the forwarded information is limited to the application, any attachments, and any supplemental information furnished by the applicant on which the MSP made its decision.

It is also pretty clear that for each appeal the administrator forwards one (1) copy of whatever the MSP provides to only one (1) of the Board members in advance of the meeting in which it will be reviewed. That Board member "presents" the file to the other Board members during the Open Meeting, during which questions are asked and answered among the members (if its an evidentiary hearing testimony from MSP and the applicant is taken), and then further deliberation and a vote is held in private session. Evidentiary hearing is not required. If you want one better request one. Otherwise the Board can just review the record, and issue a letter decision without your presence. By requesting and attending an evidentiary hearing (or even just attending and observing if an evidentiary hearing is not granted), you will have a better chance of knowing the record the Board has is complete. If its a hearing you can answer any questions or further argue your points.

What's my point? If you want ALL five (5) Board members to have a good faith chance to review your application and any other material, and to make sure it all makes its way into each members hands in advance, I suggest sending six (6) copies of everything to the Board with your appeal letter. One copy for the administrator, and one copy in a separate envelope personally addressed to each Board member. That will give each member an opportunity to review the case for themselves, and not be limited to just the information "presented" by one Board member.

Those of us that attended saw multiple instances of the file being "incomplete" (whether the applicant was present or not), and it was clear that 4 out of 5 Board members had not seen the file in advance. It's a shaky process at best, but I will say that the Board members seemed to be doing their best to get all of the relevant information before them, consider it, and make informed decisions. The better approach, IMO, is to get a complete copy to each member in advance, NOT relying on MSP or the administrator to distribute it, and that will give the members a better chance to fairly consider and make a decision.

All: This ^ is REALLY GOOD ADVICE!! Heed it well.

CypherPunk · Jun 26, 2015

I wonder how they track and secure all this personally identifiable and likely extremely sensitive information sent to individuals via unknown means?

esqappellate · Jun 26, 2015

CypherPunk said:
I wonder how they track and secure all this personally identifiable and likely extremely sensitive information sent to individuals via unknown means?

Rhetorical question, right?

Schipperke · Jun 26, 2015

Do they mark and enter exhibits in to the record?

Gryphon · Jun 26, 2015

Schipperke said:
Do they mark and enter exhibits in to the record?

You are in for a huge let down when you attend your first meeting to observe. Its more like, hmm lets see what's in this file when they open it up. Two meetings ago (6/2) one file didn't even include the appellant's original application. He was a former LEO, but they couldn't determine for how long, when that employment ended or under what circumstances. They put him back in the till until they could find the rest of the file. :lol2:

But to answer your question, not that I have witnessed during the last few meetings. For a "review" the presenting member opens a file, reads from it, maybe passes a few documents (just 1 copy) around to the others if they ask, they discuss it briefly, ask a few questions of each other then clear the room for a vote.

If it is an "evidentiary hearing" they allow MSP to present first. That is simply testimony by the MSP of the timeline, whether supplemental info was requested and provided, and an explanation of the denial. So far they have been prohibited persons, or insufficient G&S. MSP doesn't hand the Board anything. The Board already has a copy of the selected items from the file, but I am certain they don't have MSP notes, background checks, results of personal references etc. The file would be much larger than what I have seen the presenting member pull from. The appellant/applicant then gets to cross examine, and to present their own position. They can provided additional information that gets reviewed and put in the "file," but not marked. The room gets cleared and there is a vote. Last meeting the final applicant was told he would hear the result within 30 days.

As I said above, it appears to me all 5 members are truly trying to get all the proper information and make informed decisions, but I wouldn't take a chance and recommend sending your own information in to each member keeping records if you need to further appeal. In this regard, prior to a Board appeal an applicant can request an informal review by MSP. An applicant may not feel like MSP will change their position, but I know of several applicants that successfully argued their positions and thereby avoided a formal appeal to the Board. In addition, as the applicant you can request a copy of the complete MSP file before the informal, and if nothing else may find something worthwhile that can be used at the Board as additional evidence the MSP may not voluntarily provide to the Board.

rambling_one · Jun 26, 2015

Gryphon said:
No. Not from what I witnessed and heard during the last two meetings. I am pretty sure once a request for an appeal has been received by the Board, MSP forwards certain documentation from the applicants file to the Board's administrator. Frankly, it's not clear what that includes, but I would bet that it does not include the investigating troopers notes, internal MSP communications, criminal background check results, etc. Rather it seems the forwarded information is limited to the application, any attachments, and any supplemental information furnished by the applicant on which the MSP made its decision.

It is also pretty clear that for each appeal the administrator forwards one (1) copy of whatever the MSP provides to only one (1) of the Board members in advance of the meeting in which it will be reviewed. That Board member "presents" the file to the other Board members during the Open Meeting, during which questions are asked and answered among the members (if its an evidentiary hearing testimony from MSP and the applicant is taken), and then further deliberation and a vote is held in private session. Evidentiary hearing is not required. If you want one better request one. Otherwise the Board can just review the record, and issue a letter decision without your presence. By requesting and attending an evidentiary hearing (or even just attending and observing if an evidentiary hearing is not granted), you will have a better chance of knowing the record the Board has is complete. If its a hearing you can answer any questions or further argue your points.

What's my point? If you want ALL five (5) Board members to have a good faith chance to review your application and any other material, and to make sure it all makes its way into each members hands in advance, I suggest sending six (6) copies of everything to the Board with your appeal letter. One copy for the administrator, and one copy in a separate envelope personally addressed to each Board member. That will give each member an opportunity to review the case for themselves, and not be limited to just the information "presented" by one Board member.

Those of us that attended saw multiple instances of the file being "incomplete" (whether the applicant was present or not), and it was clear that 4 out of 5 Board members had not seen the file in advance. It's a shaky process at best, but I will say that the Board members seemed to be doing their best to get all of the relevant information before them, consider it, and make informed decisions. The better approach, IMO, is to get a complete copy to each member in advance, NOT relying on MSP or the administrator to distribute it, and that will give the members a better chance to fairly consider and make a decision.

Maybe I look at things too simplistically, but common sense suggests that new board members have a duty to demand ALL the information needed for them to make a "considered" decision.

Again, through the lenses of my rosy glasses, the new board members should DEMAND a definition of G&S that once and for all eliminates MSP chicanery.

Gryphon · Jun 26, 2015

rambling_one said:
Maybe I look at things too simplistically, but common sense suggests that new board members have a duty to demand ALL the information needed for them to make a "considered" decision.

Again, through the lenses of my rosy glasses, the new board members should DEMAND a definition of G&S that once and for all eliminates MSP chicanery.

From what I saw the new members are doing just fine. I am only speculating, but the "group think" that must have previously existed appears to be a thing of the past, and that is healthy for a public Board.

The Board doesn't need to demand a definition of G&S (and the Legislature has already refused to provide one), they can adopt their own. To be clear, the Superintendent is expressly authorized to define G&S, but inherent to the Boards appeal jurisdiction they can disregard the Superintendent's decisions if it was based on an improper or unlawful standard and adopt their own. This is because the Board's purpose is to review the decisions of the Superintendent. If the Board determines the Superintendent (or his designees) isn't abiding by applicable law (by being overly restrictive) they can issue a permit based on their own definition of G&S. In other words, the Board's obligation is to apply current applicable law, not just rubber stamp MSP's continued reliance on outdated standards.

I am hopeful the Superintendent will review G&S and adopt a new definition that comports with recent 2A decisions. If not, I expect the Board to address it under their own independent authority. We don't have to like G&S, but as long as it is on the books it needs to be applied within the protections afforded by the 2A.

Blacksmith101 · Jun 26, 2015

Gryphon said:
As I said above, it appears to me all 5 members are truly trying to get all the proper information and make informed decisions, but I wouldn't take a chance and recommend sending your own information in to each member keeping records if you need to further appeal. In this regard, prior to a Board appeal an applicant can request an informal review by MSP. An applicant may not feel like MSP will change their position, but I know of several applicants that successfully argued their positions and thereby avoided a formal appeal to the Board. In addition, as the applicant you can request a copy of the complete MSP file before the informal, and if nothing else may find something worthwhile that can be used at the Board as additional evidence the MSP may not voluntarily provide to the Board.

It might be a good idea to get a copy of the complete record and make six copies of everything. Maybe if there is a large difference it the amount of information in a complete file and what the board members are being provided the members will start asking very pointed questions of the MSP.

BeoBill · Jun 26, 2015

OK, Captain Obvious here...

Does anyone know if:
- Written policies and procedures exist for the MSP and Board; and
- Are they available for public inspection?

I see a whole LOT of assumptions being made about the process. We all know what happens when you assume.

Brooklyn · Jun 30, 2015

Gryphon said:
From what I saw the new members are doing just fine. I am only speculating, but the "group think" that must have previously existed appears to be a thing of the past, and that is healthy for a public Board.

The Board doesn't need to demand a definition of G&S (and the Legislature has already refused to provide one), they can adopt their own. To be clear, the Superintendent is expressly authorized to define G&S, but inherent to the Boards appeal jurisdiction they can disregard the Superintendent's decisions if it was based on an improper or unlawful standard and adopt their own. This is because the Board's purpose is to review the decisions of the Superintendent. If the Board determines the Superintendent (or his designees) isn't abiding by applicable law (by being overly restrictive) they can issue a permit based on their own definition of G&S. In other words, the Board's obligation is to apply current applicable law, not just rubber stamp MSP's continued reliance on outdated standards.

I am hopeful the Superintendent will review G&S and adopt a new definition that comports with recent 2A decisions. If not, I expect the Board to address it under their own independent authority. We don't have to like G&S, but as long as it is on the books it needs to be applied within the protections afforded by the 2A.

Copy that.

rambling_one · Jul 5, 2015

Bump.

Also, has the time been confirmed as to when the door is open to the public?

ShallNotInfringe · Jul 5, 2015

Please keep a close eye on the MSP rep. Am still wondering if they participate in the deliberations-which is disconcerting if true.

woodstock · Jul 5, 2015

BeoBill said:
OK, Captain Obvious here...

Does anyone know if:
- Written policies and procedures exist for the MSP and Board; and
- Are they available for public inspection?

I see a whole LOT of assumptions being made about the process. We all know what happens when you assume.

if you have never attended this process, you'll understand why those who have, can develop assumptions. yes to the first question and yes to the second question. july 7th, look forward to meeting you at the review.

HPRB July 7, 2015 Meeting Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

President, MSI

Opinions Are My Own

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Grumpy Old Man

Crank in the Third Row

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

Lil Firecracker

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics