HPRB June 16th, 2015 Meeting Thread

montoya32 · Jun 3, 2015

This thread will be for all things related to the Meeting on June 16th, 2015. If you intend to attend the meeting, bring a pen and notepad to jot down anything you deem important and RSVP to Amanda Street astreet@dpscs.state.md.us

If you have special needs(ADA) or require something out of the ordinary, please inform Amanda Street of this well in advance of the meeting.

Date: Tuesday June 16th, 2015

Meeting place: Maryland State Police Barricks “P”
6800 Aviation Blvd.
Glen Burnie, MD 21061

Time: 6pm

DC-W · Jun 3, 2015

We need as many folks to attend as possible. Be courteous and kind.

LoneRanger · Jun 4, 2015

DC-W said:
We need as many folks to attend as possible. /QUOTE]

Why? What do you hope to accomplish?

ShallNotInfringe · Jun 4, 2015

Who is Jean Goodman?

Schipperke · Jun 4, 2015

LoneRanger said:
DC-W said:

We need as many folks to attend as possible. /QUOTE]

Why? What do you hope to accomplish?

Click to expand...

From what I've read some on the board actually speak, or exchange pleasantries after the hearings. That would be an anomaly where I live. Any chance of ex-parte comments (especially from people they've noticed in the gallery) that could influence a board would not be risked by hearing panels that I've witnessed in my County. This is why the hearing panels I've seen, scurry off and in no way is meant to be impolite. If however these board members are open to comment, lobby away but don't always assume suggesting to people how to do their job, does not create push back instead.

Gryphon · Jun 4, 2015

If you are not a party to an active appeal then there is nothing ex parte about polite conversation with public officials after a public meeting, and exchanging pleasantries falls far short of lobbying. That said, I agree that cornering an official after a public meeting to argue your point would likely be unwelcome, perhaps inappropriate, and counter-productive.

Schipperke · Jun 4, 2015

Gryphon said:
If you are not a party to an active appeal then there is nothing ex parte about polite conversation with public officials after a public meeting, and exchanging pleasantries falls far short of lobbying. That said, I agree that cornering an official after a public meeting to argue your point would likely be unwelcome, perhaps inappropriate, and counter-productive.

ex-parte communication is in no way defined as having to be a party in a case. I also specified "any chance" and this is why I understand if they do not want to engage in conversation. If you are exchanging pleasantries immediately after a hearing and even mistakenly drop a comment about one you just witnessed, ethically they must convey that to the parties.

Some people for some reason like to beat up on the panel members that will not pal around or exchange pleasantries. It is not as sinister as people perceive, it is smart and assures no ethics are broken.

If some of the panel have no problem exchanging pleasantries, so be it. If you think they are naive as to motives.. well never mind. It's probably exactly why the "no permit for you" panel members are quick to avoid, they really can't be drawn in to politics ten minutes after hearings..

LCPIWB · Jun 4, 2015

Gryphon said:
If you are not a party to an active appeal then there is nothing ex parte about polite conversation with public officials after a public meeting, and exchanging pleasantries falls far short of lobbying. That said, I agree that cornering an official after a public meeting to argue your point would likely be unwelcome, perhaps inappropriate, and counter-productive.

Gryphon was also present at the last meeting so he can attest to there was no corning of anyone. We were just standing outside chatting away and it so happened that 4/5 of the board members walked by and we stuck out our hands to shake theirs and say "Thank you." and some just exchanged pleasantries but one stayed for an extended period for discussion.
It was not planned that way, it just happened.

Schipperke · Jun 4, 2015

LCPIWB said:
Gryphon was also present at the last meeting so he can attest to there was no corning of anyone. We were just standing outside chatting away and it so happened that 4/5 of the board members walked by and we stuck out our hands to shake theirs and say "Thank you." and some just exchanged pleasantries but one stayed for an extended period for discussion.
It was not planned that way, it just happened.

Understood.

If anyone is scheduled for hearing, definitely a good idea to watch one first.
I pity folks that live in Oakland..

moojersey · Jun 4, 2015

What is the goal / end game of having a high attendance at the HPRB meetings? I'm seriously not mocking in any way. I just want to know what you guys plan to accomplish. I think it is a good thing the community is attending, I just want to understand a little better. I am planning to go to one in the near future, if only for my own education.

Gryphon · Jun 4, 2015

moojersey said:
What is the goal / end game of having a high attendance at the HPRB meetings? I'm seriously not mocking in any way. I just want to know what you guys plan to accomplish. I think it is a good thing the community is attending, I just want to understand a little better. I am planning to go to one in the near future, if only for my own education.

I don't think its needs to be "high" attendance, but a representative showing to demonstrate that there are members of the public that care enough to show up and see what the MSP and Board are doing on a regular basis. Just like a zoning or development meeting. If you have the time show up and check it out I think its worthwhile; especially if you have applied, are pending, or will be applying. I won't go to every one.

I am certain DCW didn't mean high attendance as a means to intimidate. I think he is just suggesting we counter the apparent lack of interest as reflected in poor prior attendance when the deck was stacked with 5 OweMalley appointed group think anti's.

For example, on 6/2 I got there a few minutes early. There were only 3 other members of the public present for a total of four. Even before a few more members of the public showed, one on the Board members leaned over to another and seriously inquired "did you request all these people be here tonight?" :lol2:

Attending was an education for me, and I think regular attendance (not necessarily by the same people each week - but regular participation by anyone from the public) will tend to keep the process honest and transparent. It demonstrates people care, and counters the "everyone that wants a permit has one" - except of course for the guy appealing that night. It allows participants to keep track of and report back to others on what positions the MSP and Board members are taking. Different perceptions are beneficial. A few of us kicked around what we witnessed afterwards, and it was helpful to have more than just one or two perspectives.

Another example, the other night the MSP erroneously stated the timing for an appeal to the Board several times. I wouldn't say intentionally, but maybe someone else thought it was? Either way we still caught it and that will help minimize misinformation about the process being spread around.

What I found shocking was that some of the applicants/appellants were their own worse enemies because they obviously did not have a clue on what the law and standards are for a permit. Seriously, 2 of the appellants had been denied by MSP because they have prior prohibiting convictions that make them ineligible to even own a handgun much less get a permit! Reporting back those types of outcome on a public forum like this may help others make better informed decisions. It will also help give some insight to those that are geographically disadvantaged and can't readily attend. Kind of an overall public service. Just my thoughts.

Gryphon · Jun 4, 2015

Schipperke said:
ex-parte communication is in no way defined as having to be a party in a case. I also specified "any chance" and this is why I understand if they do not want to engage in conversation. If you are exchanging pleasantries immediately after a hearing and even mistakenly drop a comment about one you just witnessed, ethically they must convey that to the parties.

We will just have to disagree. You are talking about a hypothetical that didn't happen. Could it happen, sure, and then the Board members can simply say it would be inappropriate to comment, and if it continues they might do as you say and just scurry away after the meeting. And so we agree that anyone attending should be on good behavior and not try to discuss active cases.

I suggest you go to a meeting. You will see this isn't Chief Justice Roberts talking to the U.S. Solicitor General on the steps of the Supreme Court after oral argument and before a decision has been reached or published. It's not the accused talking to and trying to influence a juror in the elevator during lunch. At most it was thanks for being willing to serve in this otherwise thankless job, and some exchanges about violence in our current society. No specific case - already decided or pending - was even mentioned.

Oh, and BTW, I won't dig out my Black's Law Dictionary, but I went to Wikipedia and . . . "Ex parte /ˌɛks ˈpɑrtiː/ is a Latin legal term meaning "from (by or for) [the/a] party". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present."

Rest assured, nothing remotely resembling an exparte communication about an active matter was discussed with the 4 out of 5 Board members that voluntarily stopped to introduce themselves and chat for a moment or two after the meeting. I wouldn't have done it or participated in it. Each member can handle it how they see fit.

Applehd · Jun 4, 2015

LoneRanger said:
Why? What do you hope to accomplish?

I really have nothing to add to Gryphon's post. He, basically, hit the nail on the head. For me, attending the meeting gave me a first-hand perspective on how things operate on the Board. For those who have never attended a meeting there, you can speculate all you want about how THIS should have been said or THAT should have been brought up... but that's all you can do. I am fortunate to live close by to the GB barrack so attending is only a matter of timing. Those who live further away, well, that's a judgement call you have to make. A "mob" is not necessary, but a few new faces at each meeting will send a message that with "the new Sheriff(s) in town", people are paying attention. My bright orange "Guns Save Lives" sticker on my notepad was pretty obvious for some of the members to see... not that I paraded it out there. But as said before, just a few new faces raised a brow. As DC-W pointed out... "I just wanted to make sure we weren't hearing things"... you, too, can bear witness to those things said that are now a matter of public record.

montoya32 · Jun 4, 2015

moojersey said:
What is the goal / end game of having a high attendance at the HPRB meetings? I'm seriously not mocking in any way. I just want to know what you guys plan to accomplish. I think it is a good thing the community is attending, I just want to understand a little better. I am planning to go to one in the near future, if only for my own education.

The more eyes on the board and the more people thinking about what is going on, the better for us moving forward. We need as many people to see what is happening, then maybe people will be either optimistic to apply or infuriated enough to apply, but seeing it happen in person is a game changer.

montoya32 · Jun 4, 2015

ShallNotInfringe said:
Who is Jean Goodman?

I believe she is the admin for the board.

montoya32 · Jun 4, 2015

LoneRanger said:
DC-W said:

We need as many folks to attend as possible. /QUOTE]

Why? What do you hope to accomplish?

Click to expand...

Come on. Do we really have to explain? Have you not read the other threads enough concerning the HPRB to figure this out?

Applehd · Jun 4, 2015

moojersey said:
... I am planning to go to one in the near future, if only for my own education.

I meant to quote this, as well, in my previous post.

DC-W · Jun 4, 2015

Gryphon has it covered. I certainly did not mean for anyone to "intimidate" the board members. We will get far more results with honey than with vinegar. If they're intimidated by anything, it'll be by the dashing good looks we all have

If you would like to know how it works and see it for yourself, and at the same time let the members know that their meetings are public and there are folks that care very much about the job their tasked with, attend. If you're planning on applying for a MD permit, attend -- you may be in front of this board. If you just need something to show you that things are changing for the better, attend.

The HPRB meetings are but a window into it all, but it's an important one -- especially now since the majority of the board ARE NOT ANTIS.

montoya32 · Jun 4, 2015

DC-W said:
Gryphon has it covered. I certainly did not mean for anyone to "intimidate" the board members. We will get far more results with honey than with vinegar. If they're intimidated by anything, it'll be by the dashing good looks we all have

If you would like to know how it works and see it for yourself, and at the same time let the members know that their meetings are public and there are folks that care very much about the job their tasked with, attend. If you're planning on applying for a MD permit, attend -- you may be in front of this board. If you just need something to show you that things are changing for the better, attend.

The HPRB meetings are but a window into it all, but it's an important one -- especially now since the majority of the board ARE NOT ANTIS.

Couldn't hurt for the board members to become familiar with the faces if in fact you end up before them in the future. Knowing your demeanor and how you conduct yourself, if in a professional and polite manner, can only help if you need their services.

LCPIWB · Jun 4, 2015

Even though I was a 365er (Which Knaub said was really 700 club), I am very tempted to pay the fee again just to go straight to the HPRB to have an extended chat the chairman of the board and the rest of the board to let them know the powers they have, and are no longer and was never bound by any court case to be liberal in handing out permits. The court cases only said they had the AUTHORITY to be restrictive in the issuance.

If anyone willing to donate a few bucks, I could rinse and repeat every couple months.
The HPRB just seems approachable now. (Do not the past).

HPRB June 16th, 2015 Meeting Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Lil Firecracker

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Needs an avatar

Ultimate Member

Sic Semper Tyrannis

inveniam viam aut faciam

inveniam viam aut faciam

Throbbing Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Throbbing Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Needs an avatar

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics