HPRB January 19, 2016 Meeting Thread

[LCPIWB]

I don't remember him going before the HPRB either. That story of the fishing pole salesman happened long before Hogan's election and you know the rubber stamp history of the previous boards.. The story was circulated as an example of permits being issued for almost any business including the guy that did internet sales and only accepted credit cards and he got a permit.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

I can't find the June 2nd meeting thread but here's a quote from Gryphon some time ago, just making sure I'm not going crazy.

"Business license has been used above in a generic sense. I am pretty sure the fishing rod guy at the 6/2 HGPRB meeting just had a trader's license (others can correct me if I am mistaken please), and if I recall one of the Board members said yep, that's all she had for her business. In other words, it doesn't necessarily need to be a Inc. or LLC, but I agree the carve out for "business" applications is BS - as Capt. Jack has so eloquently stated."

Yes, the fisherman happened in June 2015, I was there with DC-W, Applehd, and Gryphon and a few others.

 

[Matlack]

No records for some cases? That's just astounding.

However, it does sound like these members are starting to right this ship.

This probably has to do with closed sessions and a misunderstanding of record keeping during closed sessions. By RRoO you may take records during closed sessions but you cannot publicize them. Most people misunderstand closed sessions and believe you cannot take minutes or keep records. This is incorrect, you can you just have to keep them separate and keep them sealed. Because of this most closed sessions do not keep records of the session. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[ComeGet]

Supposedly MSP requested a reason for the overturned decision, even though they provide no reason for their decisions and law does not require the board to provide them with an explanation other than "You were overturned, issue the permit."

That's what I thought, so am surprised that the board is going to re-hear the case.

I'm just speculating here, but I don't think that means msp can change hprb decision. It's just an official position that they do not agree with them. OTOH they could accept, basically admitting their clerical or other mistake on initial application.

See above, the chair said they'll re-hear.

 

[DC-W]

As soon as the good fisherman brought up that he has a business selling fishing reels, Collinson perked up to say, "that's your good and substantial."

He tried applying under self defense at first, but it was going nowhere fast. We only know he got a permit because Knaub said that as soon as he gets a copy of the gentleman's business license, he'd send the permit out.

We were kicked out for votes back then.

 

[montoya32]

This probably has to do with closed sessions and a misunderstanding of record keeping during closed sessions. By RRoO you may take records during closed sessions but you cannot publicize them. Most people misunderstand closed sessions and believe you cannot take minutes or keep records. This is incorrect, you can you just have to keep them separate and keep them sealed. Because of this most closed sessions do not keep records of the session. Hopefully that makes sense.

Nope. Has to do with a flunky as an admin who didn't know how to keep notes or audio.

 

[protegeV]

That's what I thought, so am surprised that the board is going to re-hear the case.



See above, the chair said they'll re-hear.

Ah, didn't see any mention of a new hearing.

 

[Jaybeez]

The MSP can "reject" a decision?

the decision was written by the prior chairman, unsigned, and incomprehensible... apparently.

the new chairman declared that he would be rewritting it correctly, soon.

 

[montoya32]

the decision was written by the prior chairman, unsigned, and incomprehensible... apparently.

the new chairman declared that he would be rewritting it correctly, soon.

Here are my notes from the meeting in questions, if anyone wants to see which cases were overturned.



Mr. Neverdon explaining that all changes being made due to public inquiry and updating of the HPRB web page. Deliberations and voting will now be public.

1st 5 cases are all reviews and last case is a hearing.

#438-87156 - 10/28/2014 - Reason for permit: Personal protection - Legally registered gun owner, disabled veteran, applicant was harassed and filed a police report. Cited he is retired military(31 years marine corp) and that FBI has acknowledged the threats against current and former military and their families. Mr. Jugena questioning that proof of a background check on an application is not evident. No proof that MSP actually called references and did complete application process. Mr. Wilson motions to overturn MSP and Mrs. White abstains. Mr. Jurgena 2nd. Mr. Thomas votes against. 2-1 overturn!

#438- - 1/14/2014 - Renewal - original issuance 2009 - 2nd renewal - Nurse at Johns Hopkins - Accousted 2 times in the past 12 months - MSP stated that the threats given for initial issuance no longer exist. Mr. Jurgena and Mr. Wilson questioning the statement that MSP said courts have ruled that threats have a shelf-life. Mr. Wilson motions to overturn and issue permit! Mr. Jurgena and Mrs. White 2nd.

#438-87558 - 1/13/2015 - Reason for permit: statewide protective services. Armed security guard. Applicant was convicted in VA contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Mr. Jurgena motions to uphold MSP decision. Mr. Wilson clarifies that applicant lied on application about convictions. All board members 2nd Mr. Jurgena’s motion to uphold.

#438-62558 - 9/24/2014 - Original application - Reason: Retired MD correctional officer, 2002(more than 10 years after employment) Applicant completed chemical treatment program. Applicant did not provide proof of any threats or attacks. Mr. Wilson points out that applicant did answer “yes” being currently or previously treated for chemical addition/dependency. Mr. Jurgena points out that on 12/16/2014 applicant provided complaint numbers for threats. Mr. Jurgena motions to uphold MSP and all 2nd.

#438-87219 - 11/7/2014 - Original application - Reason: Current military and cites increasing threats to US military. Applicant has no proof of specific threats against himself. Snowden, Snowden, Snowden. Mr. Wilson struggles with applying MD requirements to military. Mr. Jurgena, Mrs. White and Mr. wilson vote to overturn MSP and issue permit to military personnel!

Hearing - Kendall Austin - 1/13/2015 - Reason: armed guard for statewide protective services. Juvenile record taken into account. Under 30 and was convicted for 2nd degree assault as a juvenile. Was unaware of juvenile record was admissible for someone under age 30. Worked for Johns Hopkins for 6 years. Applicants pastor is his witness and explains applicant is an orphan and has corrected his path and is striving to earn and promote himself. Board is being very understanding and giving applicant advice as to how to correct his record and reapply. MSP decision upheld.

Mr. Jurgena moves to close the meeting for admin purposes.

 

[ComeGet]

the decision was written by the prior chairman, unsigned, and incomprehensible... apparently.

the new chairman declared that he would be rewritting it correctly, soon.

Aha. Thanks.

 

[Matlack]

Nope. Has to do with a flunky as an admin who didn't know how to keep notes or audio.

Liberal flunky ineptitude, I dont believe it!!!

 

[PJDiesel]

Hey! You talkin bout my boo?

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

MSP can appeal a decision of the HPRB that goes against them. Has to be filed in the Circuit Court of the county where the licensee lives. SG 10-222(a). Other than that an aggrieved party can petition the Board to correct a clerical error or clarify an order that is not clear. MSP cant force the board to redo something they don't like.

 

[Straightshooter]

I can't find the June 2nd meeting thread but here's a quote from Gryphon some time ago, just making sure I'm not going crazy.

"Business license has been used above in a generic sense. I am pretty sure the fishing rod guy at the 6/2 HGPRB meeting just had a trader's license (others can correct me if I am mistaken please), and if I recall one of the Board members said yep, that's all she had for her business. In other words, it doesn't necessarily need to be a Inc. or LLC, but I agree the carve out for "business" applications is BS - as Capt. Jack has so eloquently stated."

I stand corrected. Since it seems to have been sent back to the LD to wait some sort of proof of having a business, we still don't know the outcome.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[m4strmind]

can you guys break this down for me?

All this talk about the HPRB is confusing.

Are things being over turned?

Could an upstanding citizen like myself (employed, college educated, nerd, no criminal record etc) stand a chance at getting a CCW for personal protection?

I have no documented threats against me and I am not running my own business.

 

[gsrcrxsi]

same here:

average Joe
govt. contractor (NASA)
no security clearance
not a business owner
no specific threats
WAS a part of the OPM hack.

unfortunately, with the way things look, doesnt look like i stand a chance.

 

[USAFRavenR6]

same here:

average Joe
govt. contractor (NASA)
no security clearance
not a business owner
no specific threats
WAS a part of the OPM hack.

unfortunately, with the way things look, doesnt look like i stand a chance.

I disagree, you just need to know how to argue the case. last night, I brought up a NIST employee, who also did not have a clearance and was part of the OPM hack who is on an ISIS hit list. I argued that regardless of government org, it is still a representative of the us government and to an enemy, a target none the less. The board agreed with me.

What you will need to do is while its on the MSP to prove their side, you are still going to have to refute them as well as strengthen your side of the argument at the same time in a compelling manner.

What do you have to lose?

 

[USAFRavenR6]

MSP can appeal a decision of the HPRB that goes against them. Has to be filed in the Circuit Court of the county where the licensee lives. SG 10-222(a). Other than that an aggrieved party can petition the Board to correct a clerical error or clarify an order that is not clear. MSP cant force the board to redo something they don't like.

Well, that being said, in your professional opinion do you believe that the MSP will appeal to a circuit court of Frederick county for my case. I argued and opened the door for a business to have restrictions lifted as well as a security clearance/opm hack perspective.

 

[Rab1515]

can you guys break this down for me?

All this talk about the HPRB is confusing.

Are things being over turned?

Could an upstanding citizen like myself (employed, college educated, nerd, no criminal record etc) stand a chance at getting a CCW for personal protection?

I have no documented threats against me and I am not running my own business.

Nope. Not unless you were effected by the OPM breach

 

[dgapilot]

So "personal protection" allowed under the statute no go, but carry while you are fly fishing with the possibility of maybe selling an extra rod stored in your trunk is "transacting business" so no problem. I don't recall anything about fly fishing being an assumed risk in the statute. I am glad the guy got his permit, but the whole thing would have given anyone outside of this broken MSP/prior Board scheme a freaking headache. I went home, made a drink and washed down a few Tylenol.

So perhaps taking the application to task in some court action rather than the actual statute may be an idea. If the application does not reflect the law, then there should be a means to force the correction of the application to match the statute requirements.

 

[m4strmind]

Nope. Not unless you were effected by the OPM breach

I'm not sure what the OPM breach is.

I do not work for the government in anyway shape or form.

I just don't want to be defenseless.