HPRB March 15, 2016 Meeting Thread

[rambling_one]

I wonder what changed - wasn't MSP adverse to using their barrack not that long ago?

 

[dblas]

Just confirmed via DPSC that the meeting for the 15th and the 29th is indeed in Pikesville.

 

[swinokur]

maybe the regular room is being fumigated.

 

[Jaybeez]

Can anyone confirm via another source that it has actually returned to the barracks?

I'll be training in Frederick and can't make this one.

I made a call. it's supposed to still be at reisterstown road, like gryphon's letter states. not glen burnie msp.

 

[Jaybeez]

website now says reisterstown road for the meeting, changed from saying gb this morning.

 

[basscat]

Lets see; Gryphon's notified 5 days before his hearing, they post a change of venue on their web site for said date, only a call confirms its still at the original site. Sounds like someone does not want an audience at this meeting. Always liked the "X files" motto. Trust No one!!

 

[protegeV]

 

[Jaybeez]

and the sop has changed. unlike most sop docs, no date or approval codes.

" a) Required positive finding – Every applicant must prove a “good and substantial reason” for a handgun permit, including a “finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Interpretation of these statutory concepts by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Snowden vs. Handgun Permit Review Board, 45 Md. App. 464, 413 A.2d 295, cert. denied, 288 Md. 742 (1980) requires an objective rather than an individual or subjective, assessment of the risk. The discretion granted by the court requires the MSP, and the Board on appeal, to weigh that risk based on the facts of the case, seeking to determine whether the applicant’s reasonable “apprehension of danger” is substantially different from that experienced by other citizens in the same community. "

 

[redeemed.man]

and the sop has changed. unlike most sop docs, no date or approval codes.

" a) Required positive finding – Every applicant must prove a “good and substantial reason” for a handgun permit, including a “finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Interpretation of these statutory concepts by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Snowden vs. Handgun Permit Review Board, 45 Md. App. 464, 413 A.2d 295, cert. denied, 288 Md. 742 (1980) requires an objective rather than an individual or subjective, assessment of the risk. The discretion granted by the court requires the MSP, and the Board on appeal, to weigh that risk based on the facts of the case, seeking to determine whether the applicant’s reasonable “apprehension of danger” is substantially different from that experienced by other citizens in the same community. "

Burden of proof has changed. This is garbage.

 

[protegeV]

Burden of proof has changed. This is garbage.

How so? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see that.

 

[montoya32]

Burden of proof has changed. This is garbage.

This was stated several meetings ago. As the law is written, I actually agree with this new understanding of "burden of proof". Once G&S is defined/changed, then we can flip the burden on the MSP.

 

[redeemed.man]

How so? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see that.

The old SOP said the burden was on the MSP.

 

[redeemed.man]

This was stated several meetings ago. As the law is written, I actually agree with this new understanding of "burden of proof". Once G&S is defined/changed, then we can flip the burden on the MSP.

I don't disagree with you based on the law but the old burden procedurally was much more favorable to the applicant.

 

[protegeV]

AIUI, upon application the BOP is on the applicant to prove their G&S. On appeal, the MSP has the BOP as to why the applicant did not meet the G&S standard. At least that seems to be the sound of the drum the chairman has been pounding the last few months

 

[montoya32]

I don't disagree with you based on the law but the old burden procedurally was much more favorable to the applicant.

I agree.

 

[Jaybeez]

Burden of proof has changed. This is garbage.

im not so sure. there is no reference to Scherr in the SOP. It only references Snowden.

Im re reading snowden. Snowden applied for a permit for his job. His boss said he didnt need a permit.
FIRST PAGE. FULL STOP. everything after that is doomed to failure. he didnt apply for personal protection.

Reading further:
"Reasonable precaution of apprehended danger is not from the subjective view if the applicant."
PAUSE. True. my analysis: even going back to the 1894 law. It was an affirmative defense, meaning the burden of proof that it doesnt exist is on the Super. (judge/jury in 1894) In 1894 r.p.a.a.d. starts with travel to "dangerous localities" and stops at criminal activity.

Further reading:
" We think the phrase “good and substantial reason,” as used in Md.Ann.Code art. 27, s 36E(a)(6), means something more than personal anxiety over having one's name connected publicly with anti-drug and anti-crime activities. It means, we believe, something more than the concern the individual may have because he has been told by another, that she heard some unidentified men threatening to harm the applicant if he journeys to Meade Village. Thr statute makes clear that it is the Board not the applicant, that decides whether there is “apprehended danger” to the applicant."

the board decides the level of apprehended danger. anti drug and anti crime activites, and vague 2nd hand threats about men in meade village are off the table.

So guys, seriously, dont mention you might travel to meade village as your g&s. pick someplace else. Dont mention 2nd hand threats. And dont mention a job, especially if your employer doesnt want you armed.

Then the SOP mentions:
" seeking to determine whether the applicant’s reasonable “apprehension of danger” is substantially different from that experienced by other citizens in the same community"
BUT THATS NOT FROM SNOWDEN, THATS FROM SCHERR. And its just something that was "made up". So for now, not part of the "required positive finding" in the SOP as far as I'm concerned, since the SOP doesnt cite Scherr at all.

Now, my arguement would be that reasonable precaution against apprehended danger means the same thing in public safety 5-306 as it means in criminal 4-101:
" (4) an individual who carries the weapon as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger, subject to the right of the court in an action arising under this section to judge the reasonableness of the carrying of the weapon, and the proper occasion for carrying it, under the evidence in the case."
WAS IT USED IN A CRIMINAL ACT? JUST LIKE THE 1894 LAW. NOTHING ABOUT ANXIETY OR THE COMMUNITY. JUST PLAIN OLD, DOES IT MAKE SENSE. 46 STATES SAY IT DOES. THERE'S THE APPREHENSION OF DANGER OF THE BROADER COMMUNITY.

 

[Hattie]

I don't see the change to burden of proof. The SOP still contains the statement "Testimony is taken under oath, and the MSP bears the burden of proof."

The legal standard set forth in the SOP is, however, a complete misstatement of the law, as has previously been discussed at length on MDS. The statute specifically does not require a showing of "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger;" that is only one way of demonstrating "good and substantial reason." Snowden and Scherr are not the law; the 4th Circuit's "palpable need" standard is.

It appears that the Board may have been led far astray by its designated "Frosh-ette."

 

[JPG]

I wonder what changed - wasn't MSP adverse to using their barrack not that long ago?

You guys started bringing doughnuts............ They felt left out

 

[PJDiesel]

It appears that the Board may have been led far astray by its designated "Frosh-ette."

Only a matter of time before that happened.

 

[Gryphon]

Guys and gals, I am unaware of any change in the "Boards Rules," or any changes to the BOP as stated in the Board's previously posted rules since I submitted my appeal. I admit to not having looked closely at the website recently, but that is because I received my notice of hearing less than 4 days before the hearing, because as evidenced by the website the location has fluctuated to erroneous locations, and because I have been to all the recent meetings and never heard changes to the Rules ever mentioned, discussed, commented on or voted upon much less adopted. The guessing games and speculation are just too numerous. I trust Chairman Wilson didn't advocate, and the Board didn't purport to adopt, new rules mid-stream with no discussion, debate or vote.