HPRB March 29, 2016 Meeting Thread

[montoya32]

Would the DPSCS or MSP losing one's records or file be cause for concern? There is confidential information in the application and supporting documentation. Who is to say the file was lost and not stolen?

 

[montoya32]

Good Evening.
I would like to begin by thanking the Handgun Permit Review Board, Mr. Neverdon, Ms. Harris, members of the Maryland State Police, and Mr. Legum from the Attorney General’s office for attending this hearing, which I recognize is an extra hearing in this month and the second public event in 2 days.
Before I begin with my petition, I would like to make two points which I feel need to be stated.
1. I feel it is extremely unfair that the Maryland State Police disapproved my application without providing any specific reason for my disproval. The absence of any specified reason makes preparation for this appeal extremely difficult and unnecessarily exhaustive.
2. I submitted my permit application on March 18, 2015, over 1 year ago. I recognize the substantial efforts of this board to improve the process but must state for the record that a 1 year delay is unacceptable and unnecessarily endangers me and my family.
I will now walk the board through my documentation binder, which will unequivocally demonstrate that my application meets all requirements of Maryland law and that my disapproval by the Maryland State Police was inconsistent with Maryland Law and the Licensing Division’s own standard operating procedures.
1. Tab 1 – This tab contains my original application submitted on March 18, 2015. You will note my good and substantial reasons listed on page 6 of 10 including the following:
a. I am a CPA licensed in Maryland since 2005. CPAs are a regulated profession in MD and it is unclear why the MSP failed to recognize this fact in the processing of my application. The Licensing Division’s operating procedures clearly calls for granting permits to regulated professions.
b. I am also a certified fraud examiner, and periodically identify potential instances of fraud. The discovery of fraud is unpredictable, as is the reaction of perpetrators. This is a unique profession and creates an obvious assumed risk will I will cover more later in my presentation. It is unclear why the Licensing Division failed to recognize the uniqueness of my profession and the assumed risk it creates. Again, the Licensing Division’s operating procedures clearly prescribe granting permits to individuals with assumed risk.
c. I am a Director with the Maryland based CPA firm of [redacted]. As I explained to TFC Laziuck during my interview, this means I am a shareholder and partial owner of the company. It is unclear why the Licensing Division ignored my status as a business owner or did not follow the operating procedures which clearly call for granting permits to business owners.
d. As a person who lives in [redacted] and works in [redacted], my one hour commute makes it virtually impossible to arrive home before dark and thus my wife and I have to walk our two Labrador retrievers at night. My working class neighborhood is safer than many, but crime does occur and late at night I am especially defenseless. There are also registered sex offenders who live in my immediate neighborhood and their presence increases my apprehension of danger in areas immediately outside my home. It is unclear why the MSP failed to consider these compelling reasons as evidence of danger for which I seek the reasonable precaution of legally carrying a firearm for self-defense.
2. Tab 2 is my Form 29-14 certifying my completion of the required 16 hour training, including scored live fire. Please note my score of 100%.
3. Tab 3 is a copy of my Maryland CPA license and my proof of being a certified fraud examiner. I have been a CPA since 2005 and a CFE since 2007. I am also a certified internal auditor since 2006. Please note that my accounting license is issued by the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation of the State of Maryland.
4. Tab 4 is evidence of payment of the licensing fee.
5. Tab 5 is my email communication with TFC Laziuck. As you can note, TFC Laziuck has a myopic focus on whether I can provide police reports, which appears to be the only form of documentation the Licensing Division will accept. This singular focus on police reports is inconsistent with Maryland law and discounts the various other compelling reasons I provided in my application. In my view, it is also clear evidence of the Licensing Division’s bias against issuing permits and lack of objectivity in processing applications.
6. Tab 6 contains my initial disapproval from the Maryland State Police which cited Title 5-306 of the Annotated Code of Maryland and claims my application did not meet the qualifications therein. Tellingly, the Licensing Division neglected to specify which subtitle of the code my application failed to meet. I find this deeply unfair and also inaccurate. I have taken the liberty of printing Title 5-306 to illustrate that my permit has in fact met every criteria.
7. Although I attempted to follow the informal appeal process and met with TFC Laziuck to make these same points, the Licensing Division was impervious to facts and immune to the application of reason and logic. Thus, I received the sustained disapproval on tab 7.
8. Tab 8 is my appeal to the HPRB dated July 14, 2015. I attached all correspondence with the Licensing Division to illustrate my good faith attempts at working with the Maryland State Police to resolve my application.
9. Tab 9 contains a series of emails with Mr. Russell Neverdon from November 2015, where it is frustratingly established that a series of clerical errors meant that I was not notified of my hearing and was thus deprived of my due process and the opportunity to present additional evidence and testimony to this board. Fortunately, with Mr. Neverdon’s assistance I was able to secure today’s hearing.
10. Tab 10 is a letter to the HPRB dated December 2, 2015 which contains a wealth of additional points and documentation I will briefly cover here:
a. I provided clear documentation of my ownership in the CPA firm of [redacted]. Documents provided include articles of incorporation, my stock subscription agreement, and our firm’s CPA license.
b. I discuss the nature of highly valuable and confidential electronic data that I must frequently carry on my person. Data includes but is not limited to payment information, contracts, HIPPA data, payroll, and many other types of information that are highly sought after by criminals.
c. I discuss the nature of my work performing compliance audits. Audits that result in substantial refunds to my clients. I estimate projects under my supervision have resulted in refunds exceeding [redacted] over the past 10 years. The individuals and companies who have to pay these funds back to my clients are often agitated and their anger or frustration can easily be misdirected at me, the auditor. The harsh or offensive language directed at me is intimidating, and it is impossible to predict when this language could escalate to physical endangerment. I provided a notarized statement from my partner and fellow Director [Redacted] to document the existence of these instances.
d. I also included documentation supporting my wife’s graphic design business, which I assist her with by making periodic bank deposits. In addition to documenting her Maryland business license, articles of incorporation and deposits she has also provided a signed statement attesting to her desire that I be granted a permit without restrictions.
11. Tab 11 is a printout of the DLLR Certified Public Accountant Public Query. This website allows anyone in the world to search Maryland CPAs by name, business, location or license number. As you can see on the second and third page, simply entering my name brings up my home address. This fact alone significantly increases my risk and apprehension of danger relative to other citizens including but not limited to retired law enforcement officers who are routinely granted unrestricted permits but to my knowledge do not have their home addresses published online by the State of Maryland.
12. Tab 12 is a December 2015 article from the Baltimore Sun, the article is unique for several reasons:
a. First, it highlights a massive insurance fraud.
b. The individual who was convicted of the fraud was sentenced to 37 years in prison, and a large reason for the significant sentence was that this individual plotted to kill a judge and other public figures involved in his investigation.
c. I have highlighted the following statement from U.S. Attorney Rod J Rosenstein quoted in the Sun:
i. “The evidence demonstrated that Jeffrey Cohen is a chronic con artist who was planning to commit murder to prevent his fraud schemes from coming to light”

The timely words of U.S. Attorney Rosenstein articulate even better than I can, the real and apprehended danger I face every day as a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner.

In conclusion, I am requesting the board to recognize my palpable need for a handgun permit and overrule the Maryland State Police disapproval of my application. Additionally, I request the board to authorize my handgun permit without any additional restrictions. Any additional restrictions on my permit would be inappropriate and dangerous since the threats I encounter arise not just during the actual conduct of my work, but also as a result of my work and thus those threats are persistent and durable. In other words, an individual who means to do me harm as a result of my work may seek to do such harm at an unpredictable time and place, many of which may be unrelated to business activities, business locations, or business hours.
Thank you for your consideration, and I will gladly answer any questions of the board.

I was prepared to use the following text in closing; however, the chairman moved very quickly to modify the MSP and I thought it wiser to remain quiet and allow a vote to occur. Expressing these thoughts in my hearing would have made me feel good, but I suspect some of the points would fall on deaf ears. If I felt my case was going to be denied, i would not have held back.

Thus, the following was NOT part of my testimony but i want those on this forum and those attended to know these are very much thoughts on the process:

Closing Statement (NOT GIVEN - But still worth sharing)

I began this permit application process as a Naïve Citizen. I trustingly assumed that an honest application submitted in good faith would be would be adjudicated in a thoughtful fashion and that compelling reasons for requesting a permit would be considered and accepted. Painfully, my experience has taught me that Maryland State Police Licensing Division applies an alarming bias for disapproval in the processing of applications. I have also learned of the existence of protected classes, mainly government agents and employees, for which the rules of permits are quickly relaxed by the Licensing Division.

I accept that it is necessary to investigate before permitting, but the line between objective investigating and simply infringing on civil liberty is a very fine one and the Maryland State Police Licensing Division under commander Stachurski and superintendent Pallozi has stepped over it repeatedly. The Licensing Division’s primary achievements have been in discouraging eligible, law abiding citizens from applying for a permit, fostering false notions of Maryland’s requirements to obtain a permit and establishing baffling restrictions on when to use them.

We must not confuse Maryland State Police Licensing Division’s operating procedures with the actual requirements of the law. We should be mindful that police reports are but one form of proof and that the determination of “good and substantial”, as not defined by law, is something to be judged by your minds and hearts, based on upon evidence, logic, and reason presented to you in good faith. We must also remember that the right to bear arms, like many other civil liberties, is reserved to the people, not the government or it’s agents.

The Maryland State Police should not fear issuance of permits, or submit to political pressures applied by high offices and interests. We Citizens that seek to exercise our rights to self-defense are merely following a long tradition in this country of self-reliance and legal self-protection. It is not just our right but our responsibility as citizens of the State of Maryland, united with the other 49 States, all of which approve permits with substantially more fairness and transparency.

The Maryland State Police can deny our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, but they cannot escape responsibility for the result. Revisiting the oath they took upon entering service, each trooper pledges to serve honestly and faithfully to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Those Troopers in the Licensing Division who choose, and it is a choice, to ignore this commitment based on career ambitions or political pressure are dishonoring their agency and diminishing the very freedom they exist to protect.

The continued refusal of the Maryland State Police Licensing Division to issue lawful permits has endangered me, my family, and countless other Citizens, and given considerable comfort to criminals that seek to do harm. I look to this board to restore my constitutional rights, in accordance with Maryland law, and over-rule the disapproval of my hand gun permit application.

Thank you.

1. I am enormously grateful to the MDS community especially Tim M., Jack M., Mark the audio guy, and the crew that attends HPRB meetings. This is a unique community and my success is directly the result of the help and support of numerous MDS members. I am working on "thank you" karma that will be worth the wait.

2. I strongly disagree with the HPRB's rejection of the individual who's case was before mine. It is a travesty that our service men and women cannot obtain permits. That gentlemen showed up expecting his truthful case to be heard and judged on it's merits, and instead was asked to produce top secret documentation which obviously he cannot do. His testimony was credible and there is no reason the board could not have made a judgement in his favor.

3. I am disappointed the board chose to award me a restricted permit when I felt I made a compelling case for an unrestricted one. Lately it seemed the board was primarily granting unrestricted permits so I am a little curious to see what direction future permits go. i'm also looking forward to reading MDS comments and suggestions for how I could have worded my request more effectively.

4. I am also highly aware of the unfairness of this system and the fact that business owners have an easier path than just about anyone else other than LEOs. I fully intend to continue fighting for this cause and supporting all who seek to exercise their 2A rights in this state. Probably time for me to get more involved in MSI...

5. Thought i should mention that the new 2nd in command at the MSP LD came up to me after the hearing to let me know "your permit will not be ready tomorrow". I get what he was doing but my comment to him was basically - "I know how the system works, as long you follow the law I won't have any issues. But I'm aware you haven't followed the law in all cases so I will be closely paying attention." He seems like a very nice guy and competent individual but my opinion of the MSP has become very jaded.

All in all I have to say I am very happy with the outcome after a year of work and can only hope that other applicants will have similar or better outcomes than me.

You are a true Patriot Sir!

I would like to interject and remind those that the board reserves the right to revisit or reconsider their decision up until the decision letter is sent out/received by the applicant. I'm not sure if there is anything more that can be done in this specific case, but I sure as hell would not just take the crumbs offered and walk away. While I can appreciate the attempt to offer some sort of reward or victory by the board, to me this did not pass muster.

 

[ironpony]

. Thanks to everyone helping to expose the facts.

 

[rsj1231]

I finally got to watch/listen to the MGA recording posted towards the beginning of this thread and can't believe the words coming out of Senator McFadden's mouth. He is a true a$$hole. Kudos to Chairman Wilson for showing restraint because I would be irate if I were accused of some sort of "home brewing" after the complete cluster **** this board used to be (thanks to his folks on the "hard left").

 

[PJDiesel]

I would like to interject and remind those that the board reserves the right to revisit or reconsider their decision up until the decision letter is sent out/received by the applicant. I'm not sure if there is anything more that can be done in this specific case, but I sure as hell would not just take the crumbs offered and walk away. While I can appreciate the attempt to offer some sort of reward or victory by the board, to me this did not pass muster.

Its should also be noted that the MSP reserves the right to NEVER send the actual permit, as evidenced by almost every single person here's experience after the board overturns.

 

[Schipperke]

I don't understand the issue with voluminous binders dropped at the hearing. Does't MSP have the right to some time to examine something like that? The board as well? Seems like something that needs to be in discovery. That is a lot to consider on the fly of what is suppose to take 30 minutes and an immediate decision.

 

[PJDiesel]

I don't understand the issue with voluminous binders dropped at the hearing. Does't MSP have the right to some time to examine something like that? The board as well? Seems like something that needs to be in discovery. That is a lot to consider on the fly of what is suppose to take 30 minutes and an immediate decision.

They mentioned it (I think I heard). If the MSP doesn't even have to provide the specific reason the applicant was denied,..why should they get any time to review any proof the other way?

Plus the whole 6 days notice to prepare your things ********. Listen folks,....

IT'S NOT THIS DIFFICULT!

 

[Schipperke]

I would like to interject and remind those that the board reserves the right to revisit or reconsider their decision up until the decision letter is sent out/received by the applicant. I'm not sure if there is anything more that can be done in this specific case, but I sure as hell would not just take the crumbs offered and walk away. While I can appreciate the attempt to offer some sort of reward or victory by the board, to me this did not pass muster.

I'll wait for a Circuit Court Judge to acknowledge this. How would you like sitting there prevailing by vote of the panel after all the testimony, then later be told we're having a redo? Maybe they can reconsider, but proboboly not by rehearing. Craziest thing I've ever seen.

 

[montoya32]

I'll wait for a Circuit Court Judge to acknowledge this. How would you like sitting there prevailing by vote of the panel after all the testimony, then later be told we're having a redo? Maybe they can reconsider, but proboboly not by rehearing. Craziest thing I've ever seen.

The board has already stated as much. It has been covered before.

 

[Schipperke]

The board has already stated as much. It has been covered before.

I forgot they all had JD degrees

 

[iCoder80]

I don't understand the issue with voluminous binders dropped at the hearing. Does't MSP have the right to some time to examine something like that? The board as well? Seems like something that needs to be in discovery. That is a lot to consider on the fly of what is suppose to take 30 minutes and an immediate decision.

The entire process seems flawed to me. I don't see how the board can make an immediate decision in 30 minutes when the applicant brings volumes of data that needs to be reviewed, absorbed and discussed. Reminds me of the IRS audit shoe box theory.

To my way of thinking the HPRB is pretty much a waste of my taxpayer dollars. It should be shut down. The courts should be the remedy for those denied as that appears it may be the ultimate remedy for most of the cases I have been reading about in these threads.

 

[Gryphon]

I agree with Tim, in that I am not sure what good it would do here, but Maryland does recognize an administrative board's - like the HGPRB - inherent authority to reconsider their own quasi-judicial decisions, even while a petition for judicial review is pending in the circuit court. However, such reconsideration must be based on new facts, fraud, surprise, mistake or inadvertence, and not just on a mere change of mind. In other words, as long as there is a legitimate basis for reconsideration, a Board may reverse its prior decision and that will not be deemed to have been a mere change of mind. See Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Board, 173 Md.App. 349 (2007).

 

[Schipperke]

The entire process seems flawed to me. I don't see how the board can make an immediate decision in 30 minutes when the applicant brings volumes of data that needs to be reviewed, absorbed and discussed. Reminds me of the IRS audit shoe box theory.

To my way of thinking the HPRB is pretty much a waste of my taxpayer dollars. It should be shut down. The courts should be the remedy for those denied as that appears it may be the ultimate remedy for most of the cases I have been reading about in these threads.

I've always considered the HPRB a step to correct MSP if they have erred on some facts of submitted. Not a court room to argue Maryland statute what they must approve. It's fairly clear Maryland is not shall issue, nor on its way to being.

 

[iCoder80]

I've always considered the HPRB a step to correct MSP if they have erred on some facts of submitted. Not a court room to argue Maryland statute what they must approve. It's fairly clear Maryland is not shall issue, nor on its way to being.

I can appreciate that is the board's task. I just don't see how they can come to a meaningful decision in the small amount of time they allot themselves to hear and vote on an appeal. It is small wonder they tend to rubber stamp the MSP's decisions.

 

[Jim12]

Thank you for that injection President Miller you moron that has no clue what is going on!

Don't follow this thread but just dropped by here after seeing a reference to the piece below elsewhere. I don't have access to the Daily Record, but here is the start of the piece, fyi and for whoever does.:

" Md. senators worried panel becoming ‘handgun assistance board’
http://thedailyrecord.com/2016/03/29/md-senators-worried-panel-becoming-handgun-assistance-board/
By: Bryan P. Sears Daily Record Government Reporter March 29, 2016
ANNAPOLIS — Five of Gov. Larry Hogan's appointments to the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board have a number of Democratic legislators expressing concerns the panel will be more receptive to approving conceal-carry permits. The Senate Executive Nominations Committee voted Monday to approve four appointments to the board — Jacques R. Cowan, Richard Lee Jurgena, Patricia S. ...
Complete access to news articles on this website is available to Daily Record subscribers who are logged in. Subscribers may login at the login tab, below. Others may join our audience of successful Marylanders with a subscription today.

Read more: http://thedailyrecord.com/2016/03/2...oming-handgun-assistance-board/#ixzz44Oc4YTrg
: "

 

[redeemed.man]

Don't follow this thread but just dropped by here after seeing a reference to the piece below elsewhere. I don't have access to the Daily Record, but here is the start of the piece, fyi and for whoever does.:

" Md. senators worried panel becoming ‘handgun assistance board’
http://thedailyrecord.com/2016/03/29/md-senators-worried-panel-becoming-handgun-assistance-board/
By: Bryan P. Sears Daily Record Government ReporterMarch 29, 2016
ANNAPOLIS — Five of Gov. Larry Hogan's appointments to the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board have a number of Democratic legislators expressing concerns the panel will be more receptive to approving conceal-carry permits. The Senate Executive Nominations Committee voted Monday to approve four appointments to the board — Jacques R. Cowan, Richard Lee Jurgena, Patricia S. ...
Complete access to news articles on this website is available to Daily Record subscribers who are logged in. Subscribers may login at the login tab, below. Others may join our audience of successful Marylanders with a subscription today.

Read more: http://thedailyrecord.com/2016/03/2...oming-handgun-assistance-board/#ixzz44Oc4YTrg
: "

Four members? Did one not get approved?

 

[Tomcat]

Four members? Did one not get approved?

Unknown? Still not listed on the GAM site http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmPublications.aspx?pid=pubspage&tab=subject8

 

[PJDiesel]

Four members? Did one not get approved?

Miller referred to them as "Four" during discussion also. Wondering if it's just someone misspeaking (and being repeated).

 

[robmints]

I've always considered the HPRB a step to correct MSP if they have erred on some facts of submitted. Not a court room to argue Maryland statute what they must approve. It's fairly clear Maryland is not shall issue, nor on its way to being.

Md is Shall Issue with G&S (as you point out, that is not the practicality). Without a definition of G&S, that is usually the error being appealed/disputed.

While we all agree there should not be restrictions, even with our law they should not be on every permit just because. The restrictions are another MSP-AG directed mess. Anyone who is self-employed with a business G&S license should be unrestricted, unless the applicant requests a restriction.

If the board, legislature, gov, applicant, or anyone else involved expects the MSP and SA's to use reasonable judgement when it comes to enforcement of permit restrictions, I think they are not using good judgement themselves. All you need to do is look at this process and how the MSP/AG's office warps words and meanings to see their bias towards opposition of personal protection.

 

[DC-W]

Unknown? Still not listed on the GAM site http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmPublications.aspx?pid=pubspage&tab=subject8

The link you'll need is this one. It'll be report 6 at the bottom. Still hasn't been posted.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...ubspage&tab=subject8&Classification=Committee

They did pass committee 10-4 with 1 abstaining.