HPRB June 7, 2016 Meeting Thread

[Blaster229]

Why was she not given a MD permit? It is within their arbitrary 1 yr mark to apply for a retired LEO permit.

Pretty sure MSP does not(doesn't prefer to) issue permits for those who are LEOSA qualified, unless they are actual MSP retired. No reason really. Kind of redundant.
I'd rather have my LEOSA over a permit any day.


From their licensing page.....

http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Pages/CriminalInvestigationBureau/LicensingDivision/Firearms/WearandCarryPermit.aspx

"For retired or former federal law enforcement officers and retired or former out-of -state law enforcement officers, who permanently reside in Maryland but were not assigned in Maryland during their employment, LEOSA is a nationally recognized credential and a Maryland Wear and Carry Permit is not required or necessary. The Maryland Police & Correctional Training Commission (MPCTC) may serve as the certifying agency for LEOSA if eligible and the application and guidelines can be found on the MPCTC website at mdle.net Should you desire a Maryland Wear and Carry Permit you will be required to provide a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger. "

 

[Stoveman]

BAM! , 9th Circuit

From Peruta:

"
We do not reach the question whether the Second
Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public,
such as open carry. That question was left open by the
Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it
here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing
concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the
Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to
carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the
overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude
that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the
scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to
the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of
the general public.

The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some
degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry
firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right,
and the scope of such a right, are separate from and
independent of the question presented here. We hold only
that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the
general public to carry concealed firearms in public."



Case: 10-56971, 06/09/2016, ID: 10007709, DktEntry: 333-1, Page 19 of 89

It was an EN BANC hearing.

Respectfully, so what?

We have heard time and again from the MSP and the board that it matters not that an applicant can have a pocket full of permits from other states and that S&S are the ruling authority.

So I'm sure that this decision from the 9th Circus will in no way affect the boards decisions going forward.

 

[GAL700]

Greetings and welcome.

It is none of that HPRB board members business or concern what happens or any particulars of your travel in and out of Washington DC.

Their job is to evaluate you in regard to a MARYLAND PERMIT.

They should only be evaluating you for "qualifications" for MARYLAND.

Who is to say you don't already have or will not soon obtain a DC permit.

And honestly it is NONE of that board members business if you have a DC permit or not.

The HPRB is quickly turning into another BOARD OF OPINIONS.

Greeting in return.

"Who is to say you don't already have or will not soon obtain a DC permit." that was my response in so many words. I told them my plan was to apply for a DC permit at some point. But either way my concern was being in MD not DC, since my MD address was exposed. I agree with you 100% this is a MD HPRB nothing to do with DC. I guess they figured since you're already exposed in DC why need protection in MD..... totally astonished. I think if I had a open session things might have turned out differently.

 

[BeoBill]

Greeting in return.

"Who is to say you don't already have or will not soon obtain a DC permit." that was my response in so many words. I told them my plan was to apply for a DC permit at some point. But either way my concern was being in MD not DC, since my MD address was exposed. I agree with you 100% this is a MD HPRB nothing to do with DC. I guess they figured since you're already exposed in DC why need protection in MD..... totally astonished. I think if I had a open session things might have turned out differently.

Greetings, and welcome to "the other side of the looking glass." I doubt that an open session would have made much of a difference. Many of us are in roughly the same position as you, but without an LEOSA spouse's protection to rely on.

I'm really beginning to think it's become a power thing on the part of some [known but unnamed] HPRB members, and that unless you are not affiliated with an LE agency of some type and are not identified by name on an ISIS/L/younameit Kill List, you're entered into a lottery for your permit. With the odds stacked against you.

Anyway, just my opinion. Welcome once again to the fight for freedom.

 

[GAL700]

Ladies and Gents I wanted to provide an update since I just received my formal denial letter from the HPRB. I will provide word for word the discussion portion of the letter and the information provided by me to the MSP and HPRB. I will let you make your own assumption and provide feedback if you like. As discussed prior I chose a closed session in order to not disclose who my employer is but considering my information is already out there in the interwebs, and I hope to help others in the community so I have decided to disclose. Since I will also be requesting a judicial review I don't see how can keep this information totally private. I personally believe that the closed sessions are hurting our cause, just my 2 cents.

I currently work for the (XXXXXXXXXX) in which I support HQ and over 100 field offices domestic and overseas, I am considered essential personnel. My spouse also works for the (XXXXXX as a LEO up to about 3 months ago and now has moved on to a different assignment withing the organization. In my application I provided a copy of the email from OPM stating I was part of the OPM data breach and that my wife was also affected. I also provided at least 10 instances were law enforcement employees and military personnel have been attacked by Islamic terrorists in the past 3 years or so.


During my HPRB hearing I also included copies of open source news reports of the NIST employee on kill list, ISIS sympathizer from Edgewood MD and the most compeling the reports of ISIS directly threatening POTUS and to leave the White House black with fire. I also presented the original copies from OPM stating my wife and I were both part of the data breach. Copies were made by one of the nice ladies and was given to the HPRB.

OPM letter:

"You are receiving this notification because we have determined that your Social Security Number and other personal information was included in the intrusion", " Since you applied for a position or submitted a background investigation form, residency, educational, and employment history, personal foreign travel history, information about immediate family as well as business and personal acquaintances, and other information used to conduct and adjudicate your background investigation." and " Our records indicate your fingerprints were likley compromised during the cyber intrusion."

That being said here is the HPRB response:

"Mr XXXX alleged entitlement to a handgun permit on basis of the (possibility) of his personal information being compromised on the Internet as some time, and that he holds a security clearance. He did not provide any documents supporting this contention nor did he testify to his personal information having been part of the Office of Personnel Management security breach fo personal information. Mr XXXX further stated that his wife has been a Law Enforcement Officer with the United States Secret Service. He provided no written information that his wife's personal information has been compromised. The Board recognizes that he has a TS/SCI clearance; however, no information was provided of a compromise to his personal information, and the Board did not find this argument compelling.

The Board notes Mr. XXXX commutes over Maryland state lines into Washington, D.C. and that he does not have a permit to carry within the borders of Washington D.C. or at work. Because Mr XXXX could not carry a weapon at work or in the District of Columbia any argument that the nature of his work entitles Mr. XXXX to a handgun permit less compelling"

There you have it. Please keep comments constructive to the community. Please note I wouldn't put my family information out there unless I believed 100% in this cause. Would anyone know the process of petitioning for a judicial review? Anyone in the community go through the process already?

Thank you

 

[BeoBill]

Ladies and Gents I wanted to provide an update since I just received my formal denial letter from the HPRB. I will provide word for word the discussion portion of the letter and the information provided by me to the MSP and HPRB. I will let you make your own assumption and provide feedback if you like. As discussed prior I chose a closed session in order to not disclose who my employer is but considering my information is already out there in the interwebs, and I hope to help others in the community so I have decided to disclose. Since I will also be requesting a judicial review I don't see how can keep this information totally private. I personally believe that the closed sessions are hurting our cause, just my 2 cents...

Best of luck and God speed with your judicial review. We're rooting for you.

 

[GAL700]

Best of luck and God speed with your judicial review. We're rooting for you.

Thank you sir.

 

[redeemed.man]

Ladies and Gents I wanted to provide an update since I just received my formal denial letter from the HPRB. I will provide word for word the discussion portion of the letter and the information provided by me to the MSP and HPRB. I will let you make your own assumption and provide feedback if you like. As discussed prior I chose a closed session in order to not disclose who my employer is but considering my information is already out there in the interwebs, and I hope to help others in the community so I have decided to disclose. Since I will also be requesting a judicial review I don't see how can keep this information totally private. I personally believe that the closed sessions are hurting our cause, just my 2 cents.

I currently work for the United States Secret Service in which I support HQ and over 100 field offices domestic and overseas, I am considered essential personnel. My spouse also works for the Secret Service as a LEO up to about 3 months ago and now has moved on to a different assignment withing the organization. In my application I provided a copy of the email from OPM stating I was part of the OPM data breach and that my wife was also affected. I also provided at least 10 instances were law enforcement employees and military personnel have been attacked by Islamic terrorists in the past 3 years or so.


During my HPRB hearing I also included copies of open source news reports of the NIST employee on kill list, ISIS sympathizer from Edgewood MD and the most compeling the reports of ISIS directly threatening POTUS and to leave the White House black with fire. I also presented the original copies from OPM stating my wife and I were both part of the data breach. Copies were made by one of the nice ladies and was given to the HPRB.

OPM letter:

"You are receiving this notification because we have determined that your Social Security Number and other personal information was included in the intrusion", " Since you applied for a position or submitted a background investigation form, residency, educational, and employment history, personal foreign travel history, information about immediate family as well as business and personal acquaintances, and other information used to conduct and adjudicate your background investigation." and " Our records indicate your fingerprints were likley compromised during the cyber intrusion."

That being said here is the HPRB response:

"Mr XXXX alleged entitlement to a handgun permit on basis of the (possibility) of his personal information being compromised on the Internet as some time, and that he holds a security clearance. He did not provide any documents supporting this contention nor did he testify to his personal information having been part of the Office of Personnel Management security breach fo personal information. Mr XXXX further stated that his wife has been a Law Enforcement Officer with the United States Secret Service. He provided no written information that his wife's personal information has been compromised. The Board recognizes that he has a TS/SCI clearance; however, no information was provided of a compromise to his personal information, and the Board did not find this argument compelling.

The Board notes Mr. XXXX commutes over Maryland state lines into Washington, D.C. and that he does not have a permit to carry within the borders of Washington D.C. or at work. Because Mr XXXX could not carry a weapon at work or in the District of Columbia any argument that the nature of his work entitles Mr. XXXX to a handgun permit less compelling"

There you have it. Please keep comments constructive to the community. Please note I wouldn't put my family information out there unless I believed 100% in this cause. Would anyone know the process of petitioning for a judicial review? Anyone in the community go through the process already?

Thank you

The denial letter is complete crap. Every time it seems there is a step forward it is undone by two steps backwards. I pray nothing happens to you. It is only a matter of time before the hprb ends up killing someone through an unjust denial.

 

[Stoveman]

Closed hearings are almost always the kiss of death.


Do them in the open and let the sunlight of truth and the power of the group be your muse.


Good luck GAL700.


ETA: This whole closed meeting due to National Security is bullsh!t IMO. There is nothing that an applicant can say in closed session to people who do not have a clearance that they could not say in open session.

 

[DC-W]

Closed hearings are almost always the kiss of death. Do them in the open and let the sunlight of truth and the power of the group be your muse. Good luck GAL700. ETA: This whole closed meeting due to National Security is bullsh!t IMO. There is nothing that an applicant can say in closed session to people who do not have a clearance that they could not say in open session.

There have been applicants who have prevailed in closed session.

 

[Stoveman]

There have been applicants who have prevailed in closed session.

I realize that, hence the terminology "almost always". Go back and compare the results and of those not prohibited; closed sessions produce more MSP upheld.

 

[DC-W]

I realize that, hence the terminology "almost always". Go back and compare the results and of those not prohibited; closed sessions produce more MSP upheld.

Id venture to say that there is little difference. The results aren't concealed from public view, as they are eventually read aloud to the public. We have seen board members blatantly play ignorant in public -- are they somehow more so behind a closed door?

Being able to compel enough members of the board while putting forth an appeal directly relatable to one's personal and unique circumstances seems to be the trick.

One shouldn't have to be a great orator, immaculate keeper of record, or a lawyer to obtain a permit, but it certainly helps...

 

[Stoveman]

Id venture to say that there is little difference. The results aren't concealed from public view, as they are eventually read aloud to the public. We have seen board members blatantly play ignorant in public -- are they somehow more so behind a closed door?

Being able to compel enough members of the board while putting forth an appeal directly relatable to one's personal and unique circumstances seems to be the trick.

One shouldn't have to be a great orator, immaculate keeper of record, or a lawyer to obtain a permit, but it certainly helps...

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you my friend. Since I have been attending these meetings I can think of four who have obtained a favorable result in closed session.

The former president of MSI and his SO.
Boundlessdyad's friend.
One guy who had some sort of large map.

I'm sure there are a few more but without doing the research my gut tells me I'm right.

For the bolded above I totally agree.


Missed you tonight, the new digs are much more conducive to BS'ing afterwards in the parking lot. No need to keep your head on a swivel at each passing car.....

 

[DC-W]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you my friend. Since I have been attending these meetings I can think of four who have obtained a favorable result in closed session. The former president of MSI and his SO. Boundlessdyad's friend. One guy who had some sort of large map. I'm sure there are a few more but without doing the research my gut tells me I'm right. For the bolded above I totally agree. Missed you tonight, the new digs are much more conducive to BS'ing afterwards in the parking lot. No need to keep your head on a swivel at each passing car.....

I missed you all too.

Circumstances beyond my control kept me from attending tonight.

 

[GAL700]

Closed hearings are almost always the kiss of death.


Do them in the open and let the sunlight of truth and the power of the group be your muse.


Good luck GAL700.


ETA: This whole closed meeting due to National Security is bullsh!t IMO. There is nothing that an applicant can say in closed session to people who do not have a clearance that they could not say in open session.

Agreed public scrutiny is a powerful tool to keep people honest.

Thanks

 

[GAL700]

The denial letter is complete crap. Every time it seems there is a step forward it is undone by two steps backwards. I pray nothing happens to you. It is only a matter of time before the hprb ends up killing someone through an unjust denial.

Yeah I just shook my head reading the letter, I clearly provided documentation from OPM for my wife and I.

"I pray nothing happens to you." really appreciate that unfortunately since the HPRB didn't have their personal information hacked they couldn't careless. It's not their family to worry about. I've contacted one of the IP on the site for representation for my judicial review.

 

[Jaybeez]

Ladies and Gents I wanted to provide an update since I just received my formal denial letter from the HPRB. I will provide word for word the discussion portion of the letter and the information provided by me to the MSP and HPRB. I will let you make your own assumption and provide feedback if you like. As discussed prior I chose a closed session in order to not disclose who my employer is but considering my information is already out there in the interwebs, and I hope to help others in the community so I have decided to disclose. Since I will also be requesting a judicial review I don't see how can keep this information totally private. I personally believe that the closed sessions are hurting our cause, just my 2 cents.

I currently work for the United States Secret Service in which I support HQ and over 100 field offices domestic and overseas, I am considered essential personnel. My spouse also works for the Secret Service as a LEO up to about 3 months ago and now has moved on to a different assignment withing the organization. In my application I provided a copy of the email from OPM stating I was part of the OPM data breach and that my wife was also affected. I also provided at least 10 instances were law enforcement employees and military personnel have been attacked by Islamic terrorists in the past 3 years or so.


During my HPRB hearing I also included copies of open source news reports of the NIST employee on kill list, ISIS sympathizer from Edgewood MD and the most compeling the reports of ISIS directly threatening POTUS and to leave the White House black with fire. I also presented the original copies from OPM stating my wife and I were both part of the data breach. Copies were made by one of the nice ladies and was given to the HPRB.

OPM letter:

"You are receiving this notification because we have determined that your Social Security Number and other personal information was included in the intrusion", " Since you applied for a position or submitted a background investigation form, residency, educational, and employment history, personal foreign travel history, information about immediate family as well as business and personal acquaintances, and other information used to conduct and adjudicate your background investigation." and " Our records indicate your fingerprints were likley compromised during the cyber intrusion."

That being said here is the HPRB response:

"Mr XXXX alleged entitlement to a handgun permit on basis of the (possibility) of his personal information being compromised on the Internet as some time, and that he holds a security clearance. He did not provide any documents supporting this contention nor did he testify to his personal information having been part of the Office of Personnel Management security breach fo personal information. Mr XXXX further stated that his wife has been a Law Enforcement Officer with the United States Secret Service. He provided no written information that his wife's personal information has been compromised. The Board recognizes that he has a TS/SCI clearance; however, no information was provided of a compromise to his personal information, and the Board did not find this argument compelling.

The Board notes Mr. XXXX commutes over Maryland state lines into Washington, D.C. and that he does not have a permit to carry within the borders of Washington D.C. or at work. Because Mr XXXX could not carry a weapon at work or in the District of Columbia any argument that the nature of his work entitles Mr. XXXX to a handgun permit less compelling"

There you have it. Please keep comments constructive to the community. Please note I wouldn't put my family information out there unless I believed 100% in this cause. Would anyone know the process of petitioning for a judicial review? Anyone in the community go through the process already?

Thank you

You want to hear something infuriating? The guy that installed the cable TV box at the white house has an unrestricted MD carry permit. That was his g&s.

 

[marylandmark]

You want to hear something infuriating? The guy that installed the cable TV box at the white house has an unrestricted MD carry permit. That was his g&s.

Elaborate or PM me if you would be so kind please? I'm an OPM hacked phone guy.

 

[GAL700]

You want to hear something infuriating? The guy that installed the cable TV box at the white house has an unrestricted MD carry permit. That was his g&s.

SMH.....!!!! Clearly shows objectivity of the HPRB. Yes please elaborate if possible. Any audio available of the hearing?

Thanks

 

[highli99]

Ladies and Gents I wanted to provide an update since I just received my formal denial letter from the HPRB. I will provide word for word the discussion portion of the letter and the information provided by me to the MSP and HPRB. I will let you make your own assumption and provide feedback if you like. As discussed prior I chose a closed session in order to not disclose who my employer is but considering my information is already out there in the interwebs, and I hope to help others in the community so I have decided to disclose. Since I will also be requesting a judicial review I don't see how can keep this information totally private. I personally believe that the closed sessions are hurting our cause, just my 2 cents.

I currently work for the United States Secret Service in which I support HQ and over 100 field offices domestic and overseas, I am considered essential personnel. My spouse also works for the Secret Service as a LEO up to about 3 months ago and now has moved on to a different assignment withing the organization. In my application I provided a copy of the email from OPM stating I was part of the OPM data breach and that my wife was also affected. I also provided at least 10 instances were law enforcement employees and military personnel have been attacked by Islamic terrorists in the past 3 years or so.


During my HPRB hearing I also included copies of open source news reports of the NIST employee on kill list, ISIS sympathizer from Edgewood MD and the most compeling the reports of ISIS directly threatening POTUS and to leave the White House black with fire. I also presented the original copies from OPM stating my wife and I were both part of the data breach. Copies were made by one of the nice ladies and was given to the HPRB.

OPM letter:

"You are receiving this notification because we have determined that your Social Security Number and other personal information was included in the intrusion", " Since you applied for a position or submitted a background investigation form, residency, educational, and employment history, personal foreign travel history, information about immediate family as well as business and personal acquaintances, and other information used to conduct and adjudicate your background investigation." and " Our records indicate your fingerprints were likley compromised during the cyber intrusion."

That being said here is the HPRB response:

"Mr XXXX alleged entitlement to a handgun permit on basis of the (possibility) of his personal information being compromised on the Internet as some time, and that he holds a security clearance. He did not provide any documents supporting this contention nor did he testify to his personal information having been part of the Office of Personnel Management security breach fo personal information. Mr XXXX further stated that his wife has been a Law Enforcement Officer with the United States Secret Service. He provided no written information that his wife's personal information has been compromised. The Board recognizes that he has a TS/SCI clearance; however, no information was provided of a compromise to his personal information, and the Board did not find this argument compelling.

The Board notes Mr. XXXX commutes over Maryland state lines into Washington, D.C. and that he does not have a permit to carry within the borders of Washington D.C. or at work. Because Mr XXXX could not carry a weapon at work or in the District of Columbia any argument that the nature of his work entitles Mr. XXXX to a handgun permit less compelling"

There you have it. Please keep comments constructive to the community. Please note I wouldn't put my family information out there unless I believed 100% in this cause. Would anyone know the process of petitioning for a judicial review? Anyone in the community go through the process already?

Thank you

Thanks for sharing. Your denial is an injustice and I wish you best of luck in your judicial appeal. Hopefully you live in a county where the judges have heard of the bill of rights.