HPRB question

[basscat]

If I wanted to supply documents to the board members for my hearing, can I give it to them the night of the hearing or do they need to be submitted prior to hearing date?

 

[mxrider]

If I wanted to supply documents to the board members for my hearing, can I give it to them the night of the hearing or do they need to be submitted prior to hearing date?

It is given to them the night of the hearing. Is it anything different than what you provided to the MSP?

 

[Magnumst]

You can hand out what ever you have to the HPRB members at the meeting and it would be a good idea to bring all your original applications documents. Chances are they won't have a complete set. I would also send any new information to MSP before your meeting date. They have been reversing their own denials prior to the scheduled meetings.

 

[basscat]

I was asked by MSP for further documentation . Letter said I had 30 days to submit it. 8 days later they sent me my denial letter. So no, they didnt get it. Is there a valid reason why I should supply them with it now?

 

[robmints]

A little bit of clarity, these "hallway" deals actually don't take place in the hallway.

I was there early today and when I got there the MSP troopers were all inside the meeting room and there was nobody there that I didn't recognize and certainly nobody was consulting with the MSP and then suddenly left.

More likely these are resolved in the day or days leading up to the actual meetings, it's just announced at the meetings. The lone Mom Demanding Some Action showed up after the meeting started, hardly a force that makes the MSP suddenly make a call to action.

And yes, I would rather see hearings and testimony and evidence presented by the applicants, but at least they got their permits.

I guess you are following along. But apparently if you provide them with information that may change their view before the meeting, you may be issued a permit even after denial but before your hearing.

 

[Stoveman]

When is your hearing?

If you follow the HPRB threads I would wait until the 5th member is seated, especially if you're a handicapped woman and live in a bad neighborhood, and not take your chances with West and Cowan, he's turning out to be another Courtney White and West has always been a "disappointment", to be kind.

 

[robmints]

Oh. And if it was me, i would send them the information so you can challenge them if they say they did not have an opportunity to review your new information, and that be their excuse for some delay.

There have been some terrific self advocates, and I believe you can find the podcasts of most of them. The 3, well 2, I would listen to would be RavenUSAF, and mxrider. The third is Gryphon, you will never get what he got, but it is entertaining. Raven and mx were very convincing and would not leave a point until their side was understood and they felt like they carried the board over the MSP side. You may want to pay special attention to Raven because I believe he was a new or renewal. I think mx was a restriction modification. They were both civil, but aggressive and prepared, and did not let anything go by unchallenged. This is an arbitrary process, sometimes the board is inclined to pick the most unusual points to use as reasons for upholding. That's another reason to send your new info to the MSP, if you can avoid the roll of the dice at the board, that is a good thing, IM unlicensed O.

 

[Stoveman]

Oh. And if it was me, i would send them the information so you can challenge them if they say they did not have an opportunity to review your new information, and that be their excuse for some delay.

There have been some terrific self advocates, and I believe you can find the podcasts of most of them. The 3, well 2, I would listen to would be RavenUSAF, and mxrider. The third is Gryphon, you will never get what he got, but it is entertaining. Raven and mx were very convincing and would not leave a point until their side was understood and they felt like they carried the board over the MSP side. You may want to pay special attention to Raven because I believe he was a new or renewal. I think mx was a restriction modification. They were both civil, but aggressive and prepared, and did not let anything go by unchallenged. This is an arbitrary process, sometimes the board is inclined to pick the most unusual points to use as reasons for upholding. That's another reason to send your new info to the MSP, if you can avoid the roll of the dice at the board, that is a good thing, IM unlicensed O.

Totally agree.

Both Raven and MXRider were permit restriction modifications, Gryphon's was an initial application.

 

[mxrider]

Oh. And if it was me, i would send them the information so you can challenge them if they say they did not have an opportunity to review your new information, and that be their excuse for some delay.

There have been some terrific self advocates, and I believe you can find the podcasts of most of them. The 3, well 2, I would listen to would be RavenUSAF, and mxrider. The third is Gryphon, you will never get what he got, but it is entertaining. Raven and mx were very convincing and would not leave a point until their side was understood and they felt like they carried the board over the MSP side. You may want to pay special attention to Raven because I believe he was a new or renewal. I think mx was a restriction modification. They were both civil, but aggressive and prepared, and did not let anything go by unchallenged. This is an arbitrary process, sometimes the board is inclined to pick the most unusual points to use as reasons for upholding. That's another reason to send your new info to the MSP, if you can avoid the roll of the dice at the board, that is a good thing, IM unlicensed O.

robmints, thank you for the kind words.

Mine was in fact a restriction modification. If OP wants any of my stuff, just follow over to here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/forum/public-forum/481-mxrider-hprb-hearing

While I absolutely recommend getting the additional information to the MSP and to talk with your trooper, if you do choose to bring this new information to the HPRB, they may try and divert the hearing until MSP has a chance to review the information. With that being said, COMAR (pretty sure it's in COMAR) states that the HPRB may hear new information during the hearing and I would encourage anyone to ask that the board hear their case. By delaying until after MSP reviews, it just backs the system up even further than it already is.

 

[Magnumst]

I was asked by MSP for further documentation . Letter said I had 30 days to submit it. 8 days later they sent me my denial letter. So no, they didnt get it. Is there a valid reason why I should supply them with it now?

A big one in my estimation. If the new information is able to change their minds and grant you a permit you will not have to wait for your permit as most that go to the HPRB. There is a looooong wait for the wheel turning of HPRB/ MSP letter approval/ sending and then finally issuance.

 

[montoya32]

robmints, thank you for the kind words.

Mine was in fact a restriction modification. If OP wants any of my stuff, just follow over to here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/forum/public-forum/481-mxrider-hprb-hearing

While I absolutely recommend getting the additional information to the MSP and to talk with your trooper, if you do choose to bring this new information to the HPRB, they may try and divert the hearing until MSP has a chance to review the information. With that being said, COMAR (pretty sure it's in COMAR) states that the HPRB may hear new information during the hearing and I would encourage anyone to ask that the board hear their case. By delaying until after MSP reviews, it just backs the system up even further than it already is.

Please, please, please find that exact section and post it. That would make these hallway agreements unnecessary.

 

[Jaybeez]

Please, please, please find that exact section and post it. That would make these hallway agreements unnecessary.

Its government article 10 stuff. Gryphon knows it pretty well.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm

 

[montoya32]

Its government article 10 stuff. Gryphon knows it pretty well.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm

So now, we need to make sure the chairman knows this. Why the hell schedule a hearing and then allow it to be settled without it getting on the record? I think this is big. Applicants need to know this. The chairman needs to be informing applicants that they have the option of continuing with a hearing or allowing the MSP to change their decision.

 

[mxrider]

Please, please, please find that exact section and post it. That would make these hallway agreements unnecessary.

Section C of 12.09.01.05 is what I was referring to, but I may have read into it a little more than what I thought.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm

 

[montoya32]

Its government article 10 stuff. Gryphon knows it pretty well.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm

Section C of 12.09.01.05 is what I was referring to, but I may have read into it a little more than what I thought.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm

The way I read it, the board can accept whatever items the applicant wants to submit, but where we get into a cloudy area is when an applicant is asked by the MSP to provide supporting or additional info and they withhold it until arriving at a hearing.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Also, time to insist that MSP not sit as a Greek Chorus in a sort of jury box at HPRB meetings.

The MSP always does the dog-pile thing of having the other two troopers chime in when the investigating trooper is struggling to explain something, or is not as aggressive with the MSP pushback game. This is a problem because only the investigating officer is supposed to address the board, but we see the other two trooper making speeches or adding explanation, tag-team style. Frankly, it has the appearance of the bureaucracy (MSP) ganging up on permit seekers.

Permit seekers are always alone, yet the MSP is always coming at them in a dog-pile word blizzard. It's physically and emotionally intimidating. That is NOT the way it's supposed to work.

The MSP is the bureaucratic level BELOW this oversight board. That is a fact. MSP troopers, you could say, are only "expert witnesses" in this process but in every other judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceeding I have been in, expert witnesses are called from general seating to testify, and then excused.

I know it might seem small-ball, but we need to insist that MSP troopers take their seats in general seating and be called up and then excused--just like in any other court--while this HPRB Court deliberates. Of course, they could have the option of sitting at a separate table so they can have their papers in front of them and to discuss things...but they need to be at a table 'behind the imaginary rail" that the every judicial body operates with. That would be a table no further forward than the general seating area.

 

[BeoBill]

Also, time to insist that MSP not sit as a Greek Chorus in a sort of jury box at HPRB meetings.

The MSP always does the dog-pile thing of having the other two troopers chime in when the investigating trooper is struggling to explain something, or is not as aggressive with the MSP pushback game. This is a problem because on the investigating officer is supposed to address the board, but we see the other two trooper making speeches or adding explanation, tag-team style. Frankly, it has the appearance of the bureaucracy (MSP) ganging up on permit seekers.

Permit seekers are always alone, yet the MSP is always coming at them in a dog-pile word blizzard. It's physically and emotionally intimidating. That is NOT the way it's supposed to work.

The MSP is the bureaucratic level BELOW this oversight board. That is a fact. MSP troopers, you could say, are only "expert witnesses" in this process but in every other judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceeding I have been in, expert witnesses are called from general seating to testify, and then excused.

I know it might seem small-ball, but we need to insist that MSP troopers take their seats in general seating and be called up and then excused--just like in any other court--while this HPRB Court deliberates. Of course, they could have the option of sitting at a separate table so they can have their papers in front of them and to discuss things...but they need to be at a table 'behind the imaginary rail" that the every judicial body operates with. That would be a table no further forward than the general seating area.

Put them closer to the sweet treats. Maybe they will mellow. Or spew crumbs while haranguing hapless applicants.

 

[Jaybeez]

Also, time to insist that MSP not sit as a Greek Chorus in a sort of jury box at HPRB meetings.

The MSP always does the dog-pile thing of having the other two troopers chime in when the investigating trooper is struggling to explain something, or is not as aggressive with the MSP pushback game. This is a problem because on the investigating officer is supposed to address the board, but we see the other two trooper making speeches or adding explanation, tag-team style. Frankly, it has the appearance of the bureaucracy (MSP) ganging up on permit seekers.

Permit seekers are always alone, yet the MSP is always coming at them in a dog-pile word blizzard. It's physically and emotionally intimidating. That is NOT the way it's supposed to work.

The MSP is the bureaucratic level BELOW this oversight board. That is a fact. MSP troopers, you could say, are only "expert witnesses" in this process but in every other judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceeding I have been in, expert witnesses are called from general seating to testify, and then excused.

I know it might seem small-ball, but we need to insist that MSP troopers take their seats in general seating and be called up and then excused--just like in any other court--while this HPRB Court deliberates. Of course, they could have the option of sitting at a separate table so they can have their papers in front of them and to discuss things...but they need to be at a table 'behind the imaginary rail" that the every judicial body operates with. That would be a table no further forward than the general seating area.

I agreed with this before.

Now, i'd rather just video the eye rolling and snarky comments, and the "jury box" makes that much easier to show on video.

 

[montoya32]

Also, time to insist that MSP not sit as a Greek Chorus in a sort of jury box at HPRB meetings.

The MSP always does the dog-pile thing of having the other two troopers chime in when the investigating trooper is struggling to explain something, or is not as aggressive with the MSP pushback game. This is a problem because on the investigating officer is supposed to address the board, but we see the other two trooper making speeches or adding explanation, tag-team style. Frankly, it has the appearance of the bureaucracy (MSP) ganging up on permit seekers.

Permit seekers are always alone, yet the MSP is always coming at them in a dog-pile word blizzard. It's physically and emotionally intimidating. That is NOT the way it's supposed to work.

The MSP is the bureaucratic level BELOW this oversight board. That is a fact. MSP troopers, you could say, are only "expert witnesses" in this process but in every other judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceeding I have been in, expert witnesses are called from general seating to testify, and then excused.

I know it might seem small-ball, but we need to insist that MSP troopers take their seats in general seating and be called up and then excused--just like in any other court--while this HPRB Court deliberates. Of course, they could have the option of sitting at a separate table so they can have their papers in front of them and to discuss things...but they need to be at a table 'behind the imaginary rail" that the every judicial body operates with. That would be a table no further forward than the general seating area.

I agree that the applicant should not be sit nearly facing the MSP. It is intimidating enough to some to have to face a board of 4-5 strangers, let along 2-3 troopers in business attire with guns on their hips.

 

[Rack&Roll]

To me, we accept they have guns, but the table arrangement gives them the appearance of PARITY in the process, and they definitely use this arrangement to speak up, even when they are not specifically called on. That would be a Roberts Rules Of Order or protocol violation in any other judicial proceeding, or even quasi-judicial proceeding, like a city council meeting.

The unsolicited MSP boiler-plate readings, offerings and observations also lengthen HPRB reviews unnecessarily.

At the time the HPRB meeting is convened, the MSP has completed its task. The board has the full authority to make decisions without ANY FURTHER MSP INPUT--except to get a specific clarification on a point that is not completely clear.

What purpose does it serve to have the MSP drone on about its process, when 100% of the cases coming to the board are DENIALS? The MSP denies for the same reason every time and to have MSP blather on by speed-reading their annoying and repetitive boiler-plate turndown in order to arrive at the same damn denial decision every time is wasting everyone's Tuesday evenings.

The MSP is, in a sense, a lower court. Lower courts don't send their judges to the Appeal Courts to testify. All the Appeals Court (HPRB) needs to know is that the lower court (MSP) issued a denial based on some attitude or judgement that the permit seeker disagrees with.

The next level up from MSP is the HPRB Appeal Court, and they are empowered to make a completely different judgement, as stipulated in the law. There should be some cases where the MSP troopers NEVER testify in person or explain anything. The MSP denial paperwork IS THEIR TESTIMONY...and to be blunt their testimony is simply the word NO.

The HPRB is empowered to hear and decide each citizen's eligibility and fitness with NO FURTHER INPUT FROM MSP.