Dammit, where's the +1 button on this website.
(concise and compelling summary statement)
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
(concise and compelling summary statement)
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Thanks as always for the audio posting, which is extremely valuable.
Police officer's son did well in getting a continuance to submit testimony from his father.
Nurse-applicant did a super job. She laid out numerous specific facts that establish she is in danger, had two independent grounds (hospital work and son's military data breach) and got the hospital to write a letter that included the word "support." That she even had to go before the Board reaffirms how rigid, biased and unreasonable the MSP is.
Community volunteer did a good job too. Again, there is a clear palpable need and no reason to consider the application frivolous.
Chairman needs to rein in MSP. Troopers are there to testify to facts, not argue a case. They are not competent to render legal opinions. Their vague references to "caselaw" could easily be met, and shut down, by a demand for citations to specific decisions that support their assertions. They certainly should not be arguing directly with applicants, or with Board members. That is entirely out of order and the Chairman should put a stop to it.
Most importantly, MSP continues utterly to misconstrue the law, demanding proof of actual, proven, imminent, existing danger, not "apprehended" danger; in any event, what is required is not any proof of danger, but a good (non-frivolous) and substantial (non-trivial) reason. It is still not clear that the Board fully understand this.
Leggum's advice to fully develop the facts was good. More facts strengthen the decision against a possible attack by MSP that the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously or abused its discretion.
Firearms trainer presented clearly and well the now-familiar discussion why MSP's vague, ambiguous, "trust us" restrictions are unsupportable, and the Board acted correctly in granting protection against criminal prosecution because MSP can't imagine simply issuing permits without unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions in the first place.
After listening to hearing, I have discovered that my approval letter is on the way, will post it when I get it.
Nobody
I remember the officer complaining "Maryland isn't a Shall Issue state!", as in 'how dare you question our authority to deny whoever we want'.
...I don't blame Trooper Lazuick as the Superintendent's designee. I blame the Superintendent. MSP has yet to publish its new Handgun Permit SOP in its Drop Box as required by October 1. That might suggest it has been abandoned, but for the fact that Sgt. Durkee and Trooper Lazuick are obviously still following the MSP's long-held traditions. For now they appear to have been abandoned in a no man's land between the Board and the MSP Superintendent who just keeps ordering them "over the top."
That was Trooper Lazuick. He had a minor melt down while on stage. He let his frustration get the best of him when he blurted out - as if every single person in the room didn't already know it - that "Maryland isn't a Shall Issue state." For that he should have received an instant promotion or field commission to "Captain Obvious."
If Maryland was a Shall Issue state he wouldn't have even been at the hearing trying to deny someone their fundamental right to self-defense. He would have been conducting traffic stops or chasing bad guys up and down I-95. Something the MSP is much better suited for.
Trooper Lazuick seemed to forget, if only for a moment, that even the restrictive scheme Maryland adopted as law, and which MSP has bastardized over the years via its over zealous SOP, doesn't make him or the LD the final arbiter of what constitutes G&S. Just because he has been indoctrinated by the MSP and the AAG to apply a ridiculously restrictive approach to permitting an individual to defend themselves doesn't mean the Board has to agree and abandon its independent authority and judgment.
Last, Trooper Lazuick can cite vaguely to all the case law he wants, but he just made the LD look silly and disrespectful when he argued with Ms. Judah. He was suggesting the Board had somehow disregarded the need to make a G&S determination based on the facts, just because they saw it differently. In addition, he was inferring the 2A somehow doesn't apply in Maryland just because of Woollard. If he read the case more carefully he would realize the 4th Circuit determined the G&S requirement is Constituional, but with the mistaken understanding that anyone in Maryland with a "palpable need" for self-defense can get a permit. Years later I still haven't seen the "palpable need" standard work its way into the MSP's SOP.
I don't blame Trooper Lazuick as the Superintendent's designee. I blame the Superintendent. MSP has yet to publish its new Handgun Permit SOP in its Drop Box as required by October 1. That might suggest it has been abandoned, but for the fact that Sgt. Durkee and Trooper Lazuick are obviously still following the MSP's long-held traditions. For now they appear to have been abandoned in a no man's land between the Board and the MSP Superintendent who just keeps ordering them "over the top."
Too bad this display wasn't video taped. You could charge a pretty penny for admission!
we need video of the goings on in the lobby too
Why do I get access denied message when I click this link?
Why do I get access denied message when I click this link?
Why do I get access denied message when I click this link?
Why do I get access denied message when I click this link?