HPRB July 8, 2019 Meeting Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    In a line of questioning, the Judge led the MSP to admit that they would approve, if the appellant would submit further docs.
    Example: Judge: “If Mr. X submits Document Y within 30 days, would he be approved?” Sgt.: “Yes.”

    In this way, it was not the board that made a decision overturning the MSP, but presumably, the MSP reconsidering and approving. For those limited cases, MSP is not going to appeal their own decision.

    In some cases, I thought the judge was pretty masterful, leading MSP in a particular direction. It was as if he led MSP to a decision, while not making the decision himself. He made it look like MSP made the decision.

    I know that comment is not gonna go over well here.



    Only partially disagreeing with you. The judge led MSP to make a decision they would have made anyway because the applicants provided new information on Monday night that was not available (for whatever reason) when they first applied for their permits.

    The fact that a retired federal judge chairing a citizen oversight board of the MSP and had let's say a "less than a complete understanding" of MD law regarding how a firearm can be legally carried and clearly was not up to speed on the permitting process was troubling to say the least.

    Add in the repeated mentioning of Snowden and Scherr and you have to wonder if this person was vetted by Hogan's Appointment Secretary or if a recommendation from the GOBN (Good Old Boys Network) was simply good enough.
     

    F5guy

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    440
    Annapolis
    In a line of questioning, the Judge led the MSP to admit that they would approve, if the appellant would submit further docs.

    Example: Judge: “If Mr. X submits Document Y within 30 days, would he be approved?” Sgt.: “Yes.”



    In this way, it was not the board that made a decision overturning the MSP, but presumably, the MSP reconsidering and approving. For those limited cases, MSP is not going to appeal their own decision.



    In some cases, I thought the judge was pretty masterful, leading MSP in a particular direction. It was as if he led MSP to a decision, while not making the decision himself. He made it look like MSP made the decision.



    I know that comment is not gonna go over well here.



    Interesting point and i respect your interpretation. Having said that I think i remember MSP saying they would ‘consider’ any new documents. Id like to hear transcript to see if they said they’d modify or approve if documents were presented. They did not ever cover if unrestricted would be provided only agreed that they might modify if said info was provided. These folks were asking for unrestricted and judge was pushing for modification to restriction. Please correct me if Im wrong.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Interesting point and i respect your interpretation. Having said that I think i remember MSP saying they would ‘consider’ any new documents. Id like to hear transcript to see if they said they’d modify or approve if documents were presented. They did not ever cover if unrestricted would be provided only agreed that they might modify if said info was provided. These folks were asking for unrestricted and judge was pushing for modification to restriction. Please correct me if Im wrong.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    IIRC the "stet" docket cases (even though that is NOT an action that the HPRB can order) were all for denials. Which is another example of Judge Smails not knowing what the board has the capability of doing. Upon presentation of the new evidence (de novo hearing) he could have simply made a motion to overturn the decision of the Secretary and order an unrestricted permit be issued to the applicant.

    Instead he punted and went full Kangaroo Court.
     

    F5guy

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    440
    Annapolis
    So are you saying that the Judge has the capacity to have the party bring said documents back to him and then rule instead of putting it back in MSP’s lap and suggesting to them they make a decision within 30 days ? Seems this only sets the person up for another potential denial and go to the back of the line. I’m doing my best to pay attention but need some education on the law and terminology.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    So are you saying that the Judge has the capacity to have the party bring said documents back to him and then rule instead of putting it back in MSP’s lap and suggesting to them they make a decision within 30 days ? Seems this only sets the person up for another potential denial and go to the back of the line. I’m doing my best to pay attention but need some education on the law and terminology.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    I'm saying that Judge Smails and the entire board could have ruled to reverse the decision of the Secretary and order a permit be given. He didn't have to "stet" anything.

    And don't take my word for it, from MD Public Safety Article 5-312:

    a) (1) A person who is denied a permit or renewal of a permit or whose permit is revoked or limited may request the Board to review the decision of the Secretary by filing a written request with the Board within 10 days after receipt of written notice of the Secretary’s final action.
    (2) A person whose application for a permit or renewal of a permit is not acted on by the Secretary within 90 days after submitting the application to the Secretary may request a hearing before the Board by filing a written request with the Board.

    (b) Within 90 days after receiving a request to review a decision of the Secretary, the Board shall:

    (1) review the record developed by the Secretary; and

    (2) conduct a hearing.

    (c) The Board may receive and consider additional evidence submitted by a party in conducting a review of the decision of the Secretary.

    (d) (1) Based on the Board’s consideration of the record and any additional evidence, the Board shall sustain, reverse, or modify the decision of the Secretary.

    (2) Within 60 days after the last hearing in the matter conducted by the Board, the Board shall submit in writing to the applicant, the holder of the permit, and the Secretary the reasons for the decision of the Board.


    The last couple iterations of the board actually read a statement which stated the above (minus the appeals info) at the beginning of every meeting. In Judge Smails' Mini Me Courtroom Makeover that didn't happen Monday night.
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    MSP will appeal every loss they have at the board. If they needed additional documents, why not request them of the applicants prior to the HPRB hearing (months long backlog) and issue or amend the permits right away? Not buying this crap with a stolen wooden nickel. They are as full of crap as Port-a-John Row used to be at the Preakness infield.

    I have been waiting over a year. I may need to renew prior to my case being heard.

    The MSP initially denied my application and said I lied on the forms. This was completely false. They are not trustworthy.

    "shall sustain, reverse, or modify the decision of the Secretary." - Seems pretty clear. I don't see stet in here.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Perhaps Judge Smails was busy editing the Retired Federal Judge Book of the Month Club newsletter and didn't have time to bone up on MD law before accepting the Chairmanship of the Board from Lawnchair Larry.


     

    songlaw

    Active Member
    Aug 2, 2017
    240
    Clarksville
    Interesting point and i respect your interpretation. Having said that I think i remember MSP saying they would ‘consider’ any new documents. Id like to hear transcript to see if they said they’d modify or approve if documents were presented. They did not ever cover if unrestricted would be provided only agreed that they might modify if said info was provided. These folks were asking for unrestricted and judge was pushing for modification to restriction. Please correct me if Im wrong.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    I am specifically referring to the guy from the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL). The Sgt. stated that the doc he was provided that night satisfied the Security Clearance evidence, and they would approve.

    So, although it was a “win” for the appellant, it was recorded as a “stet”.

    Any legislator looking at the overturn record thinks all were denied, when that is not the case.

    I actually congratulated the guy on his way out. So, in this case, MSP stated that it would approve.

    I believe he had a restricted, and appealed to get an unrestricted. So the “stet” in that case, does not look like an overturning of the MSP. However, it had the effect of an appellant win.

    I am not saying that the judge knows the MD laws or administrative procedures. (I met Stoveman and heard his opinion of the judge).
    It just seemed to me that there was method in his madness.

    Looks like I will have to attend some more hearings, to see how it goes.
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    Has anyone else been denied on renewal for no longer being considered as having a good and substantial reason?

    I was reading comar here:

    http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/29.03.02.12

    In section E it says:

    E. Upon receipt of a properly submitted renewal application, the Secretary shall issue a renewed permit within a reasonable time if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a permit.

    The entire renewal section makes no mention of having good and substantial as a precursor to a renewal - only that the application be properly submitted.

    I was explicitly told that previous approvals are not considered on renewal - only what the current SOP is.

    I was denied as new policy says my old reason is no longer good enough. Thoughts? Grasping at straws I know....
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    I am specifically referring to the guy from the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL). The Sgt. stated that the doc he was provided that night satisfied the Security Clearance evidence, and they would approve.

    So, although it was a “win” for the appellant, it was recorded as a “stet”.

    Any legislator looking at the overturn record thinks all were denied, when that is not the case.

    I actually congratulated the guy on his way out. So, in this case, MSP stated that it would approve.

    I believe he had a restricted, and appealed to get an unrestricted. So the “stet” in that case, does not look like an overturning of the MSP. However, it had the effect of an appellant win.

    I am not saying that the judge knows the MD laws or administrative procedures. (I met Stoveman and heard his opinion of the judge).
    It just seemed to me that there was method in his madness.

    Looks like I will have to attend some more hearings, to see how it goes.


    I was under the impression that he was a denial. One of the negative results of Judge Thinskin's new procedures is that we don't know if an applicant is a denial or a permit restriction before their testimony begins. Under the procedures of the prior boards the MSP would read their testimony first and it was crystal clear the status of the applicant before they began to speak.

    And if IIRC the reason for his denial is because the FSO at APL would not verify his TS clearance. In the intervening months he was able to obtain documentation that he produced at his hearing. Like I said before, prior boards would have used this documentation to reverse the decision of the Secretary but Judge Smails played one of his favorite cards, the mysterious "stet" docket.

    I got the feeling that either he was not aware of the board's ability or he has an aversion to overturning the decision of the Secretary. Why is anybody's guess.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Has anyone else been denied on renewal for no longer being considered as having a good and substantial reason?

    I was reading comar here:

    http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/29.03.02.12

    In section E it says:

    E. Upon receipt of a properly submitted renewal application, the Secretary shall issue a renewed permit within a reasonable time if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a permit.

    The entire renewal section makes no mention of having good and substantial as a precursor to a renewal - only that the application be properly submitted.

    I was explicitly told that previous approvals are not considered on renewal - only what the current SOP is.

    I was denied as new policy says my old reason is no longer good enough. Thoughts? Grasping at straws I know....


    Without more details I couldn't offer a guess. Feel free to send a PM.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    A Reagan boomer's love of stare decisis

    :lol:

    Agreed. But his reliance on Snowden and Scherr have been superseded by Heller, Heller II and McDonald.

    As I understand it S&S were decided before Heller confirmed that the RKBA was an individual right and that in those cases only the Superintendent's designee acted appropriately.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    It's like Groundhog Day all over again.

    These are the same type of posts we saw back in 2015 when Chairman "Who are you guys?" Thomas was running the board.
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    Has anyone else been denied on renewal for no longer being considered as having a good and substantial reason?

    I was reading comar here:

    http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/29.03.02.12

    In section E it says:

    E. Upon receipt of a properly submitted renewal application, the Secretary shall issue a renewed permit within a reasonable time if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a permit.

    The entire renewal section makes no mention of having good and substantial as a precursor to a renewal - only that the application be properly submitted.

    I was explicitly told that previous approvals are not considered on renewal - only what the current SOP is.

    I was denied as new policy says my old reason is no longer good enough. Thoughts? Grasping at straws I know....

    That was the entire premise of Woolard. He was denied the renewal because MSP felt the G&S no longer existed.
     

    Hattie

    Active Member
    Sep 18, 2012
    178
    Has anyone else been denied on renewal for no longer being considered as having a good and substantial reason?

    I was reading comar here:

    http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/29.03.02.12

    In section E it says:

    E. Upon receipt of a properly submitted renewal application, the Secretary shall issue a renewed permit within a reasonable time if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a permit.

    The entire renewal section makes no mention of having good and substantial as a precursor to a renewal - only that the application be properly submitted.

    I was explicitly told that previous approvals are not considered on renewal - only what the current SOP is.

    I was denied as new policy says my old reason is no longer good enough. Thoughts? Grasping at straws I know....

    Agreed the regulation is ambiguous/poorly drafted. Md. Code, Public Safety sec. 5-309(b) seems clearer on the issue:

    Renewal of permit
    (b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, a permit may be renewed for successive periods of 3 years each if, at the time of an application for renewal, the applicant possesses the qualifications for the issuance of a permit and pays the renewal fee stated in this subtitle.

    * * *
     

    Hattie

    Active Member
    Sep 18, 2012
    178
    Agreed the regulation is ambiguous/poorly drafted. Md. Code, Public Safety sec. 5-309(b) seems clearer on the issue:

    Renewal of permit
    (b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, a permit may be renewed for successive periods of 3 years each if, at the time of an application for renewal, the applicant possesses the qualifications for the issuance of a permit and pays the renewal fee stated in this subtitle.

    * * *

    The "qualifications" are set forth in Md. Code, Public Safety sec. 5-306, and include G&S.
     

    songlaw

    Active Member
    Aug 2, 2017
    240
    Clarksville
    I was under the impression that he was a denial. One of the negative results of Judge Thinskin's new procedures is that we don't know if an applicant is a denial or a permit restriction before their testimony begins. Under the procedures of the prior boards the MSP would read their testimony first and it was crystal clear the status of the applicant before they began to speak.

    And if IIRC the reason for his denial is because the FSO at APL would not verify his TS clearance. In the intervening months he was able to obtain documentation that he produced at his hearing. Like I said before, prior boards would have used this documentation to reverse the decision of the Secretary but Judge Smails played one of his favorite cards, the mysterious "stet" docket.

    I got the feeling that either he was not aware of the board's ability or he has an aversion to overturning the decision of the Secretary. Why is anybody's guess.

    Stoveman:

    There was no sound amplification at the hearing. Perhaps you didn't hear this part clearly. I was sitting fairly close to the front, so perhaps heard a bit more clearly. The Sgt., throughout the hearing, stated that he did not have evidence of TSC. However, toward the end, the Sgt. stated that, upon review of the docs submitted at the hearing, the Sgt. was satisfied that the appellant had TSC, and stated that they would grant.
    It was marked as a "Stet" but, in all practical respects, operated as a win for the appellant.

    This is the reason that I wondered if the Board, and Judge Smalkin, specifically, was trying to save the HPRB from being eliminated by the legislature. IF the board actually REVERSED, instead of placing on STET, there would be a record of MSP being reversed. This way,by placing in on Stet, it appears that MSP was not reversed (although, for all practical purposes, it was reversed).

    A casual legislator, looking at the reversal record would now see that MSP is rarely, if ever, getting reversed. Thus, they might see less reason to abolish the HPRB when they come back in session. It is not what we want (a much higher reversal rate), but clearly, what we want will result in the elimination of the Board, in this climate.

    I could be totally off, but it's a different angle. We will see what happens.
     

    CrueChief

    Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
    Apr 3, 2009
    2,999
    Napolis-ish
    If the board is going back to the old rarely if even over turning msp then what's the point? If they stop putting restrictions on permits today who would know? and doing that would be the faster way to make the over turns rare.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,483
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom