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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    :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 But his reliance on Snowden and Scherr have been superseded by Heller, Heller II and McDonald.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.

    I am not sure Snowden and Scherr have really been superseded. Both are state court decisions about state laws. Snowden did not make a 2A argument. Scherr made several arguments only one of which was a 2A argument.

    Heller and McDonald, while addressing an individuals right, the courts have interpreted it to only really addresses handguns in the home. Woollard demonstrates that the state court would likely reach the same decision even after Heller and McDonald.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,058
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    Applicant was Navy enlisted. Judge asked what he rank was. Relevance!

    Application denied because applicant didn't provide proof of security clearance.

    Judge thinks he should have been able show level of clearance. Says it's not classified. O tried that a work from three separate security officers and they would not provide it. FOUO.

    Applicant said his security clearance should not be provided.

    Has this judge done any research?

    Judge asking why permit is required. Said he's not standing guard anymore, so why needed. Asking MSP what current procedure is.

    Guy works at APL.

    I can't read any more. This is complete and total ********. If there are transcripts they should be fun reading for the USSC Justices (I hope).
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,985
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    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.


    I totally get your theory but why would Hogan veto SB1000 just to appoint Napoleon Dynamite who denies everyone but those who produce additional documentation and would/should be approved anyway? Assuming that your theory is correct, what's the long term outlook? The board survives a veto overturn because they are not reversing the MSP and at some time in the future switches course and exercises some independent thought?

    What I was getting at and why I posted the statute is that the board doesn't have the authority to "stet" a case. They can reverse, sustain or modify the decision of the Secretary. There is no language in the statute that gives them the ability to stet a case if additional documents are produced at the applicant's hearing.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,531
    Columbia
    I totally get your theory but why would Hogan veto SB1000 just to appoint Napoleon Dynamite who denies everyone but those who produce additional documentation and would/should be approved anyway? Assuming that your theory is correct, what's the long term outlook? The board survives a veto overturn because they are not reversing the MSP and at some time in the future switches course and exercises some independent thought?



    What I was getting at and why I posted the statute is that the board doesn't have the authority to "stet" a case. They can reverse, sustain or modify the decision of the Secretary. There is no language in the statute that gives them the ability to stet a case if additional documents are produced at the applicant's hearing.



    This. Spot on Stoveman.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,303
    Underground Bunker
    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.

    A lot of bobbing and weaving and way too many moving parts for that to be what is happening .
    It is clearly just a bunch of dumb crap going on from a large group of morons from the state and a couple new morons added to spice things up to completely mess with the flow .
     

    Dingo3

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 4, 2013
    2,777
    Fredneck
    A lot of bobbing and weaving and way too many moving parts for that to be what is happening .
    It is clearly just a bunch of dumb crap going on from a large group of morons from the state and a couple new morons added to spice things up to completely mess with the flow .

    I wholeheartedly agree. Too much of a caca show. The “judge” has no idea what he’s doing (unless he’s just kowtowing to VonFrosh-hole and MSP) and it seems like the rubber stamp it had been until a few years ago. Again, why won’t he just accept the new documents from the applicants and overrule MSP? Sending it back makes them wait in line for another “90 days” which is more like a year. Judge Smails is full of it and I’m glad he’s retired from the federal bench. Who knows how many more people his rulings could screw?
     

    F5guy

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    440
    Annapolis
    The judge said a couple times the meaning of a word can be interpreted many ways by many people and there is no one answer. I think he is waiting on a legal argument that either leaves him no choice but to agree or to explain his interpretation and why whoever presents said argument is wrong. Sad part is this leaves the average joe in a lurch and a civilian review board worthless. Someone must have thought a judge was a good idea. I have no clue the reasoning.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,985
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    One thing we all may be missing is that a retired federal judge was appointed to a political position and this was possibly a huge mistake. Unlike the lefty liberal judges who don't think twice about making political rulings generally conservative judges adhere to the rule of law.

    We have seen that he is trying to turn a civilian oversight board into a mini me courtroom and is looking for a black and white definition of G&S when the reality is a shade of gray.
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    5,492
    Carroll County!
    Maybe Hogan traded the choice for the chairman to not kill the HPRB next session? Hell we went a long time with no HPRB hearings. He could have appointed folks right away.
    The Mirrors and smoke might be that involved. But truthfully, I think Hogan,,,,, well he did it with out a kiss anyway.
     

    W2D

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 2, 2015
    2,074
    Escaped MD for FL
    d994043e888cbbe834abf9af876fb401.jpg



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    Occam's Razor .

    It might be 16 dimensional, double reverse , long term chess . Or could be stupidity .
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,650
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom