MSP Appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings

Schipperke · Jan 16, 2019

PJDiesel said:
I wonder if the Board is privy to this supposed 100% appeal plan? If I were a member of the board I'd have an issue with that...

When the Bill was amended, I always wondered which Dems were in the back room smoking, drinking and laughing. The original text was far less onerous. Either party has right to file appeal. What bar is there to hurdle to appeal, especially for MSP? If an applicant appeals, is it a $50 fee? Who wouldn't appeal an adverse ruling if it is only $50?

Eric114 said:
Since I won my appeal this month, from this I assume I can expect MSP to appeal? I was hoping since MSP asked no questions and really put up no fight i was going to be able to exercise my rights. Guess not in the communist union of maryland.

Interesting observation. As others have commented, they're just there to fog a mirror perhaps.

Mark75H · Jan 16, 2019

PJDiesel said:
I don't have his ear....

Van Gogh snickers

GTOGUNNER · Jan 16, 2019

Mark75H said:
Van Gogh snickers

Mike Tysons is jealous.

Dingo3 · Jan 16, 2019

GTOGUNNER said:
Mike Tysons is jealous.

Evander Holyfield bleeds

PJDiesel · Jan 16, 2019

Its getting deep now.

eruby · Jan 16, 2019

Mark Antony is apoplectic

Bob A · Jan 16, 2019

ironpony said:
Hogan is supposed to be a money saving guy, given this ask him why he is wasting money on an HPRB

Probably the only reason HPRB still exists is because it would look real bad to abolish any civilian board examining MSP behavior.

I was able to embarrass Dumais last session by pointing out that in my hometown of Takoma Park we have multiple citizens' boards providing input and guidance to our elected officials, and it seemed strange to me at the time that she was introducing legislation to effectively eliminate such a board.

Of course, it didn't make much difference to her, but at least it really annoyed her.

Adolph Oliver Bush · Jan 16, 2019

Bob A said:
Probably the only reason HPRB still exists is because it would look real bad to abolish any civilian board examining MSP behavior.

Of course, it didn't make much difference to her, but at least it really annoyed her.

I pointed out in testimony that dems called for more citizen oversight of police after the death of Freddy Gray. My results were the same as yours.....

Bob A · Jan 17, 2019

I guess we're lucky we haven't been banned from Annapolis.

mferrari · Jan 17, 2019

Ed or others working on this. I am curious if the appeals you are aware of are in regards to MSPs original denial of a whole permit, for modifications, or both?

welder516 · Jan 17, 2019

mferrari said:
Ed or others working on this. I am curious if the appeals you are aware of are in regards to MSPs original denial of a whole permit, for modifications, or both?

Mine is for restrictions to be modified .

montoya32 · Jan 17, 2019

I'll reiterate my opinion, restrictions are ONLY for prosecuting permit holders. They are not crafted or designed to "restrict" one's carry. They are issued in a manner of when you are allowed to carry. MSP has repeatedly indicated they are issued for "public safety", but has never indicated how the public is less safe without a permit holder being unrestricted.

welder516 · Jan 17, 2019

montoya32 said:
I'll reiterate my opinion, restrictions are ONLY for prosecuting permit holders. They are not crafted or designed to "restrict" one's carry. They are issued in a manner of when you are allowed to carry. MSP has repeatedly indicated they are issued for "public safety", but has never indicated how the public is less safe without a permit holder being unrestricted.

Agree with you , also would add it is also for control .

CrueChief · Jan 17, 2019

Yeah its funny how the law says "shall issue permit( with G & S of course )" and "May place restrictions." Maybe they don't understand the words?

Schipperke · Jan 17, 2019

montoya32 said:
I'll reiterate my opinion, restrictions are ONLY for prosecuting permit holders. They are not crafted or designed to "restrict" one's carry. They are issued in a manner of when you are allowed to carry. MSP has repeatedly indicated they are issued for "public safety", but has never indicated how the public is less safe without a permit holder being unrestricted.

No one likes the answer, but I'll reiterate and it's in the Woollard finding, and the Court unanimously agreeing:

Reducing the number of guns on the street provides several secondary effects that significantly reduce handgun violence.

So with that, I don't think any data, study etc. is necessary, it has been ruled, and needs changed farther up the judicial process. Anytime there is a gun off the street, the public is safer. MSP is not trusting you to carry, they will still argue public safety is more at risk with a permit holder carrying. Their logic therefore is to limit that carry for the good of public safety. The "Delta" of the de minimis time a permit holder not being allowed to carry was noted, but I don't thing they care. One drop raises the ocean and all that..

BeoBill · Jan 17, 2019

CrueChief said:
Yeah its funny how the law says "shall issue permit( with G & S of course )" and "May place restrictions." Maybe they don't understand the words?

Obviously they got them confused. But they're crystal clear on "arbitrary" and "capricious."

SCV/SAR Patriot · Jan 17, 2019

Schipperke said:
No one likes the answer, but I'll reiterate and it's in the Woollard finding, and the Court unanimously agreeing:

Reducing the number of guns on the street provides several secondary effects that significantly reduce handgun violence.

So with that, I don't think any data, study etc. is necessary, it has been ruled, and needs changed farther up the judicial process. Anytime there is a gun off the street, the public is safer. MSP is not trusting you to carry, they will still argue public safety is more at risk with a permit holder carrying. Their logic therefore is to limit that carry for the good of public safety. The "Delta" of the de minimis time a permit holder not being allowed to carry was noted, but I don't thing they care. One drop raises the ocean and all that..

I think you hit the nail on the head that this is their way of thinking as screwed up as it is.

Sundazes · Jan 17, 2019

I tried to read the entire thread, but I am confused. Are folks saying that the MSP plans on appealing ALL HPRB decisions that overturned the MSP including removing/modifying restrictions?

PJDiesel · Jan 17, 2019

sundazes said:
I tried to read the entire thread, but I am confused. Are folks saying that the MSP plans on appealing ALL HPRB decisions that overturned the MSP including removing/modifying restrictions?

Yes

welder516 · Jan 17, 2019

sundazes said:
I tried to read the entire thread, but I am confused. Are folks saying that the MSP plans on appealing ALL HPRB decisions that overturned the MSP including removing/modifying restrictions?

PJDiesel said:
Yes

Yes and i was from the OCT. 2nd HPRB hearing .

MSP Appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

Banned

Confederate Jew

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Member

Deplorable Welder

Ultimate Member

Deplorable Welder

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

UNRECONSTRUCTED

Throbbing Member

Banned

Deplorable Welder

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics