Gov. Hogan Appoints New HPRB Members

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!
  • Chris

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jun 21, 2005
    2,128
    Cecil Co, Maryland
    Courtney White, super choice as she tons of experience with not only firearms but also with the permit system in this State and others. Chris
     

    Jaybeez

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Patriot Picket
    May 30, 2006
    6,392
    Darlington MD
    My 2 cents. The HGPRB is intended to provide an appeal mechanism (prior to initiating a civil action in circuit court) for applicants that have been "not approved" or "denied" by the MSP through the actions of the Secretary/Superintendent. However, the Superintendent has the statutory discretion to decide what constitutes G&S. The HGPRB only has authority to review not approved/denials by the Secretary. The review should be utilizing the G&S standard implemented by the Secretary provided it is lawful. In other words, the current HGPRB should be applying the current Super's standard, not inconsistently applying a prior administrations standard even if it was previously upheld, e.g. Scherr/Snowden. The HGPRB has no authority to review permits that have already been granted by the Secretary.

    Bottom line is that Pallozzi will either have to develop a SOP/G&S standard of his own, or the HGPRB will likely continue to apply the old standard (Scherr/Snowden) by default. New members applying the old standard won't likely provide much relief.

    comar says the hprb exists, can modify restrictions, and deals with appeals. that's all i can find. there doesnt appear to be any standard they apply or is applied to them. its all up to the member's personal bias. either against or towards carry. 3 new members means 3 new potential approving votes out of 5. and i dont think they are bound by scherr/snowden.
     

    Gryphon

    inveniam viam aut faciam
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 8, 2013
    6,993
    comar says the hprb exists, can modify restrictions, and deals with appeals. that's all i can find. there doesnt appear to be any standard they apply or is applied to them. its all up to the member's personal bias. either against or towards carry. 3 new members means 3 new potential approving votes out of 5. and i dont think they are bound by scherr/snowden.

    I generally agree the current Board is free to make up there own rules and exercise their own collective discretion, but I think it needs to be in the context of the policy standard being implemented within the current Super's reasonable discretion so it is lawful. Don't forget about stare decisis. True, Scherr and Snowden shouldn't apply if Pallozzi implements a new standard including articulated self-defense. I would expect the Board to review for abuse of (or not) of that new policy on an individual applicant's basis. However, if MSP continues under the old policy there is at least an argument that the prior standard and case precedent from petitions to the circuit court (of the Board's prior decisions in Scherr/Snowden) affirming them is applicable. Just an argument. But the cleaner route, IMHO, is for a new standard to be implemented cutting off arguments (by the two remaining members) about the applicability of the old case precedence.

    Maybe the easier way to think of it is that the HGPRB exists to make sure the Super fairly applies the standard (whatever it is at the time) to all, and doesn't abuse his discretion denying or restricting individual permits relative to the masses, and that should be true whether the Super and the Board are being restrictive under a liberal administration or more favorable under a more conservative administration. Again, just my thoughts.

    Remember Frosh has an inside guy at MSP, and available to the HGPRB. He works for them as his client, but he is still a subordinate of Frosh.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    I generally agree the current Board is free to make up there own rules and exercise their own collective discretion, but I think it needs to be in the context of the policy standard being implemented within the current Super's reasonable discretion so it is lawful. Don't forget about stare decisis. True, Scherr and Snowden shouldn't apply if Pallozzi implements a new standard including articulated self-defense. I would expect the Board to review for abuse of (or not) of that new policy on an individual applicant's basis. However, if MSP continues under the old policy there is at least an argument that the prior standard and case precedent from petitions to the circuit court (of the Board's prior decisions in Scherr/Snowden) affirming them is applicable. Just an argument. But the cleaner route, IMHO, is for a new standard to be implemented cutting off arguments (by the two remaining members) about the applicability of the old case precedence.

    Maybe the easier way to think of it is that the HGPRB exists to make sure the Super fairly applies the standard (whatever it is at the time) to all, and doesn't abuse his discretion denying or restricting individual permits relative to the masses, and that should be true whether the Super and the Board are being restrictive under a liberal administration or more favorable under a more conservative administration. Again, just my thoughts.

    Remember Frosh has an inside guy at MSP, and available to the HGPRB. He works for them as his client, but he is still a subordinate of Frosh.

    Is this a conflict of interest.. can the Gov seek and retain outside counsel?
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    What legal remedies are available to force the Board to comply with the laws under which they supposedly operate? I would think that there must be some action in law that could be taken.

    Sure, you can force them to act, its called a proceeding under the State Administrative Procedure Act to compel action unlawfully withheld. Good luck with that.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    Governor Hogan has quietly appointed 3 new members to Maryland's Handgun Permit Review Board (HPRB).

    The HPRB was established in 1972 (Chapter 13, Acts of 1972) to review decisions regarding handgun permits. Any person whose application for a handgun permit or renewal of a permit has been rejected or whose permit has been revoked or limited may ask the Board to review the decision of the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. The Board can sustain, reverse, or modify the decision of the Superintendent, or conduct a hearing to establish the facts.

    Maryland's Governor appoints the Board's five members from the general public to three-year terms with Senate advice and consent (Article 27, §36E).

    The Handgun Permit Review Board has been the subject of some controversy for, among other things;
    - Taking more than a year to hold hearings that are required to be held within 90 days.
    - Taking an extended summer break, despite the backlog.
    - Disallowing denied applicants to appear in person, to present their case.
    - Unlawfully refusing to debate public policy, or hold votes in public session.
    - Failing to comply with Maryland's Open Meetings laws by holding meetings, with little or no public notice, in room not generally accessible to the public and unlawfully and improperly adjourning to closed session.

    According to information recently supplied by the Governor's office the newly appointed members are;

    Richard Lee Jurgena (2017) is a Mail Advertising Company Executive and lives in Montgomery County, Maryland.

    Courtney M. White (2017) is the Managing Director of IOTA Firearms & Security Training Academy, she lives in Baltimore City.

    Robert D. H. Wilson (2018) is a Director of Marina Operations with Meisel & Cohen Properties, a former firefighter and former military, he lives in Queen Anne’s County.

    Two Board Members remain - they are;

    Charles M. Thomas, Jr. (2016), Chair (chosen by Governor) first appointed in February of 2002
    A Democrat from Legislative District 43, Baltimore, MD. According to public records he has a MS Degree in Psychology, Howard University. Chairman, Mutual Housing Association of Baltimore, Board Member, Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation. Mr. Thomas has served on several educational boards, and is currently retired.

    Rolinda S. Collinson (2016) first appointed in May, 2000
    A Democrat from District 27, Friendship, MD, Ms. Collinson is currently employed as a Special Education Teacher in the state of Maryland.

    Maryland is one of the last two or three holdout states that still refuse to grant handgun permits to responsible citizens who complete a comprehensive background investigation and safety training.
    Civil Rights and Second Amendment advocates are calling on Governor Hogan and his newly appointed Superintendent of State Police, William M. Pallozzi to recognize yesterday's court victory in WRENN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and use this opportunity to declare an end to Maryland's unlawful, dysfunctional and costly permitting scheme.


    For More Information:

    Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services Website
    http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/dpscs.html#handgun

    Handgun Permit Review Board Website
    http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/agencies/hprb.shtml


    Is the bolded part above from a news article?
     

    montoya32

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jun 16, 2010
    11,311
    Harford Co
    The OP contains my own words. It's not breaking news yet anywhere but here AFAIK.

    This is the same list I saw days ago. What has changed? Looks like some dates have changed. Here is what I posted a few days ago. How does Hogan appoint 3 members if their terms were not up? I though terms were staggered and for 3 years each.


    Appointed by Governor with Senate advice & consent to 3-year terms:
    Charles M. Thomas, Jr., Chair (chosen by Governor), 2016
    Rolinda S. Collinson, 2014; Richard Lee Jurgena, 2017; Courtney M. White, 2017; Robert D. H. Wilson, 2018.
     

    CypherPunk

    Opinions Are My Own
    Apr 6, 2012
    3,907
    I suspect they were asked to turn in their resignations (common in govt), or resigned for some other reason.

    The recess appointments assume the staggered term of the person they replace.

    The Senate must confirm recess appointments when they are next in session.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    I generally agree the current Board is free to make up there own rules and exercise their own collective discretion, but I think it needs to be in the context of the policy standard being implemented within the current Super's reasonable discretion so it is lawful. Don't forget about stare decisis. True, Scherr and Snowden shouldn't apply if Pallozzi implements a new standard including articulated self-defense. I would expect the Board to review for abuse of (or not) of that new policy on an individual applicant's basis. However, if MSP continues under the old policy there is at least an argument that the prior standard and case precedent from petitions to the circuit court (of the Board's prior decisions in Scherr/Snowden) affirming them is applicable. Just an argument. But the cleaner route, IMHO, is for a new standard to be implemented cutting off arguments (by the two remaining members) about the applicability of the old case precedence.

    Maybe the easier way to think of it is that the HGPRB exists to make sure the Super fairly applies the standard (whatever it is at the time) to all, and doesn't abuse his discretion denying or restricting individual permits relative to the masses, and that should be true whether the Super and the Board are being restrictive under a liberal administration or more favorable under a more conservative administration. Again, just my thoughts.

    Remember Frosh has an inside guy at MSP, and available to the HGPRB. He works for them as his client, but he is still a subordinate of Frosh.

    Snowden and Scherr apply across the board, not just to the particular plaintiffs. They purport to interpret the meaning of a statutory provision (G&S) and that interpretation is a legal ruling. BUT both decisions affirm a construction given G&S by the Board. The Board, like any other administrative body, is free to change that interpretation, as long as it does so expressly and explains why. Scherr and Snowden do not purport to bind all future boards. There is a convenient explanation, if the Board were to choose to adopt it. Both Scherr and Snowden were decided before Heller. The latest decision (Scherr) expressly rejected the constitutional argument on grounds that the 2A does not apply to the States. The SCT in McDonald, expressly rejected that very contention. So Scherr is out of date as is Snowden. We should thus argue that G&S should be reinterpreted by the Board (and by the MSP) by reference to the constitutional principles announced in McDonald and Heller and thus given a more generous interpretation. The Board is free to do so. Even the 4th Circuit was willing to assume in Woollard that the 2A applies outside the home. Woollard does not purport to preclude Maryland from adopting any standard it wishes with respect to G&S.
     

    CharlieFoxtrot

    ,
    Industry Partner
    Sep 30, 2007
    2,527
    Foothills of Appalachia
    What legal remedies are available to force the Board to comply with the laws under which they supposedly operate? I would think that there must be some action in law that could be taken.

    Writ of Mandamus: " an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion."
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    so cut the bull, what does this actually mean?
    should we all run out and apply for a permit?

    No one is going to tell you what to do (least of all me). I am not going to apply in DC until I see whether DC will seek a stay pending appeal. I expect them to do so and I expect a stay pending appeal to be granted. The process is a time burner for me, so I'll wait and see. YMMV. As to applying for a Maryland Permit, no one can tell you what it means if only because this new Board has no track record and no opportunity to consider a case. You can be a test case if you so desire.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,345
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom