MD Senate Executive Nominations Committee hears HPRB Appointments

Jim12 · Mar 30, 2016

Gryphon said:
Funny, I didn't hear Raskin, Miller, McFadden (aka "The Eyes") or anyone else complain about patent conflicts of interest among certain Hogan HGPRB appointees that are on one hand beholden to the MSP for their own licensing and training credentials (necessary for their businesses and livelihoods), while on the other hand simultaneously supposed to be providing oversight of the MSP Licensing Division's handgun permitting scheme? Maybe we should expect Raskin, Miller or McFadden to raise those issues during debate among the full Senate? The grandstanding by McFadden and Miller make it clear just how little they actually know about what has been going on for years at the HGPRB, and the New Chairman's and New Board Member's concerted efforts to clean it up.

Tell 'em! Better yet, tell those who they're feeding their bs to and don't know any different!

dblas · Mar 30, 2016

mcbruzdzinski said:
The member of the HPRB may have passed the Senate Executive Nominations Committee but they still need to be voted on by the entire Senate. I am curious to see what Senator McFadden, Senator Raskin, and possibly even Senate President Miller may say during that vote.

Floor vote is on Friday.

dblas · Mar 30, 2016

ComeGet said:
"The word on the street..." (From his Buddy Chuck Thomas)

Yeah bo, down on the corner, it's all abuzz about how to get yer gat nowadayz.

Updated for accuracy.... :sad20:

Schipperke · Mar 30, 2016

Ms White reminds me of a defense witness going off the rails making the prosecution giddy, not even needing to cross.

Stoveman · Mar 30, 2016

Schipperke said:
Ms White reminds me of a defense witness going off the rails making the prosecution giddy, not even needing to cross.

I've said it before and repeat it now - the lights are on, but nobody's driving :sad20:

Stoveman · Mar 30, 2016

Silent Partner said:
Thanks for posting these, very beneficial.
Something I've witnessed is we're to eager to volunteer information, to our detriment. Before testifying before any government agency volunteer as little information as possible. It's perfectly understandable to say "NO or I don't understand your question. Several times during Ms White's testimony particular to McFadden question should have been "NO" without further explanation.

PJDiesel said:
Everyone re-watch the video. The "definition of insanity" is not having a clue what the hell you are talking about yet being adamant you know what's going on. The make asses of themselves and eventually fools of us.

That's insane.

Here's a theory: Maybe she got a taste and decided that this board is not her cup of tea. Instead of simply resigning she runs off at the mouth during confirmation hearings and the full Senate votes her down which gives her a graceful out and has the effect of upping her creds for future clients who don't happen to peruse the HPRB threads....

BeoBill · Mar 30, 2016

Stoveman said:
Here's a theory: Maybe she got a taste and decided that this board is not her cup of tea. Instead of simply resigning she runs off at the mouth during confirmation hearings and the full Senate votes her down which gives her a graceful out and has the effect of upping her creds for future clients who don't happen to peruse the HPRB threads....

That's plausible to me.

Hattie · Mar 30, 2016

The Board Members who testified did a great job under the circumstances. Congratulations especially to the Chairman for holding his ground and for standing up for due process and complying with State law when McFadden tried to bully him. He brought out clearly what a mess he inherited, both administratively and substantively. The Members would have benefitted had they received better preparation (perhaps by sponsoring legislators or staff) for what they would face as honest brokers being confronted by unprincipled career politicians who apparently consider it beneath them to understand either the relevant law or the duties of the Board.

rambling_one · Mar 30, 2016

Hattie said:
The Board Members who testified did a great job under the circumstances. Congratulations especially to the Chairman for holding his ground and for standing up for due process and complying with State law when McFadden tried to bully him. He brought out clearly what a mess he inherited, both administratively and substantively. The Members would have benefitted had they received better preparation (perhaps by sponsoring legislators or staff) for what they would face as honest brokers being confronted by unprincipled career politicians who apparently consider it beneath them to understand either the relevant law or the duties of the Board.

Regarding preparation, we called 'em murder boards and they're very effective.

Gryphon · Mar 30, 2016

Raskin admitted he doesn't know the law, and wasn't getting much help from Ms. White when questioned. McFadden demonstrated he doesn't know or even care what the law actually is, and puts a lot of faith into the word on the street which is as accurate as his understanding of the Board's role and responsibilities. Miller established he hasn't the slightest grasp of real facts, and further demonstrated his propensity to go full retard and spew whatever he thinks will promote anti/libtard policies. These are our elected leaders.

Hattie · Mar 30, 2016

I doubt Ms. White was "throwing the match." While her understanding of the relevant law and the quality of her votes both have been wanting, she seems sincere, if ill-informed. There is no conflict of interest in having an individual on the Board who is highly knowledgeable about firearms and how and when to employ or not employ them. She has recused herself when indicated. What was somewhat confusing was her description of her professional activities as perhaps involving advocacy before the Board. Her point that she personally applies a rigorous hurdle before even taking on a client for training seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle and could have been better articulated. It was no help that she was being questioned by individuals with no interest in the truth of matters. Again, better advance insight from sources knowledgeable about the legislative process would have been helpful.

Hattie · Mar 30, 2016

There is no "word on the street." Street people don't join discussion boards, participate in the conversation and try to understand the issues and work for positive changes. Neither, apparently do (at least some) legislators. The only "word" McFadden got anywhere would have been through his disappointed crony who ran as from a house afire when his new fellow Board members started to actually insist they should apply the law.

Stoveman · Mar 30, 2016

Hattie said:
I doubt Ms. White was "throwing the match." While her understanding of the relevant law and the quality of her votes both have been wanting, she seems sincere, if ill-informed. There is no conflict of interest in having an individual on the Board who is highly knowledgeable about firearms and how and when to employ or not employ them. She has recused herself when indicated. What was somewhat confusing was her description of her professional activities as perhaps involving advocacy before the Board. Her point that she personally applies a rigorous hurdle before even taking on a client for training seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle and could have been better articulated. It was no help that she was being questioned by individuals with no interest in the truth of matters. Again, better advance insight from sources knowledgeable about the legislative process would have been helpful.

I doubt it as well (see post #25), just positing a theory that maybe she is actually crazy like a fox....

iCoder80 · Mar 30, 2016

Hattie said:
There is no "word on the street." Street people don't join discussion boards, participate in the conversation and try to understand the issues and work for positive changes. Neither, apparently do (at least some) legislators. The only "word" McFadden got anywhere would have been through his disappointed crony who ran as from a house afire when his new fellow Board members started to actually insist they should apply the law.

I disagree, "word on the street" is what they hear and believe from their constituents.

My state senator is Kathy Klausmeier. Someone I have known for sometime. Her office tells me they have gotten complaints about the current board and that complaints are being made across the MGA and to the AG's office.

My guess is the decisions of the new board will be under close scrutiny. Too many reversals will come back to haunt Hogan in the next election.

Gryphon · Mar 30, 2016

iCoder80 said:
I disagree, "word on the street" is what they hear and believe from their constituents.

My state senator is Kathy Klausmeier. Someone I have known for sometime. Her office tells me they have gotten complaints about the current board and that complaints are being made across the MGA and to the AG's office.

My guess is the decisions of the new board will be under close scrutiny. Too many reversals will come back to haunt Hogan in the next election.

There wouldn't be "too many reversals" if there was leadership at the MSP!

fidelity · Mar 30, 2016

iCoder80 said:
I disagree, "word on the street" is what they hear and believe from their constituents.

My state senator is Kathy Klausmeier. Someone I have known for sometime. Her office tells me they have gotten complaints about the current board and that complaints are being made across the MGA and to the AG's office.

My guess is the decisions of the new board will be under close scrutiny. Too many reversals will come back to haunt Hogan in the next election.

If this is true, the only way antis would know the outcomes is by lurking at MDS and complaining about HPRB reversals of LD decisions to members in the MGA (or the AG's office priming the pump and telling their fellow travelers that this is occurring). It could be a very small number of people complaining about the HPRB granting an occasional permit (the horror), but persistently contacting different members. Otherwise, where would these decisions be reported or easily found by the general public? Have the antis been a regular presence at prior meetings (or just recent ones)?

ComeGet · Mar 30, 2016

fidelity said:
If this is true, the only way antis would know the outcomes is by lurking at MDS and complaining about HPRB reversals of LD decisions to members in the MGA (or the AG's office priming the pump and telling their fellow travelers that this is occurring). It could be a very small number of people complaining about the HPRB granting an occasional permit (the horror), but persistently contacting different members. Otherwise, where would these decisions be reported or easily found by the general public? Have the antis been a regular presence at prior meetings (or just recent ones)?

Hm. Paying attention to the opposition and encouraging like-minded peers to contact as many representatives in the GA as possible.

Of all the underhanded...

Oh, wait...

PJDiesel · Mar 30, 2016

ComeGet · Mar 30, 2016

PJDiesel said:
LR

You know, that's about the third or fourth time you've made that insinuation.

I'll let you wonder. :cool:

PJDiesel · Mar 30, 2016

Not saying you're him,...saying that miserable bastid was RIGHT. :rolleyes:

MD Senate Executive Nominations Committee hears HPRB Appointments

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Let Freedom Ring

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

TV Personality

Crank in the Third Row

Active Member

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Active Member

Active Member

TV Personality

Banned

inveniam viam aut faciam

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics