MSP Appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings

Sundazes · Jan 17, 2019

PJDiesel said:
Yes

Thank you.

PJDiesel · Jan 17, 2019

welder516 said:
Yes and i was from the OCT. 2nd HPRB hearing .

At the epicenter....

I put my request in mid November, I'm waiting to hear if I'll just be letting them know to trash it...

welder516 · Jan 17, 2019

PJDiesel said:
At the epicenter....

I put my request in mid November, I'm waiting to hear if I'll just be letting them to to trash it...

Yes it seems i will be a crash test dummy , i will be in good company if others here have to go thru this if they hit other cases as well .

Some will be from MDS and some will not be .

PJDiesel · Jan 17, 2019

welder516 said:
Yes it seems i will be a crash test dummy , i will be in good company if others here have to go thru this if they hit other cases as well .

Some will be from MDS and some will not be .

There's another active and highly intelligent Member here who's on the same path. His gut feeling is that this will NOT go well. It's not stopping him from trying but certainly discouraging.

Straightshooter · Jan 17, 2019

PJDiesel said:
There's another active and highly intelligent Member here who's on the same path. His gut feeling is that this will NOT go well. It's not stopping him from trying but certainly discouraging.

Except for the intelligent part, I too fall into this category. I renewed in September and applied for a HPRB hearing to try to have the restrictions removed. Other then acknowledgement that they received my request, I have heard nothing as far as a hearing date. Even in lieu of these recent shenanigans by the LD and the likelyhood that our goose will be cooked at the OAH, I will still appear. I will not back down and give the LD a free pass.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Mike OTDP · Jan 17, 2019

Don't back down. It's all ammo for the lawsuit. I suspect we will be able to bring a 14th Amendment Due Process of Law case.

rbird7282 · 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.

Because of course, they can’t.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbird7282 · 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..

The Court is wrong, plain and simple. Reducing the number of ILLEGALLY possessed guns on the street would reduce handgun violence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Schipperke · Jan 17, 2019

If I go in front of an ALJ, I can go pro se. I have heard that people using business G&S, if they are incorporated or partnership must be represented by an attorney. I'm not really sure how a closely held corporation falls under the rule, but what I've been told is so. Makes no sense to me, but then laws don't need to make sense. Anyone can clarify this is true?

rbird7282 said:
The Court is wrong, plain and simple. Reducing the number of ILLEGALLY possessed guns on the street would reduce handgun violence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can certainly use that in your hearing.

Occam · Jan 17, 2019

Schipperke said:
If I go in front of an ALJ, I can go pro se. I have heard that people using business G&S, if they are incorporated or partnership must be represented by an attorney. I'm not really sure how a closely held corporation falls under the rule, but what I've been told is so. Makes no sense to me, but then laws don't need to make sense. Anyone can clarify this is true?

Curious, also. This won't impact me for another year or so when I renew, but both my LLCs are just little ol' me, and I'm feeling feisty (and perhaps foolish) enough to go it alone in front of the ALJ. My thinking is that a year from now, there will be some visible trends/history as to how these OAH visits actually go. If it seems too treacherous, then I suppose I'll be helping an attorney make that yacht payment, dammit.

Stoveman · 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..

The court also ruled in the same case that G&S was constitutional because anyone with a palpable need would be able to obtain a permit.

welder516 · Jan 17, 2019

Let's look at the bright side lawyer fees are Tax Deductible... :lol2:

As business expenses . :innocent0

mferrari · Jan 17, 2019

welder516 said:
Mine is for restrictions to be modified .

Thanks, that doesn't make me feel good. Just had my review board hearing for modification. Guess I'll wait my 90 days for MSP to appeal as well.

Schipperke · Jan 18, 2019

Woollard is full of cites in support of Maryland's "Good & Substantial" may issue scheme. MSP discerns the applicant's need based on their application and evidence if they don't fit in to a prescribed exclusions to deny. If a judge finds MSP has made a remarkable error on that account, then that is a reason to overturn. A judge however is suppose to give MSP great deference on this in standard review.

At the same time that it reduces the number of handguns
carried in public, however, the good-and-substantial-reason
requirement ensures that those persons in palpable need of
self-protection can arm themselves in public places where
Maryland’s various permit exceptions do not apply. Consequently,
according to the State, the good-and-substantial reason
requirement "strikes a proper balance between ensuring
access to handgun permits for those who need them while
preventing a greater-than-necessary proliferation of handguns
in public places that . . . increases risks to public safety."

swinokur · Jan 18, 2019

And self defense is not a “palpable need.”

Ok

welder516 · Jan 18, 2019

Schipperke said:
Woollard is full of cites in support of Maryland's "Good & Substantial" may issue scheme. MSP discerns the applicant's need based on their application and evidence if they don't fit in to a prescribed exclusions to deny. If a judge finds MSP has made a remarkable error on that account, then that is a reason to overturn. A judge however is suppose to give MSP great deference on this in standard review.

Schipperke ,

You are a very intelligent member that cites good facts and has a decent opinion . I can not say otherwise , but you are a kill-joy

and very pessimistic and a half glass empty guy .

I do realize i have a thin-skin and maybe that is not so great , but please find a bright side to something .

Sometimes we all need to take a stand win , lose or draw . I am a fighter always have been , i will never lose even if i lose at the OAH . They can not win over my God & me . Life will go on :thumbsup:

Cheer up please

swinokur · Jan 18, 2019

It’s like the MSP LD

“It’s what they do.”

LOL

Schipperke · Jan 18, 2019

welder516 said:
Schipperke ,

You are a very intelligent member that cites good facts and has a decent opinion . I can not say otherwise , but you are a kill-joy and very pessimistic and a half glass empty guy .

I do realize i have a thin-skin and maybe that is not so great , but please find a bright side to something .

Sometimes we all need to take a stand win , lose or draw . I am a fighter always have been , i will never lose even if i lose at the OAH . They can not win over my God & me . Life will go on

Cheer up please

If I was pessimistic I wouldn't be throwing money at Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association v. William M. Pallozzi.

Why people confuse realistic analysis as surrendering, and/or pessimism is a chronic attribution to those posting it's a tough road to hoe. On the contrary, I think we are at times being fed Unicorn poop on chances of prevailing on certain things, which then just leads to great angst for some when it's a fail. For myself, getting all worked up about a carry permit isn't going to change anything. Predicting what an ALJ will do is "speculation", and not emotional at all for me. I haven't seen one post advising you not to go there against MSP. Pointing out the disadvantage of ALJ vs the HPRB is just honest speculation of many here. I'm really wondering if the ALJ will rule at your hearing, they have 60 days to rule. A Judge is a fact finder, they then do a bit of research on the applicable law and precedents before they rule if they have no experience of these laws.

swinokur · Jan 18, 2019

Sometimes realistic analysis posted publicly might discourage others and diminish support for the cause.

Just my realistic analysis

welder516 · Jan 18, 2019

Schipperke said:
If I was pessimistic I wouldn't be throwing money at Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association v. William M. Pallozzi.

Why people confuse realistic analysis as surrendering, and/or pessimism is a chronic attribution to those posting it's a tough road to hoe. On the contrary, I think we are at times being fed Unicorn poop on chances of prevailing on certain things, which then just leads to great angst for some when it's a fail. For myself, getting all worked up about a carry permit isn't going to change anything. Predicting what an ALJ will do is "speculation", and not emotional at all for me. I haven't seen one post advising you not to go there against MSP. Pointing out the disadvantage of ALJ vs the HPRB is just honest speculation of many here. I'm really wondering if the ALJ will rule at your hearing, they have 60 days to rule. A Judge is a fact finder, they then do a bit of research on the applicable law and precedents before they rule if they have no experience of these laws.

I can disagree with the message you make and how it is made , but i still would sit down and talk with you and respect you .
I am not mad or even upset , you have every right to have input here at MDS as any other member .

I have a fundamental difference in the losing theory , i like going in thinking i have a shot even if the cards are stacked against me .

I hope to sit down at one of the luncheons and talk some more , you are one of the good guys , no biggie on my end .

MSP Appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Throbbing Member

Banned

Deplorable Welder

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

TV Personality

Deplorable Welder

Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Deplorable Welder

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Deplorable Welder

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics