CypherPunk
Opinions Are My Own
- Apr 6, 2012
- 3,907
How does the MSP control the HPRB?
The same way the Asst AG controls the MSP and Gov. Hogan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
HPRB July 29, 2019 Meeting Thread
- Thread starter Applehd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hogan hypocrisy hprb fail
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!
Member Benefits:
How does the MSP control the HPRB?
The same way the Asst AG controls the MSP and Gov. Hogan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
If there is coordination regarding which members will/will not attend, when and how is it being done? Because it seems like it should be done in the open meeting itself, not in some kind of backroom deal off the record.
I rode up in the elevator with a member and he advised that the Judge sent out a schedule of meetings that they were to attend.
Ready to go at 6:45.
I ask a dumb question , why 3 out of 5 board members . Is it about control of the agenda , easier to rein in 3 members then 5 ??? The judge is gaming all of us make no mistake about that .
Applicant up. A/C business reason 1. Reason 2 was that he was shot at. Hit the van. Happened in Frederick. First responders took awhile to arrive and he had to wait in the street.
MSP said applied as victim of shooting and business. MSP said a projectile hit the vehicle. I guess they don't want to mention it was a gun. MSP thinks juveniles using a BB or pellet gun. Not contact with anyone seeking to do him harm. Not sufficient threat. (My words)
.
MSP said applied as victim of shooting and business. MSP said a projectile hit the vehicle. I guess they don't want to mention it was a gun. MSP thinks juveniles using a BB or pellet gun. Not contact with anyone seeking to do him harm. Not sufficient threat. (My words)
.
Board asks if targeted. Said a group of yutes and they had done other damage. MSP handed him new card with new language.
Board member talking about MSP about disseminating information to other LE agencies. Says they have been notified.
Motion to change permit. Motion to remove restrictions. This is a new development. MSP says restrictions for doing business, Paros wants that to be as long as he owns the business.
MSP prevails. So much for Paros's opinion.
Motion to change permit. Motion to remove restrictions. This is a new development. MSP says restrictions for doing business, Paros wants that to be as long as he owns the business.
MSP prevails. So much for Paros's opinion.
New applicant. Swearing in attorney as well. This is not SOP in the court of law.
Represented by a fine lawyer, Mr Ed. Hershon.
Applicant manages real estate properties. Works no traditional hours. Performs site visits during all hours of the day. Often is the only contact to a tenant. Soft spoken, can't hear.
Represented by a fine lawyer, Mr Ed. Hershon.
Applicant manages real estate properties. Works no traditional hours. Performs site visits during all hours of the day. Often is the only contact to a tenant. Soft spoken, can't hear.
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Where is it in Smalkin’s prerogative to tell other Board members, all of whom are independently appointed by the Governor, to NOT APPEAR to fulfill their citizen oversight duties on behalf of the law-abiding citizens of Maryland?
Where is it in Smalkin’s prerogative to “stet” cases brought before the HPRB?
When will Smalkin agree to abide by the HPRB and Open Meetings Act law?
When will the other four Board members check in their trousers for their balls and in their wallets for their man cards?
Is it not past time for the other four Board members to tell Brigadier Judge Smalkin that they don’t take their HPRB attendance orders from him?
Where is it in Smalkin’s prerogative to “stet” cases brought before the HPRB?
When will Smalkin agree to abide by the HPRB and Open Meetings Act law?
When will the other four Board members check in their trousers for their balls and in their wallets for their man cards?
Is it not past time for the other four Board members to tell Brigadier Judge Smalkin that they don’t take their HPRB attendance orders from him?
Applicant has vacant properties in inventory. Sometimes 1 to 2 units vacant. Most ate foreclosures. Sometimes gets called to vacant properties to do work. Most properties are in Baltimore county. Said he knows about realtor being killed and is worried about threats. Applicant when not on clock, is still conducting business. Considers restrictions vague. Does not have a uniform or marked truck. People do know he is a property manager. Concerned about police officer no knowing. If exercise fifth, would be concerned about going to jail, hiring an attorney, and losing your job. Can only use firearm when life is threatened, but not property and money.
MSP. Bla bla bla. Verified business and provided a permit with new restrictions. No examples of specific threats given.
Cross by Esquire Ed. No "conducting business" defined in COMAR and law.
Cross by Esquire Ed. No "conducting business" defined in COMAR and law.
Same argument I used in OAH
MSP understands what business is.
Attorney asking how restrictions ate determined. Did meet G and S.
Some confusing issues about purpose of permit - protection of life.
Permit based on My MSP SOP.
Language on permit is not in SOP. SOP created by MSP. SOP not reviewed by public. No legislative input. Not iaw with law process.
MSP did make determination based on a criteria - application and licensed real estate agent.
Where in statute is a business restricted listed. Not in COMAR or law. Missed a couple of things.
Attorney asking how restrictions ate determined. Did meet G and S.
Some confusing issues about purpose of permit - protection of life.
Permit based on My MSP SOP.
Language on permit is not in SOP. SOP created by MSP. SOP not reviewed by public. No legislative input. Not iaw with law process.
MSP did make determination based on a criteria - application and licensed real estate agent.
Where in statute is a business restricted listed. Not in COMAR or law. Missed a couple of things.
Board procedures, including any rules providing for the Chair to control attendance by members would properly be the subject of rules proposed, discussed in an open meeting.
What is being referred to as "stet" seems functionally a continuance to allow the parties to take additional steps like exchange of information. This seems something within the inherent power of the Board, but for good order should be governed by published rules adopted in an open meeting.
It is quite surprising that Board members, appointed to a personal duty by the Governor and having personally taken an oath to perform that duty, should now blithely be acceding to the dictates of the Chair, particularly without having participated in the adoption of appropriate procedural rules.
Statute says may impose. How does the statute get applied. 5-307b guidance from who? Guidance or no guidance. (No answer).
Does MSP believe he could be at risk beyond his work activities?
MSP "anything is possible"
Deadly force to protect life. Purpose of permit to protect life. Why is a Maryland citizen only allowed to protect life while conducting business?
Does applicant stop being at risk?
MSP says does not know if anyone has ever been arrested for outside of permit.
Advisory issued by intelligence center.
Does MSP believe he could be at risk beyond his work activities?
MSP "anything is possible"
Deadly force to protect life. Purpose of permit to protect life. Why is a Maryland citizen only allowed to protect life while conducting business?
Does applicant stop being at risk?
MSP says does not know if anyone has ever been arrested for outside of permit.
Advisory issued by intelligence center.
Board member blowing off case. Said time place and manner restrictions are ok.
Attorney says board can overturn. Board says oath to uphold law, so can't do.
MSP was supposed to be reviewed in 2016.
Attorney says board can overturn. Board says oath to uphold law, so can't do.
MSP was supposed to be reviewed in 2016.
Attorney making great arguments about risk when not working.
MSP prevails. Surprise surprise surprise.
"Reasonable" time, place and manner restrictions, not arbitrary and capricious restrictions imposed with no coherent standard or individualized findings.
The Board's review is plenary. MSP's decision is entitled to no deference.
"Upholding" the law does not require restrictions.
The Board's review is plenary. MSP's decision is entitled to no deference.
"Upholding" the law does not require restrictions.
