HPRB Statistics 2015-2016

mxrider · Jul 15, 2017

dblas said:
At a minimum, the DPSC should send a letter to all 158 people named in the PIA and let them know that they screwed up in violating 10-616 by releasing their information.

And too bad there isn't a civil or criminal penalties in the code for releasing this information in the state law.

I looked to see if i could find any penalties and couldn't find anything. I will be reaching out to a pro 2a attorney Monday (who is a member here)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

dblas · Jul 15, 2017

mxrider said:
I looked to see if i could find any penalties and couldn't find anything. I will be reaching out to a pro 2a attorney Monday (who is a member here)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

The securing of the PII was ok with the legislature back in 2013, but the civil and criminal penalties for violating the law was not. Might have been because at the time, it was a Democratic administration. I wonder what would happen if an amendment adding civil and criminal penalties was submitted this next session?

Jaybeez · Jul 16, 2017

dblas said:
At a minimum, the DPSC should send a letter to all 158 people named in the PIA and let them know that they screwed up in violating 10-616 by releasing their information.

That should be DPSCS's first step, now they have been notified of their error. We should give them a little time to do the right thing, and to see if they will.

Step 2 should be to identify if DPSCS has sent that pdf in response to any other PIA requests. Departments tend to recycle responses and use them to fullfill multiple PIA requests as long as the info is current. If so, they need to identify the pia requestor to the pernit holders named.

3. They should determine if they have made this mistake at any time in the past, and to whom the info was sent.

4. They should determine that this information breech constitutes a g&s, and issue unrestricted permits to all the named applicants that can legally possess a handgun.

ALL of this should be accomplished with a huge dose of transparency. No back room meetings and secret assurances that it's "being handled" and "wont happen again". We all know that those promises are meaningless once the meeting is over. M@$)'s case proved that. If this happened under a governor Brown, we would be sharpening pitchforks.

ironpony · Jul 17, 2017

Is now a good time to apply given the stats? I own my business as well as my parents owning one ... cash involved! cheapest place for class?
I have not read an HPRB thread this year and have less stress because of this.

mxrider · Jul 17, 2017

ironpony said:
Is now a good time to apply given the stats? I own my business as well as my parents owning one ... cash involved! cheapest place for class?
I have not read an HPRB thread this year and have less stress because of this.

PM sent

BeoBill · Jul 17, 2017

dblas said:
The securing of the PII was ok with the legislature back in 2013, but the civil and criminal penalties for violating the law was not. Might have been because at the time, it was a Democratic administration. I wonder what would happen if an amendment adding civil and criminal penalties was submitted this next session?

My Magic 8-Ball says "Har Har Hardy Har Har Har!

dblas · Jul 17, 2017

BeoBill said:
My Magic 8-Ball says "Har Har Hardy Har Har Har!

GTOGUNNER · Jul 17, 2017

So seems they would say if it was a Democratic administration, it wouldn't have happened.

Sent from the 3rd Rock

mjester93 · Jul 19, 2017

So I just received the following e-mail from DPSC:

On July 11, 2017, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services provided you with a document containing the names of applicants, and the outcomes of their hearings. This disclosure was made in error.

Please immediately delete any and all copies of the erroneously provided document, and refrain from disclosing or in any way publishing the information. Further disclosure of the erroneously provided document could implicate the privacy concerns of the individuals named therein.

Please confirm that you intend to comply with this request.

Thank you,

Looks like someone told them of their mistake.

mxrider · Jul 19, 2017

mjester93 said:
So I just received the following e-mail from DPSC:

Looks like someone told them of their mistake.

Within a few hours of it occurring

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

dblas · Jul 19, 2017

mjester93 said:
So I just received the following e-mail from DPSC:

Looks like someone told them of their mistake.

So it took them 8 days to figure this out, after being told about it almost immediately???

montoya32 · Jul 19, 2017

mjester93 said:
So I just received the following e-mail from DPSC:

Looks like someone told them of their mistake.

What did you respond with? You are not obligated to conform to anything.

Falcon78 · Jul 19, 2017

dblas said:
So it took them 8 days to figure this out, after being told about it almost immediately???

Cut them some slack, there's no hurry for you to have your second amendment rights in Maryland.

Gambler · Jul 19, 2017

dblas said:
So it took them 8 days to figure this out, after being told about it almost immediately???

They were hoping some of us on the list would get taken out before now.

mjester93 · Jul 19, 2017

montoya32 said:
What did you respond with? You are not obligated to conform to anything.

I will conform to their requests, however, the summary of statistics will still be up.

montoya32 · Jul 19, 2017

mjester93 said:
I will conform to their requests, however, the summary of statistics will still be up.

They don't care about the stats, just the names.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jaybeez · Jul 19, 2017

mjester93 said:
I will conform to their requests, however, the summary of statistics will still be up.

If you send an email stating "i will conform", they will consider the matter dead. And the privacy breech capped.

You need to make them aware, that due their error in releasing information, that when you posted the file online it was accessed by potentially hundreds of people before you were notified by a private citizen that the information was considered sensitive.

You need to make sure that information is in the record before they finish their cover-up and sweep it under the rug.

Mark75H · Jul 19, 2017

There are versions of search engines that PERMANENTLY record EVERYTHING that is EVER posted on the internet. DPSC can't have the file "unseen" by the watchers. Once its out there, its out there FOR GOOD.

montoya32 · Jul 19, 2017

dblas said:
At a minimum, the DPSC should send a letter to all 158 people named in the PIA and let them know that they screwed up in violating 10-616 by releasing their information.

And too bad there isn't a civil or criminal penalties in the code for releasing this information in the state law.

mxrider said:
I looked to see if i could find any penalties and couldn't find anything. I will be reaching out to a pro 2a attorney Monday (who is a member here)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

There has to be some sort of penalty for breaking that specific law, right? How did they create a law and not a way to enforce it?

dblas · Jul 19, 2017

montoya32 said:
There has to be some sort of penalty for breaking that specific law, right? How did they create a law and not a way to enforce it?

A penalty was suggested when the amendment was made, but never made it into the verbiage of the actual amendment that was brought and approved. Many such laws that the State of Maryland is supposed to follow, have absolutely no penalty if the State fails to do so.

HPRB Statistics 2015-2016

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Former MSI Treasurer

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Member

Former MSI Treasurer

Crank in the Third Row

Past President, MSI

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Member

Former MSI Treasurer

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Rifleman

¿Got Freedom?

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics