Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 11th, 2019, 02:51 PM #221
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 785
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post


Agreed. But his reliance on Snowden and Scherr have been superseded by Heller, Heller II and McDonald.

As I understand it S&S were decided before Heller confirmed that the RKBA was an individual right and that in those cases only the Superintendent's designee acted appropriately.
I am not sure Snowden and Scherr have really been superseded. Both are state court decisions about state laws. Snowden did not make a 2A argument. Scherr made several arguments only one of which was a 2A argument.

Heller and McDonald, while addressing an individuals right, the courts have interpreted it to only really addresses handguns in the home. Woollard demonstrates that the state court would likely reach the same decision even after Heller and McDonald.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 03:31 PM #222
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 16,824
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 16,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_an_outlaw View Post
Applicant was Navy enlisted. Judge asked what he rank was. Relevance!

Application denied because applicant didn't provide proof of security clearance.

Judge thinks he should have been able show level of clearance. Says it's not classified. O tried that a work from three separate security officers and they would not provide it. FOUO.

Applicant said his security clearance should not be provided.

Has this judge done any research?

Judge asking why permit is required. Said he's not standing guard anymore, so why needed. Asking MSP what current procedure is.

Guy works at APL.
I can't read any more. This is complete and total bullshit. If there are transcripts they should be fun reading for the USSC Justices (I hope).
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy." To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
“Those who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who don’t.”

Dark to Light; sheep no more. WWG1WGA WWNC
#MorePatriotsThanHandcuffs
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 04:21 PM #223
Stoveman's Avatar
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,526
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
Stoveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by songlaw View Post
Stoveman:

There was no sound amplification at the hearing. Perhaps you didn't hear this part clearly. I was sitting fairly close to the front, so perhaps heard a bit more clearly. The Sgt., throughout the hearing, stated that he did not have evidence of TSC. However, toward the end, the Sgt. stated that, upon review of the docs submitted at the hearing, the Sgt. was satisfied that the appellant had TSC, and stated that they would grant.
It was marked as a "Stet" but, in all practical respects, operated as a win for the appellant.

This is the reason that I wondered if the Board, and Judge Smalkin, specifically, was trying to save the HPRB from being eliminated by the legislature. IF the board actually REVERSED, instead of placing on STET, there would be a record of MSP being reversed. This way,by placing in on Stet, it appears that MSP was not reversed (although, for all practical purposes, it was reversed).

A casual legislator, looking at the reversal record would now see that MSP is rarely, if ever, getting reversed. Thus, they might see less reason to abolish the HPRB when they come back in session. It is not what we want (a much higher reversal rate), but clearly, what we want will result in the elimination of the Board, in this climate.

I could be totally off, but it's a different angle. We will see what happens.

I totally get your theory but why would Hogan veto SB1000 just to appoint Napoleon Dynamite who denies everyone but those who produce additional documentation and would/should be approved anyway? Assuming that your theory is correct, what's the long term outlook? The board survives a veto overturn because they are not reversing the MSP and at some time in the future switches course and exercises some independent thought?

What I was getting at and why I posted the statute is that the board doesn't have the authority to "stet" a case. They can reverse, sustain or modify the decision of the Secretary. There is no language in the statute that gives them the ability to stet a case if additional documents are produced at the applicant's hearing.
__________________
_______________
Proud CCW Cultist
Stoveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 08:34 PM #224
rbird7282's Avatar
rbird7282 rbird7282 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,677
rbird7282 rbird7282 is online now
Senior Member
rbird7282's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattie View Post
The "qualifications" are set forth in Md. Code, Public Safety sec. 5-306, and include G&S.


And G & S has never been defined by MD it MSP, but hey, they’ll know it when they see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rbird7282 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 08:37 PM #225
rbird7282's Avatar
rbird7282 rbird7282 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,677
rbird7282 rbird7282 is online now
Senior Member
rbird7282's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
I totally get your theory but why would Hogan veto SB1000 just to appoint Napoleon Dynamite who denies everyone but those who produce additional documentation and would/should be approved anyway? Assuming that your theory is correct, what's the long term outlook? The board survives a veto overturn because they are not reversing the MSP and at some time in the future switches course and exercises some independent thought?



What I was getting at and why I posted the statute is that the board doesn't have the authority to "stet" a case. They can reverse, sustain or modify the decision of the Secretary. There is no language in the statute that gives them the ability to stet a case if additional documents are produced at the applicant's hearing.


This. Spot on Stoveman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rbird7282 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 09:16 PM #226
welder516's Avatar
welder516 welder516 is offline
Deplorable Welder
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Welding Shop
Posts: 9,042
welder516 welder516 is offline
Deplorable Welder
welder516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Welding Shop
Posts: 9,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by songlaw View Post
Stoveman:

There was no sound amplification at the hearing. Perhaps you didn't hear this part clearly. I was sitting fairly close to the front, so perhaps heard a bit more clearly. The Sgt., throughout the hearing, stated that he did not have evidence of TSC. However, toward the end, the Sgt. stated that, upon review of the docs submitted at the hearing, the Sgt. was satisfied that the appellant had TSC, and stated that they would grant.
It was marked as a "Stet" but, in all practical respects, operated as a win for the appellant.

This is the reason that I wondered if the Board, and Judge Smalkin, specifically, was trying to save the HPRB from being eliminated by the legislature. IF the board actually REVERSED, instead of placing on STET, there would be a record of MSP being reversed. This way,by placing in on Stet, it appears that MSP was not reversed (although, for all practical purposes, it was reversed).

A casual legislator, looking at the reversal record would now see that MSP is rarely, if ever, getting reversed. Thus, they might see less reason to abolish the HPRB when they come back in session. It is not what we want (a much higher reversal rate), but clearly, what we want will result in the elimination of the Board, in this climate.

I could be totally off, but it's a different angle. We will see what happens.
A lot of bobbing and weaving and way too many moving parts for that to be what is happening .
It is clearly just a bunch of dumb crap going on from a large group of morons from the state and a couple new morons added to spice things up to completely mess with the flow .
welder516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 09:27 PM #227
Dingo3's Avatar
Dingo3 Dingo3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fredneck
Posts: 1,902
Dingo3 Dingo3 is offline
Senior Member
Dingo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fredneck
Posts: 1,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by welder516 View Post
A lot of bobbing and weaving and way too many moving parts for that to be what is happening .
It is clearly just a bunch of dumb crap going on from a large group of morons from the state and a couple new morons added to spice things up to completely mess with the flow .
I wholeheartedly agree. Too much of a caca show. The “judge” has no idea what he’s doing (unless he’s just kowtowing to VonFrosh-hole and MSP) and it seems like the rubber stamp it had been until a few years ago. Again, why won’t he just accept the new documents from the applicants and overrule MSP? Sending it back makes them wait in line for another “90 days” which is more like a year. Judge Smails is full of it and I’m glad he’s retired from the federal bench. Who knows how many more people his rulings could screw?
Dingo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 09:46 PM #228
F5guy F5guy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 231
F5guy F5guy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 231
The judge said a couple times the meaning of a word can be interpreted many ways by many people and there is no one answer. I think he is waiting on a legal argument that either leaves him no choice but to agree or to explain his interpretation and why whoever presents said argument is wrong. Sad part is this leaves the average joe in a lurch and a civilian review board worthless. Someone must have thought a judge was a good idea. I have no clue the reasoning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
F5guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 10:10 PM #229
Stoveman's Avatar
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,526
Stoveman Stoveman is offline
TV Personality
Stoveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cuba on the Chesapeake
Posts: 15,526
One thing we all may be missing is that a retired federal judge was appointed to a political position and this was possibly a huge mistake. Unlike the lefty liberal judges who don't think twice about making political rulings generally conservative judges adhere to the rule of law.

We have seen that he is trying to turn a civilian oversight board into a mini me courtroom and is looking for a black and white definition of G&S when the reality is a shade of gray.
__________________
_______________
Proud CCW Cultist
Stoveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2019, 10:27 PM #230
GTOGUNNER's Avatar
GTOGUNNER GTOGUNNER is offline
IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Carroll County!
Posts: 4,176
GTOGUNNER GTOGUNNER is offline
IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
GTOGUNNER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Carroll County!
Posts: 4,176
Maybe Hogan traded the choice for the chairman to not kill the HPRB next session? Hell we went a long time with no HPRB hearings. He could have appointed folks right away.
The Mirrors and smoke might be that involved. But truthfully, I think Hogan,,,,, well he did it with out a kiss anyway.
__________________
“All I can tell you is, Mr. Beretta said ‘There always seems to be a problem with Maryland'. ”

South vs. Maryland and Warren v. District of Columbia
GTOGUNNER is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service