Applicant 1 up.
HPRB 8 Aug 19.
- Thread starter Not_an_outlaw
- Start date
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:
Applicant was hurt at work.ay not be able to work, or be work limited. Has started an LLC. Paperwork in process for that LLC.
Has a manufacturer and trainer ready to step on board.
Has a manufacturer and trainer ready to step on board.
MSP says business getting up and running. Chairman recognizes business is new and proceeding. Has legal work finished. Will be 50 percent and wife if 50 percent
Chairman says stet until paper work is finished.
MSP said needs to be up and operating and show business activity. MSP says re-apply.
Permits not issued for planning. (MSP).
Chairman telling applicant that is is legal to transport. Buy doesn't mention all the gotcha details.
Applicant applied in March 2018. Needs to do another background. Training good for two years.
Chairman says stet until paper work is finished.
MSP said needs to be up and operating and show business activity. MSP says re-apply.
Permits not issued for planning. (MSP).
Chairman telling applicant that is is legal to transport. Buy doesn't mention all the gotcha details.
Applicant applied in March 2018. Needs to do another background. Training good for two years.
Applicant number 2 up.
Paramedic, was once a LT in EMS. Same community for 12 years.
Incidences of overdoses and interacting with people he knows. Had to testify on court. Has instance where he responded to a call and then was called to testify.
This happened in 2018. Testify thing happened in October. After applicant's had been denied ( did not say this in interview since after application).
Also had incident in 2013. Partner passed charges. Got permit (partner) based on the 2013. Chairman asked if he called police on both instances. Yes for both.
Paramedic, was once a LT in EMS. Same community for 12 years.
Incidences of overdoses and interacting with people he knows. Had to testify on court. Has instance where he responded to a call and then was called to testify.
This happened in 2018. Testify thing happened in October. After applicant's had been denied ( did not say this in interview since after application).
Also had incident in 2013. Partner passed charges. Got permit (partner) based on the 2013. Chairman asked if he called police on both instances. Yes for both.
Several other similar incidents with other people he knows. Since he is a paramedic, he is associated with law enforcement.
MSP - May 2018 application. Said department of emergency services. Employer said not being sponsored and not approved to carry at work. No police reports provided that he was as specifically targeted. Not an assumed risk position either. Did not request an informal review.
MSP - May 2018 application. Said department of emergency services. Employer said not being sponsored and not approved to carry at work. No police reports provided that he was as specifically targeted. Not an assumed risk position either. Did not request an informal review.
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,289
there was this... https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?237439&p=5634555#post5634555
but that's o.k....
but that's o.k....
Being asked by board about access to records. Also being asked how often he runs into bad guys.
One board member asking about testifying. Says states attorney's don't like to get EMS people involved. Fire chiefs duty to remain neutral. He recommended yelling the states attorney to not involve EMS people in court. There are other places to get information. (I am not buying this. Another anecdotal random statement)
One board member asking about testifying. Says states attorney's don't like to get EMS people involved. Fire chiefs duty to remain neutral. He recommended yelling the states attorney to not involve EMS people in court. There are other places to get information. (I am not buying this. Another anecdotal random statement)
Chairman says he needs a palpable threat or something authenticated.
I think the result of the vote was no, MSP prevails.
Too bad he didn't mention that that nutbag that went to Walmart armed was stopped by a fireman with a gun.
I think the result of the vote was no, MSP prevails.
Too bad he didn't mention that that nutbag that went to Walmart armed was stopped by a fireman with a gun.
Never mind
Applicant number 3. Had a threat since he submitted the application. Handed the data to the MSP and board.
MSP said last page I'm violation of HIPPA. Last pages all returned to applicant. WTF - hard to show a specific threats without a name
MSP said last page I'm violation of HIPPA. Last pages all returned to applicant. WTF - hard to show a specific threats without a name
Incident was turned into department but not police. Applicant sees person in Walmart, but nothing specific. I think the solution here is to not go to Walmart!!!.
Applicant worried about going to dinner with individuals for which he had contact that is a known abuser.
Chairman telling applicant that the threat must be contacted. Applicant said sheriff in as there.
Better education for applicant's would help.
Better education for applicant's would help.
Who violated HIPPA?
Applicant number 4. Not in attendence.
Applicant number 5.
Excavating company. Partner of guy here last week or two weeks ago from southern MD. Employer of LLC with a restricted permit.
Hours are not normal. Often does estimating in the evenings and for planning purposes.
Also is on call to look at jobs. Problem with going out to dinner with wife.
Also collects money from customers. People don't know if he is the owner or employee, but carries money.
Drug problems, etc.
Chairman asking about cash business and whether they do new construction of others. Sometimes has to go through condemned houses.
Asking for restrictions lifted. Can't secure gun.
Chairman asking if applicant carry a firearm in the he car when not doing business. Chairman discussing law - in holster unloaded.
MSP previously had said it's a.violation to leave you firearm in a car when not working. I recall in those statements that it didn't matter how the firearm was stored. I bet many LEOs don't know this
Applicant number 5.
Excavating company. Partner of guy here last week or two weeks ago from southern MD. Employer of LLC with a restricted permit.
Hours are not normal. Often does estimating in the evenings and for planning purposes.
Also is on call to look at jobs. Problem with going out to dinner with wife.
Also collects money from customers. People don't know if he is the owner or employee, but carries money.
Drug problems, etc.
Chairman asking about cash business and whether they do new construction of others. Sometimes has to go through condemned houses.
Asking for restrictions lifted. Can't secure gun.
Chairman asking if applicant carry a firearm in the he car when not doing business. Chairman discussing law - in holster unloaded.
MSP previously had said it's a.violation to leave you firearm in a car when not working. I recall in those statements that it didn't matter how the firearm was stored. I bet many LEOs don't know this
MSP now stating loaded or unloaded, can't carry under 4-203.
Note: I am confused. There seems to be some contradictory information here.
Board member asking about going dinner. Gun can be in trunk then carried and not be in violation. Applicant says, "you just said iaw 4-203 I can't have the gun in the car."
MSP says restrictions open this up more. Again, lots of room for abuse.
Note: I am confused. There seems to be some contradictory information here.
Board member asking about going dinner. Gun can be in trunk then carried and not be in violation. Applicant says, "you just said iaw 4-203 I can't have the gun in the car."
MSP says restrictions open this up more. Again, lots of room for abuse.
Board member asking if now is a good time to discuss the new SOP. Asking about lack of communication review. SOP made in the back room. Looks arbitrary to board member. Now, implying category restrictions. And not being made under "sunshine."
Chairman asking guy sitting next to Stevi if the SOP should be reviewed.
SOP is a regulation, has the effect of law. Less discretion, means more law-like (my words).
MSP fumbling a bit, dealing with legal issues.
SOP is a regulation, has the effect of law. Less discretion, means more law-like (my words).
MSP fumbling a bit, dealing with legal issues.
The guy mentioned someone on a document to which he responded in proving emergency services.
Oh, I see
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (1 Viewer)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
-
