And a Doctor in western maryland was stopped and investigated for carrying outside of restrictions.
HPRB July 8, 2019 Meeting Thread
- Thread starter Applehd
- 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:
daggo66
Ultimate Member
The concern is less with MSP than any of the other jurisdictions out there:
https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/new...cle_a142ed86-ac61-11e8-ae30-c361a776e218.html
There was also an applicant who appeared before the HPRB about three years ago who testified before the Board that he had been arrested for carrying on an expired license, which had in fact been renewed, then later charged with carrying outside restrictions. The MSP did not deny his claim. He used this as his argument to remove the restrictions from his permit. He was a medical office manager and vintage car dealer. I expect the audio from the occurrence is still in the archives of the HPRB meetings.
I remember him claiming a $5000 legal bill to fight the outside the restrictions charge, which was eventually dropped.
MSP flat out lied.
I remember him claiming a $5000 legal bill to fight the outside the restrictions charge, which was eventually dropped.
MSP flat out lied.
I would go a step further and say they are a bunch of bishops , that have no moral compass and will do anything even lying to get what they want .
They are despicable humans
You sir, are a nicer man than me. If I ever thought I’d have a chance in hades of getting a permit with this ridiculous Mickey Mouse scheme they run, I’d have my attorney representing me the whole way. That way he could go after them to recoup the outlaid costs and fees. Looking at everything, if I had “G and S” (which we still have no definition of), I would probably be paying a couple few grand for the requisite training, filing fees, fingerprints, and lawyer. It’s sad that one must do that to have the mere chance to exercise a right
Thunder239
Active Member
- Feb 10, 2014
- 115
Well, this is definitely a very informative post! So would I be blowing smoke in the wind to apply under assumed risk as a DOJ Fed employee with TSSCI clearance and my OPM letter? If CSOs can’t verify clearances how can that be used as a basis? My affiliation doesn’t stop when I exit the gate and IMO there is a greater risk than the average citizen?
That was our very own MDS member Maryland Mark.
There was also a security guard in Baltimore City who got arrested for carrying outside his restrictions and his bail was set at $50K.
And Brian Fischer who trains at Freestate got jacked up by the tunnel rats and although not arrested he was detained on the side of the road for over an hour and a half until the owner of Freestate came to the scene and vouched for him.
Hard to imagine Corporal Taylor wasn't aware of ANY of these instances.
On another Maryland 2A thread a couple members posted about MSP-LD relaxing restrictions on permit holders that already have shown G&S . I have a extremely difficult time wondering why they are playing all these silly games for the next few months and bend Maryland citizens over a barrel and have at them it just don't make sense .
This whole process has gotten so weird with these new players , the judge from hell (or at least from Frosh's office , maybe the same place) and the silent partners that don't speak or even have an opinion they care to share . Restrictions are going nowhere , and I would expect them to start letting permits expire that were gotten from past year(s)
This whole process has gotten so weird with these new players , the judge from hell (or at least from Frosh's office , maybe the same place) and the silent partners that don't speak or even have an opinion they care to share . Restrictions are going nowhere , and I would expect them to start letting permits expire that were gotten from past year(s)
Did the LD MSP say under oath he did not know of any. Maybe we should give that list to the judge and say he perjured himself.
I didn't see the opportunity for the applicant
To cross example me the MSP. You'd think in least in little pretend court you would be.
I didn't see the opportunity for the applicant
To cross example me the MSP. You'd think in least in little pretend court you would be.
He was definitely under oath.
Maybe cross exam is not one of Judge Smail's favorite parts of kangaroo court.
He said the officers didn’t need to be sworn since they were sworn officers later added after doing it once they were ok. There was fellow who asked for the officer to be sworn and repeat where and when he was allowed to carry in accordance with his restrictions. . He then asked for a transcript which Stevi stated was only voice and would have to look into getting a printed copy. Correct me if I’m wrong on any of this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he and others in the LD are either (1) purposefully misleading the panel regarding arrests of carry permit holders because of vague restrictions or (2) are uninformed about these instances, then how are they qualified to be in the business of placing restrictions on permits or even determining who's granted one? Seems like this should be disqualifying if there's any integrity in the process.
Are you questioning the King?
Can we ask the judge for a definition of G and S? I'd like to hear him say, "It's whatever the MSP says it is?" Then ask him what the definition of arbitrary and capricious is?
Yes he was under oath and did perjured himself. Need to print up where people were stopped and detained and or arrested where they were accused of carrying outside restrictions, then hand the printed copy to the judge...
They have lied before the board in the past IMHO about not knowing anyone who was charged and or arrested for carrying outside their restrictions. I would NOT trust them as far as i can throw them... They have TOTALLY lost my trust to uphold the law...Is it possible for a civilian to bring evidence before the states attorney that they did lie under oath and have them charged??? One more thing what about the letter that Mark wrote if a person is pulled over beside the road, the constitutional right not to answer questions from the officer and might be arrested for failing to answer the questions? Someone just hand it to him and ask him to read it. Since he is a Fed Judge he does NOT know the MD law and the stupid infringement games that MSP-Lic are playing..
songlaw
Active Member
This was my first HPRB hearing. I went to observe what I might expect when my appeal comes up for a hearing in about 10 months, or so.
Again, my first one in person. I have observed several hearings that were recorded/broadcast by others here. Thus, I recognize that just about everyone in attendance probably is more knowledgeable than me, with respect to most other aspects. However, with respect to the topic of perjury, I think I am better informed than most.
Having said that, it is my opinion that THERE WAS NO PERJURY, for those up in arms. The question was something like: "Corporal, are you aware of any instance ...?" The answer was not a definite "yes" or "no" but something like "not to my knowledge" or "not that I am aware." There will not be any chance in hell of the corporal being charged, much less being convicted of perjury. Not from what I observed. Not under those facts.
More importantly, it seemed to me that there might be a bigger picture. It appeared to me that the Judge might be trying to save the HPRB. I have checked the previous minutes, and it seemed to me that the board was siding much more often than not with the appellants. Perhaps in excess of 80-90%% of the time, if not more. This is what led to the legislature trying to abolish the HPRB, right? The allegation was that the board was almost a rubber stamp, overturning MSP in almost every instance.
At this hearing, no appellant won outright, and it appeared that, upon submission of additional documents, about two or three might be successful. Frankly, I mean no offense, but most of the appellants made poor presentations. One moment stands out for me: the judge asked: "Do you feel in danger?" The judge is throwing her a bone! The clear answer was "Yes!" However, she answered in the negative. They almost certainly would have benefited by hiring counsel. I did think one guy (the plumber) made a strong argument, but was denied. That was a surprise to me.
What's my point? What if, after seeing that the appellant's winning percentage is dramatically decreased with the new board, the legislature is not inclined to not come back in the next session to continue its pursuit of repealing the HPRB? Could that be the goal of the current board?
I could be wrong, but it appeared to me that there was more at play. It remains to be seen, but I wonder if MSP's appealing every case to the OAH might decrease, as well.
I hope that there is a HPRB when my case comes up for a hearing.
It was nice meeting several MDS members.
Again, my first one in person. I have observed several hearings that were recorded/broadcast by others here. Thus, I recognize that just about everyone in attendance probably is more knowledgeable than me, with respect to most other aspects. However, with respect to the topic of perjury, I think I am better informed than most.
Having said that, it is my opinion that THERE WAS NO PERJURY, for those up in arms. The question was something like: "Corporal, are you aware of any instance ...?" The answer was not a definite "yes" or "no" but something like "not to my knowledge" or "not that I am aware." There will not be any chance in hell of the corporal being charged, much less being convicted of perjury. Not from what I observed. Not under those facts.
More importantly, it seemed to me that there might be a bigger picture. It appeared to me that the Judge might be trying to save the HPRB. I have checked the previous minutes, and it seemed to me that the board was siding much more often than not with the appellants. Perhaps in excess of 80-90%% of the time, if not more. This is what led to the legislature trying to abolish the HPRB, right? The allegation was that the board was almost a rubber stamp, overturning MSP in almost every instance.
At this hearing, no appellant won outright, and it appeared that, upon submission of additional documents, about two or three might be successful. Frankly, I mean no offense, but most of the appellants made poor presentations. One moment stands out for me: the judge asked: "Do you feel in danger?" The judge is throwing her a bone! The clear answer was "Yes!" However, she answered in the negative. They almost certainly would have benefited by hiring counsel. I did think one guy (the plumber) made a strong argument, but was denied. That was a surprise to me.
What's my point? What if, after seeing that the appellant's winning percentage is dramatically decreased with the new board, the legislature is not inclined to not come back in the next session to continue its pursuit of repealing the HPRB? Could that be the goal of the current board?
I could be wrong, but it appeared to me that there was more at play. It remains to be seen, but I wonder if MSP's appealing every case to the OAH might decrease, as well.
I hope that there is a HPRB when my case comes up for a hearing.
It was nice meeting several MDS members.
You are right the Officer will never be held accountable for lying , mis-speaking , not telling the facts , exaggerating or any other form of mis-representing the facts .
But they have lied on my case and on others i have been witness to . And they will continue to not tell the truth .
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
The Economic Impact of the Firearm and Ammunition Industry (9 Viewers)- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sign up on our online store and earn 1000 points- Started by J_Gunslinger
- Replies: 2