HPRB June 17, 2019 Meeting Thread

The fix is in......

PJDiesel said:

The fix is in......

Click to expand...

Is tat the official summary

Why in the F**K would they move the meetings to the hood?

Applehd said:

Why in the F**K would they move the meetings to the hood?

Click to expand...

They know we hate the city IMHO and what they stand for (CRIME)

welder516 said:

Is tat the official summary

Click to expand...

Dunno, it just seemed like a cool thing to say given the comments I've read so far.

Sounds as if the venue might not be the biggest concern for things to come.

It's closer for me, might be able to develop an "apprehend fear" just by attending the first meeting.

One (Mr.) Mom Desperate for Attention in uniform, and I think most of the Marylanders to Prevent Guns membership in attendance (as well as some of us regulars.) The one retired MSP guy is hard-core anti, I don't remember his exact words but the meaning was quite clear: no permit for you! The other new guy is born and bred Montgomery County, and Judge Smalkin's attitude doesn't seem too friendly either. All in all, a Board the steaming pile of Frosh is going to love. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but don't really think I will be. (Fifth member not in attendance tonight so no information on him.) Smalkin's handout is pretty much turning the process on its head, burden of proof on the applicant by preponderance of evidence (51%) I have a copy, if no one else posts it I can probably get it scanned sometime tomorrow.

Meeting location is going to be in downtown Baltimore, chosen as "a central location" for convenience. (Didn't say whose convenience, and did reserve the option to hold meetings in other locations as the Board may determine.) On the bright side, maybe the Marylanders to Prevent Guns will all be killed on the streets of Baltimore on the way to/from meetings. To address backlog, meetings will be held every Monday night (when not on Fed or State holidays) beginning 8 July, no information on how many hearings per meeting but a roster of case numbers & dates is supposed to be posted on the HPRB web site by the middle of the prior month. (e.g. July's schedule should be up soon)

Thank You , ShafTed

ShafTed said:

One (Mr.) Mom Desperate for Attention in uniform, and I think most of the Marylanders to Prevent Guns membership in attendance (as well as some of us regulars.) The one retired MSP guy is hard-core anti, I don't remember his exact words but the meaning was quite clear: no permit for you! The other new guy is born and bred Montgomery County, and Judge Smalkin's attitude doesn't seem too friendly either. All in all, a Board the steaming pile of Frosh is going to love. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but don't really think I will be. (Fifth member not in attendance tonight so no information on him.) Smalkin's handout is pretty much turning the process on its head, burden of proof on the applicant by preponderance of evidence (51%) I have a copy, if no one else posts it I can probably get it scanned sometime tomorrow.

Meeting location is going to be in downtown Baltimore, chosen as "a central location" for convenience. (Didn't say whose convenience, and did reserve the option to hold meetings in other locations as the Board may determine.) On the bright side, maybe the Marylanders to Prevent Guns will all be killed on the streets of Baltimore on the way to/from meetings. To address backlog, meetings will be held every Monday night (when not on Fed or State holidays) beginning 8 July, no information on how many hearings per meeting but a roster of case numbers & dates is supposed to be posted on the HPRB web site by the middle of the prior month. (e.g. July's schedule should be up soon)

Click to expand...

Retired MSP said something like I don't believe you should have a permit just because you want one, you need a reason.

Baltimore city meetings should be reason enough. They all get to arrive armed.

I did a search for the geographic center of Maryland. Said 4.5 miles north of Davidsonville. Which is just about Crownsville.

Well here's some 4D Gubernatorial chess in action for ya .

We can see Hogan is in our back pocket , his stripes has not changed . He is more liberal and a Demoncrat then ever

Shafted gave a pretty good summation of the nights's activities, I just got home from some apres meeting libations. I think the one thing he left out is that the applicant is going to be limited now to 10 mins, down from the 15 mins allowed previously so that they can get through the enormous backlog. Nothing about an increased case load and simple math tells me that at 14 hearings per night they won't be close to clearing the backlog before the next MGA session starts.

I didn't expect any of them to say that the 2A is my carry permit and I think these restrictions are ridiculous but I certainly didn't expect the retired MSP and former Pentagon Police Chief to give his personal opinion like he did but I'm sure it was like catnip for the MOMs and that goofball cuck wearing their tee shirt.

What I don't get is why a retired federal judge would take a position on a lame duck board who's results are being bulldozed by the OAH? Maybe mall walking and pickle ball don't suit him and he needed a different pastime?

Stoveman , I believe the Fed Judge gives the appearance of credibility and a rubber stamp . Maybe under his suit he is wearing a Mom's shirt and panties .

Assuming the rules adopted were as proposed in the agenda:

1. The Board has finally revised its procedure to allow the party seeking relief (the applicant) to speak first, as is customary in adversarial proceedings in the US. Perhaps this will at least abbreviate the time spent listening to MSP reading pro forma dissertations at breakneck speed while adding nothing substantive to the record.

2. The Board has adopted a fairly stringent standard for supplementing the record beyond what was before MSP when the original decision was made. While this should not pose a significant obstacle to applicants represented by counsel, it may complicate matters for ordinary applicants who are learning what for them is likely to be an unfamiliar process as they go along. While it is clear why the Board might want such a rule to improve efficiency, one can only hope the Board will be fairly liberal in allowing supplementation given that the Board is supposed to provide a low cost remedy open to the ordinary citizen.

3. The 10 minute standard allowance for each hearing is very circumscribed, particularly considering again that the stated purpose of the Board has always been to provide citizen oversight to this aspect of MSP's operations. If the time is divided 50/50, the applicant will have only five minutes to present a case; there will be only less if the Board allows the applicant to reserve time for rebuttal. In judicial proceedings, short allowances for oral argument are offset by the ability of the parties thoroughly to brief the issues in advance via written submissions. The new rules do not provide a mechanism for such briefing, and even if the board accepts submissions they will have to be reviewed to be useful. Again, this change seems to especially burden applicants not represented by counsel. The Board, and the fairness of its decisions, would benefit from making provision for written prehearing submissions.

4. The imposition on the applicant of the burden of proof does not seem to be a change, at least as to the application overall ; it is customary for the party seeking relief to bear the burden. It does, however, seem to represent a change at least to prior written policy as to restrictions. It will be interesting to see how this goes moving forward.

5. The addition of Judge Smalkin to the Board seems clearly related to these new procedures. It will be very hard for MSP to argue that decisions against it are unfair or poorly reasoned with a jurist of Judge Smalkin's stature involved. That being said, between the firm hand of Judge Smalkin and the skepticism of the former MSP member, it seems clear that the Board is likely to be a significantly more formal, more efficient and probably more difficult venue for applicants than has been the case in the past. Offsetting this somewhat, the Board finally appears equipped to deal with some of the recurrent legal issues involved in its work, one prime example being the reasonableness of MSP's vague and even unintelligible restrictions, as well as its assertion that restrictions are appropriate in nearly every case, a claim that would require the licensing division to have the gift of clairvoyance.

Didn't feel like scanning so I just took pics. Here's the agenda.



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The White Paper on burden of proof.



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the White Paper. Very helpful.

Well, that ruined an otherwise pleasant day.

I hope it turns out different, but it looks like an OAH, smells like a OAH, and tastes like an OAH.

Sounds like I’m going to have to revise my approach. Perhaps someone here would like to help craft my written testimony? I’d consider paying a competent attorney for help and/or representation. Please PM me with and suggestions. The only good news is I won’t have to wait as long as I had expected and should get in before he end of summer and find out either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I for one am glad they moved to Mondays. I will be able to attend a few of them as schedual allows. I could never attend on Tuesdays. Location sucks but we have to fight the game they play.

Nice seeing some mdsers tonight.

Nobody