HPRB August 16, 2016 Meeting Thread

<break>

Not_an_outlaw said:

I'm pretty sure you can copy your CAC. The law that is often cited, was written before copy machines were invented.

Click to expand...

No, you most certainly can't photocopy your CAC except for certain limited circumstances, for very good reasons.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=63581
https://www.army.mil/article/28452/photocopying-military-cac-ids-a-violation-of-federal-law

" Commander, Navy Installations Command issued an announcement reminding all personnel that the photocopying of military identification cards and common access cards (CAC) is strictly prohibited"

"The only exception to this policy, covered in DOD Instruction 1000.13, Section 6.1.7, is that civilian and military medical providers are authorized to photocopy military ID as proof of insurance for the purposes of providing medical care to DoD beneficiaries."

</break>

montoya32 said:

Line them all up and you tell me which are LE and which are regulatory.

Click to expand...

Ed Zachary


This one should have been a slam dunk. Damn shame you've got to be a Pericles quality orator to obtain your permit when all of the board claims to support the RTKBA.....

Stoveman said:

Ed Zachary


This one should have been a slam dunk. Damn shame you've got to be a Pericles quality orator to obtain your permit when all of the board claims to support the RTKBA.....

Click to expand...

Exactly what I said leaving tonight. Hogan is supposedly interested in making state government and agencies "customer service" oriented, yet he has been hands off with the MSP. How is belittling and arguing against a citizen's rights "customer service". Why a trooper is allowed to debate/argue at a hearing is beyond me. They should present the case and fact, end of story.

Note: Self serving question to follow

After the DEA contractor, the gentleman went into closed hearing for his application. The chairman commented how they were going to talk with their legal counsel about letters to the MSP. Did anybody stay for the results of that closed portion? It is now been over 4 weeks since my hearing and from what I understand my letter has not been generated for the MSP

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

A little background about the "HPRB security" issue that came up: Tonight I REFUSED to sign the Public Attendence Log as commanded by the Maryland State Trooper assigned to secure the meeting.

My contention is that I DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER OR SURRENDER MY IDENTITY to attend a public meeting mandated by the state of Maryland. (These sign-in sheets have been an issue for awhile but tonight I decided it was time to challenge them.)

The State Trooper said I would not be allowed in. I demanded to speak with the board administrator, a Mr. Neverdon, to demand an explanation as to why I must register to observe public business.

Instead of meeting with me, my complaint was communicated to Mr. Neverdon by the trooper. In the interim, the trooper decided I would not be barred from the room, but would sit at his security post at the back of the room while the matter was attended to.

Instead of addressing me directly, Mr. Neverdon took my "registration" complaint to the board when the board moved to a brief closed session, which is routine at the HPRB.

When the board came back, there was an announcement that future security for the HPRB--a quasi-judicial govt body--would necessitate both a sign-in sheet and metal detector wand screening for all attendees.

To which I say: this is not acceptable. If you want to screen me for a weapon, fine, but the govt has no business demanding to know who I am just because I want to observe public business. The registration log is not acceptable and we should consider an action to voice this objection loudly and clearly.

To those who might consider this petty, we have an obligation to push back when any administration--Democrat or Republican--wants us to divulge our names as a precursor to exercising our legal right to observe "public business".

If they want to "wand" me for weapons to ensure safety and security, that is reasonable and I will submit, just as we all do going into, say, a courthouse. But even at the courthouse, there is NO demand to know WHO you are when you enter the courthouse--just that you are not carrying something dangerous.

Folks here will probably remember that the "old" HPRB would tell attendees they were "not welcome" because they, basically, had always worked without attendees or oversight. Well, we changed that.

And who remembers the "Ammo Logs" a few years back that the Maryland State Police commanded be signed by ammo buyers at gun stores, and even at Walmart. Well, we stopped that too.

As much as I support the Hogan "team", we must voice our objections to demands that we register with the govt to observe it's workings. However well intentioned, infringement is infringement.

If a registration log is put in front of us at the next HPRB, refuse to sign it and join me in demanding that it be withdrawn.

mxrider said:

Note: Self serving question to follow

After the DEA contractor, the gentleman went into closed hearing for his application. The chairman commented how they were going to talk with their legal counsel about letters to the MSP. Did anybody stay for the results of that closed portion? It is now been over 4 weeks since my hearing and from what I understand my letter has not been generated for the MSP

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Can't say for sure because they were using App Numners, but I think they said in the very beginning that Holman had been on vacation and still had to draft your letter because he moved to reverse in your case.

Rack&Roll said:

for the HPRB--a quasi-juducial govt body--

Click to expand...

Very quasi.


I'd settle for quasi-intelligent, quasi-RTKBA or even quasi-common sense.....

Rack&Roll said:

A little background about the "HPRB security" issue that came up: Tonight I REFUSED to sign the Public Attendence Log as commanded by the Maryland State Trooper assigned to secure the meeting.

My contention is that I DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER OR SURRENDER MY IDENTITY to attend a public meeting mandated by the state of Maryland. (These sign-in sheets have been an issue for awhile but tonight I decided it was time to challenge them.)

The State Trooper said I would not be allowed in. I demanded to speak with the board administrator, a Mr. Neverdon, to demand an explanation as to why I must register to observe public business.

Instead of meeting with me, my complaint was communicated to Mr. Neverdon by the trooper. In the interim, the trooper decided I would not be barred from the room, but would sit at his security post at the back of the room while the matter was attended to.

Instead of addressing me directly, Mr. Neverdon took my "registration" complaint to the board when the board moved to a brief closed session, which is routine at the HPRB.

When the board came back, there was an announcement that future security for the HPRB--a quasi-juducial govt body--would necessitate both a sign-in sheet and metal detector wand screening for all attendees.

To which I say: this is not acceptable. If you want to screen me for a weapon, fine, but the govt has no business demanding to know who I am just because I want to observe public business. The registration log is not acceptable and we should consider an action to voice this objection loudly and clearly.

To those who might consider this petty, we have an obligation to push back when any administration--Democrat or Republican--wants us to divulge our names as a precursor to exercising our legal right to observe "public business".

If they want to "wand" me for weapons to ensure safety and security, that is reasonable and I will submit, just as we all do going into, say, a courthouse. But even at the courthouse, there is NO demand to know WHO you are when you enter the courthouse--just that you are not carrying something dangerous.

Folks here will probably remember that the "old" HPRB would tell attendees they were "not welcome" because they, basically, had always worked without attendees or oversight. Well, we changed that.

And who remembers the "Ammo Logs" a few years back that the Maryland State Police commanded be signed by ammo buyers at gun stores, and even at Walmart. Well, we stopped that too.

As much as I support the Hogan "team", we must voice our objections to demands that we register with the govt to observe it's workings. However well intentioned, infringement is infringement.

If a registration log is put in front of us at the next HPRB, refuse to sign it and join me in demanding that it be withdrawn.

Click to expand...

I think you are being just plain silly.

It is a state owned property. I have no problem with the state keeping track of who is visiting any particular property.

You seem to enjoy being cantankerous just for the sake of being cantankerous.

How's that boot taste?

Seriously, you do realize that all control impulses--however well intentioned--start with a list or a tracking regime?

iCoder80 said:

I think you are being just plain silly.

It is a state owned property. I have no problem with the state keeping track of who is visiting any particular property.

You seem to enjoy being cantankerous just for the sake of being cantankerous.

Click to expand...

There is a difference in the requirement to sign in at the front desk, as required by all visitors, and a separate requirement to sign into a public meeting.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Gryphon said:

Can't say for sure because they were using App Numners, but I think they said in the very beginning that Holman had been on vacation and still had to draft your letter because he moved to reverse in your case.

Click to expand...

Really....

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Was the motion seconded? Was there a new vote? Was the decision by the board changed?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Rack&Roll said:

A little background about the "HPRB security" issue that came up: Tonight I REFUSED to sign the Public Attendence Log as commanded by the Maryland State Trooper assigned to secure the meeting.

My contention is that I DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER OR SURRENDER MY IDENTITY to attend a public meeting mandated by the state of Maryland. (These sign-in sheets have been an issue for awhile but tonight I decided it was time to challenge them.)

The State Trooper said I would not be allowed in. I demanded to speak with the board administrator, a Mr. Neverdon, to demand an explanation as to why I must register to observe public business.

Instead of meeting with me, my complaint was communicated to Mr. Neverdon by the trooper. In the interim, the trooper decided I would not be barred from the room, but would sit at his security post at the back of the room while the matter was attended to.

Instead of addressing me directly, Mr. Neverdon took my "registration" complaint to the board when the board moved to a brief closed session, which is routine at the HPRB.

When the board came back, there was an announcement that future security for the HPRB--a quasi-judicial govt body--would necessitate both a sign-in sheet and metal detector wand screening for all attendees.

To which I say: this is not acceptable. If you want to screen me for a weapon, fine, but the govt has no business demanding to know who I am just because I want to observe public business. The registration log is not acceptable and we should consider an action to voice this objection loudly and clearly.

To those who might consider this petty, we have an obligation to push back when any administration--Democrat or Republican--wants us to divulge our names as a precursor to exercising our legal right to observe "public business".

If they want to "wand" me for weapons to ensure safety and security, that is reasonable and I will submit, just as we all do going into, say, a courthouse. But even at the courthouse, there is NO demand to know WHO you are when you enter the courthouse--just that you are not carrying something dangerous.

Folks here will probably remember that the "old" HPRB would tell attendees they were "not welcome" because they, basically, had always worked without attendees or oversight. Well, we changed that.

And who remembers the "Ammo Logs" a few years back that the Maryland State Police commanded be signed by ammo buyers at gun stores, and even at Walmart. Well, we stopped that too.

As much as I support the Hogan "team", we must voice our objections to demands that we register with the govt to observe it's workings. However well intentioned, infringement is infringement.

If a registration log is put in front of us at the next HPRB, refuse to sign it and join me in demanding that it be withdrawn.

Click to expand...

so um, couldn't you just write in mickey mouse or something? do they compare the name you write down to a gubment issued ID?

Maybe this will help for those that don't attend personally.

When you enter the building lobby you are greeted by one or more uniformed and armed officers. It's been totally inconsistent, but those officers may ask for photo ID, may scan the ID, may ask for you to sign in (there at the front desk), and may print and issue a visitor badge. It's been totally hit or miss and seems to depend on whether you enter before or after 6:00 and who is working the desk. But there is always an officer at the desk.

Last night the visitor in front of me flashed some kind of ID and was admitted (going to the HPRB meeting, which is just down the hall a few feet) without signing in or getting a visitor badge. Immediately following I said I am going to the same meeting, but was asked for ID and to sign in, but was not issued a visitor badge. Others that came before and after me were issued visitor badges.

For the last three meetings upon entering the HPRB meeting room a plain clothes, but armed officer (nice guy), asks if you have any weapons and passes a clip board telling everyone they need to sign in - again. The form has columns for name, address, email address and telephone number. The hand scanning for weapons that occurred at Reisterstown Road hasn't happened, but based on the Board announcement last night will resume next meeting.

The officer in the lobby does not ask about weapons. I believe the officer in the hearing room does because the Board has a rule against firearms, unless of course you are MSP. The wording they previously used was "if possessing a State issued badge," or something very similar. I suspect that is to allow the Board's Administrator (a DPSCS employee and former military police officer) to also carry if deemed necessary?

I don't have a problem signing in upon entering the lobby and getting a visitor badge. Having ID requested and having it scanned is a little much. I don't even have to do that to vote. Being asked about weapons upon entering the hearing room is okay. If they feel the need to scan me to make sure so be it.

However, being asked to register to observe a public "open meeting" has always bugged me. I have done it in the past because I felt there were bigger issues the Board under its new leadership needs to address. Remember this isn't like signing in on a list at the MGA to be able to speak or testify, the registration is simply to sit quietly and observe.

I get the need for security. Apparently the Board has an ongoing, documented, objectively apprehended fear of danger. Or maybe the Board members are on the MSP's SOP as assumed risk positions? It really doesn't matter to me. But there have been no less than 1 or 2 armed officers in the lobby, the armed officer in the back of the hearing room, and anywhere from 4 to 6 armed MSP Troopers in these meetings. There is enough iron hanging from hips in that building to make the MOMS weep.

So yes, the irony or hypocrisy runs deep when I see a qualified, but elderly and disabled applicant, or a DEA employee with top security and OPM breach, being told they don't have G&S to exercise a fundamental right. The MSP is still applying standards more restrictive than required by the statutes, and the Board is still failing to recognize it and consistently exercise its own authority to harmonize G&S and the Second Amendment. I also fail to see how getting my name, address, email and phone number - a second time - enhances security.

Why does the Board need a special/second list? Where do the lists go? Who has access to them? How do the lists foster better customer service?

Some people think this is a small matter, some think it's a big issue. I respect both sides. But what I think we can all agree on is that it is a totally unnecessary distraction. The Board has bigger issues to work through than keeping redundant lists.

A real court room does not require signing in or producing identification. Does typically involve metal detectors and other security checks.

Likewise the General Assembly and Committe meetings thereof.

Public means Public .

Gryphon said:

Some people think this is a small matter, some think it's a big issue. I respect both sides. But what I think we can all agree on is that it is a totally unnecessary distraction.

Click to expand...

I agree it should be unnecessary but unfortunately society has degraded greatly from when I was a much younger man.

I'm old enough to remember when I could visit Montgomery Wards, and walk out with a gallon of paint, a new shirt, a bowling ball and a hand gun all in the same visit.

Times have seriously changed. I can easily envision someone receiving an unfavorable ruling from the HPRB and deciding to go postal at the next meeting.

Gryphon said:

Maybe this will help for those that don't attend personally.

When you enter the building lobby you are greeted by one or more uniformed and armed officers. It's been totally inconsistent, but those officers may ask for photo ID, may scan the ID, may ask for you to sign in (there at the front desk), and may print and issue a visitor badge. It's been totally hit or miss and seems to depend on whether you enter before or after 6:00 and who is working the desk. But there is always an officer at the desk.

snip

Some people think this is a small matter, some think it's a big issue. I respect both sides. But what I think we can all agree on is that it is a totally unnecessary distraction.

Click to expand...

Biggfoot44 said:

A real court room does not require signing in or producing identification. Does typically involve metal detectors and other security checks.

Likewise the General Assembly and Committe meetings thereof.

Public means Public .

Click to expand...

iCoder80 said:

I agree it should be unnecessary but unfortunately society has degraded greatly from when I was a much younger man.

I'm old enough to remember when I could visit Montgomery Wards, and walk out with a gallon of paint, a new shirt, a bowling ball and a hand gun all in the same visit.

Times have seriously changed. I can easily envision someone receiving an unfavorable ruling from the HPRB and deciding to go postal at the next meeting.

Click to expand...

It's an intimidation tactic. As Gryphon described, they have the ID check at the "front gate" and they plan to re institute the metal detector at the meeting door. So besides intimidation and Tyranny, it appears to serve no legal purpose.

the list has two copies

1 to MSP
1 to Frosh

Mike said:

It's an intimidation tactic. As Gryphon described, they have the ID check at the "front gate" and they plan to re institute the metal detector at the meeting door. So besides intimidation and Tyranny, it appears to serve no legal purpose.

Click to expand...

I thought part of the open meeting act was that members of the public are required to cooperate with whatever security measures are in place for the building housing the meeting.

I hardly see asking for photo id to attend tyranny. Heck I see the WaWa doing it every morning when they ask everyone for photo id to buy cancer sticks.