MSP Appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings

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!
  • EdHershon

    Active Member
    Oct 2, 2018
    127
    Annapolis
    Wonder how the OAH addresses statements given by the MSP at HPRB hearings? When the SP admits to something, under oath and on the record, how is that info considered by the OAH judge?

    We just don’t know, but you would need to get a copy of a transcript from the HRPB to introduce at the OAH.
     

    EdHershon

    Active Member
    Oct 2, 2018
    127
    Annapolis
    We know that . But when they say XYZ under oath in venue A, and PDQ under oath in venue B , then what ?

    Or one step further , say XYZ under oath in venue A , and try to skirt the issue in venue B , and it is in the citizen's interest to bring forth fact XYZ ?

    This is why it’s important to get a copy of the transcript to show their waffling and their credibility is in the toilet.
     

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,751
    The few cases that I have seen from OAH are giving me pause that they will be successful.

    Unfortunately, I am unable to discuss due to attorney-client constraints.

    Did OAH block out an ALJ and day for MSP, for their appeals? If so, the script is written. This will be SOP from now on
     
    The time has come to start filing complaints at the federal level for violations by the MSP, the MGA, and Hogan, under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 241 and 242.

    Section 241:
    Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


    Section 242:
    Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
    Summary:

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    And to sue, the (4th circuit) courts need to recognize outside-the-home self defense as a right in the first place. Which they have not (yet). 4th circuit rubber stamped "palatable need" in Woollard, so there is no real deprivation of anyone's right. Emphasis on yet. These shenanigans smell an awful lot like post-Wrenn desperation to me.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,463
    Westminster USA
    I believe the word the 4CA used was “palpable need.”

    But ignoring the Constitition doesn’t leave a bad taste in their mouth, so maybe they meant palatable

    J/k
     

    Moorvogi

    Firearm Advocate
    Dec 28, 2014
    855
    I am a active police officer and MSP put a restriction on my carry permit. I have my carry permit because it's easier to get it while you are working than after you retire. I would like to appeal the restriction but not sure how or if it's worth the aggravation.

    Doesn't LEOSA grant it for life in all states?
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    33,162
    Differences in the fine print of who's eligible . Someone might not stay in the field long enough before changing careers .
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    Doesn't LEOSA grant it for life in all states?

    Not necessarily for life, you have to among other things still qualify annually under peace officer standards for your original or domiciled state even if retired. And of course remain eligible to possess a firearm. There's also nothing that says a state or any agency has to qualify you or give out retired credentials if they don't want to. Some agencies flat out won't. And there are some advantages to a regular WC permit over just LEOSA. Not the least of which is you can carry what you want and the qualification process is a lot less headache.

    But as he was saying, it's simply easier to get a regular WC permit from MSP if you already have one before you retire. Why? I don't know. Probably because the whole process is such a clusterfvck it would make Social Security look streamlined.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    28,278
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    But as he was saying, it's simply easier to get a regular WC permit from MSP if you already have one before you retire. Why? I don't know. Probably because the whole process is such a clusterfvck it would make Social Security look streamlined.



    Why? Because the MSP believe that G&S is a light bulb that you can turn on or off. On the job? No problem, G&S. Retired more than five years ago? No soup for you, your G&S has an expiration date.

    Never mind that the violent felons that you arrested and actually were incarcerated by the criminal justice system might be eventually get out of the grey bar motel.

    Same for TS clearances, working for .gov or a contractor, G&S. Retire and *poof*. Never mind the fact that .gov requires you to safeguard the knowledge that is still in your melon for life.
     

    eruby

    Confederate Jew
    MDS Supporter
    MSP LD, OAH, HPRB (mostly), Lawn Chair Larry, and the MGA (we're not happy until you're not happy) to Joe six-pack, and Harriet Homeowner wanting a permit:


    th
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,422
    Messages
    7,280,964
    Members
    33,451
    Latest member
    SparkyKoT

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom