What is the rule for evaluating the applicants reason for needing an Concealed carry permit? Meaning what is good and substantial and what is not good and substantial.
House Hears HPRB Repeal Bill Today!
- Thread starter Deep Lurker
- 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:
What is the rule for evaluating the applicants reason for needing an Concealed carry permit? Meaning what is good and substantial and what is not good and substantial.
WTF? Emo Jen pulled the prohibited person out of her ass.
I guess they're trolling for more Bloomberg "contributions" before passing it.
Derek
Si vis pacem, para bellum
What did she just mutter about this is terrible?!
I was at the last meeting and didn't see Beidle, there were no prohibited persons on the docket.
Yes.
This adds to the lie about that provided by one of the Senators when this was being debated there. (See my question and the answer in another thread.)
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,572
She is making the questioning up about about asking if you have a permit up. If I make a stop, and I see a weapon on an individual I'm going to ask if they have a permit or not!
400+ decisions in 45 days? Good luck with that.
So I assume that the review board minutes must be confidential and not open to the public for there to be no way for the Legislators to have cross referenced names of people who won their appeal through Case Search or any crime database??
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,572
It certainly can be, all denied will be the result.
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,572
That her treatment by the board member was horrible.
Grammer for Governor.
He seems too good, there's gotta be something wrong with him in his legislative past.
He seems too good, there's gotta be something wrong with him in his legislative past.
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,572
Seems to me that the sponsor, made some good points to keep the board.
I was referring to logistics.
Say the bill goes into effect 1 May, the applicants get their notice of hearing dates which would have to have a lead time to allow counsel to do their due diligence, there are 12 days of that 45 day period that are weekends, etc.
See, the HPRB operates with the LAW and the COMAR as their basis, with a lawyer in attendance to ensure this is what happens. The MSP LD operates with their nebulous and prolly nonexistent SOP as a basis. There's the difference.
On the bright side... If nothing else, since the OAH focuses on ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, they could force the LD to finally reveal (i.e., write down) their current SOP that they claim to be using. THAT could finally be the evidence needed for a successful lawsuit.
MSP doesn't investigate murder... Did I hear that right?
** I'm sure that is based on the assumption that 95% of the appellants will give up their appeal, based on the cost in time and $$.
I'm guessing Beidle is wishing she hadn't been Miller's handpicked sock puppet to sponsor this bill right about now.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Timonium Gun Show April 27-28 (Timonium Fairgrounds Exhibition Hall)
- Started by joro55
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (3 Viewers)- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
