Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
In Case You Haven't Seen This
- Thread starter wolfdad
- 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:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Sounds like you guys are all affiliated in someway with PAX River, who is your state delegate or Senator? We do have some good ones in SoMD, I would get one on the horn and start bitching.
navycraig
Ultimate Member
Yup. Already working on an email to Senator Waugh and Delegates Rey and Morgan.
Raineman
On the 3rd box
navycraig
Ultimate Member
Not now. I want to keep topics concise. Besides, I've talked to her several times on different issues and IMV, she's simply weak and goes along to get along.
My email has been sent to all 3. We'll see if I get a reply.
I asked the entire somd delegation that question two sessions ion a row and two years ago they told me they didn't know the process and someone on here told me of a book with the processes in it so I sent that info to all of them, they thanked me and still did nothing. the next time the excuse was that they were fairly new and didn't have any clout so why try when they said they knew they would fail, my answer was nothing beats a try but a failure and at least if they tried other reps would have to go on record as to opposing self defense which may not go over well with their constituents. still nothing.
don't get me wrong, I really like our pro 2a delegation but they kinda lack a spine or maybe a leader among them? hopefully they will do better next session. we will see.
Real quick answer:
Petitioning a bill out of committee does not guarantee a floor vote on it, because there are three possible outcomes:
1. Floor vote (what we want
2. Sent back to committee and thus out in the desk drawer (again)
3. Special ordered until 2359 on sine die (essentially preventing any progress to be made on it for the entire session).
If you would like to discuss this more, I would be happy to, in another thread.
Now, back to the discussion at hand, the damned letter from MSP asking for information they have absolutely no need to know, signed by an NCO that has absolutely no authority to do so, no care for those that he serves, and the letter being able to be sent out without any concern from the head Executive of the State.
(Did I miss anything?)
wolfdad
Older Shootin' Geek
MSP Letter
Navy Craig,
This is being run up through 7.0 for further comment and, I doubt any action. As somebody else succinctly stated, MSP "may (I seriously doubt it)" know that this will not pan out and that is precisely why they did it. I am hoping that it will rise even further and, perhaps find its way to the Pentagon for them to crunch on. I can't get a date for an HPRB review until 23 October 17 (I am taking this all the way for two reasons...one, I don't like being told no about something I shouldn't even have to ask for and two, I have very valid reasons for needing the CCW). What is even more ironic to me is that I can teach the required CCW training, but I am "retired" so not relevant enough to have a CCW....total and unadulterated BS.
And, again, since when does a MSP first sergeant make Maryland state firearms policy. If you note, Hogan's name is on that stationary, too.
Navy Craig,
This is being run up through 7.0 for further comment and, I doubt any action. As somebody else succinctly stated, MSP "may (I seriously doubt it)" know that this will not pan out and that is precisely why they did it. I am hoping that it will rise even further and, perhaps find its way to the Pentagon for them to crunch on. I can't get a date for an HPRB review until 23 October 17 (I am taking this all the way for two reasons...one, I don't like being told no about something I shouldn't even have to ask for and two, I have very valid reasons for needing the CCW). What is even more ironic to me is that I can teach the required CCW training, but I am "retired" so not relevant enough to have a CCW....total and unadulterated BS.
And, again, since when does a MSP first sergeant make Maryland state firearms policy. If you note, Hogan's name is on that stationary, too.
teawhy
Member
I'm really curious to hear how the competency handles this, though I agree with your assumption of "no-action" being the likely outcome. Thanks for leading this effort!
navycraig
Ultimate Member
I spoke to the First Sgt via email and then phone early this morning. The take-aways are these:
- They do indeed monitor these pages as he actually mentioned this thread and called me out by my handle of Navycraig. Made me chuckle.
- MSP LD states that they are receiving this requested information from many other sources who are willing to provide it. Sates that PAX folks are the only ones who won't.
- Discussed that they had a DoD agency come to MSP and provide them training and were told it's perfectly fine for the applicant to provide the requested information. He would not tell me who provided the training so that I could contact them, but said he would give them my contact information if they were willing to contact me to discuss. My guess is that they won't.
- We ended at an impasse where they state they need the information and are getting it in other cases. I state that we (PAX proper. Not speaking for NAVAIR or other tenant commands) can't and won't provide the information because we're not authorized to because they don't have the need to know. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if and how they protect the PII associated with the information and lastly, by providing the information for them to have in their records, that makes those applicants even more vulnerable in the even of a hack.
It was an interesting discussion. Polite and professional, but nothing resolved.
--Break--
I emailed Waugh, Rey, and Morgan and have already gotten a reply from Morgan's office. He has already sent a letter to the Superintendent of MSP asking about this new requirement. We'll see what happens.
- They do indeed monitor these pages as he actually mentioned this thread and called me out by my handle of Navycraig. Made me chuckle.
- MSP LD states that they are receiving this requested information from many other sources who are willing to provide it. Sates that PAX folks are the only ones who won't.
- Discussed that they had a DoD agency come to MSP and provide them training and were told it's perfectly fine for the applicant to provide the requested information. He would not tell me who provided the training so that I could contact them, but said he would give them my contact information if they were willing to contact me to discuss. My guess is that they won't.
- We ended at an impasse where they state they need the information and are getting it in other cases. I state that we (PAX proper. Not speaking for NAVAIR or other tenant commands) can't and won't provide the information because we're not authorized to because they don't have the need to know. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if and how they protect the PII associated with the information and lastly, by providing the information for them to have in their records, that makes those applicants even more vulnerable in the even of a hack.
It was an interesting discussion. Polite and professional, but nothing resolved.
--Break--
I emailed Waugh, Rey, and Morgan and have already gotten a reply from Morgan's office. He has already sent a letter to the Superintendent of MSP asking about this new requirement. We'll see what happens.
Hogan needs to fire the LD personnel, and start over...
I had mentioned in another thread my interest in understanding how people are using the OPM breach and security clearances for their G&S. Am I correct in assuming that people are using the fact that they carry security clearances and have access to various levels of classified material as justification? Thanks.
It's not only security clearance
It's also a location designated on an ISIS kill list, Lexington Park, MD is one of them. The MSP seems to be in denial when a known terror organization lists your town; apparently, you do not have a need to protect yourself or your family.
http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/16/isis-kill-list/
Local article: http://www.thebaynet.com/articles/0315/lexington-park-reported-on-isis-hit-list.html
The MSP will continue to deny, until an attack happens here.
It's also a location designated on an ISIS kill list, Lexington Park, MD is one of them. The MSP seems to be in denial when a known terror organization lists your town; apparently, you do not have a need to protect yourself or your family.
http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/16/isis-kill-list/
Local article: http://www.thebaynet.com/articles/0315/lexington-park-reported-on-isis-hit-list.html
The MSP will continue to deny, until an attack happens here.
JPAS only holds up to SECRET COLLATERAL clearance data for DOD. Other agency NSI and compartment access data are held in myriad other databases, which also cannot be released to the MSP.
And JPAS hacking, though an interesting thought, requires JPAS to be online more than it is offline. That's all I can say about that
Okay, that makes more sense. I was wondering since if it was just having the clearance and access to documents, there would be thousands in the AA county area in that situation. I was thinking it would perhaps apply if the person not only had access to, but was required to courier classified data.
LD is full of it. Professionally speaking, of course. And in many dimensions.
The irony: The MSP is coercing you to give up details on what kind of access you have, for the hope of allowing you to practice a fundamental right.
Anyone else would go to jail for extortion or espionage.
If the MSP has a bonafide investigation, they could get all the information they need for verification through the DoD law enforcement data exchange.
I agree. MSP is asking for it because they know they won't get it and that will allow them to not approve applications.
Once this get rolling they will point to a few instances where some agencies are providing the information and use that as justification as to why all should.
I know of no agency Security Office or cleared contractor FSO that will release what LD wants. I used to get a request every year of so and politely declined. Hell, just try getting, say, DOE to accept a DoD clearance.
Yup. This is willful and malicious obstruction of a civil right exercise.
Hogan should defund the LD to get their attention. Then refund and reconstitute it with law-abiding troopers.
The DoN JAG will just kick it back to the NAVAIR JAG and ultimately back to the originating unit to sort out. Probably with a note asking why they are biting DoN's ankle and stop it, we're doing adult work here. Don't ask me how I know.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (2 Viewers)
- Latest: klutch
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Looking for light 9mm suppressor suggestions
- Started by John from MD
- Replies: 0