HPRB August 16, 2016 Meeting Thread

swinokur · Aug 17, 2016

paying attention to trolls is small stuff.

dblas · Aug 17, 2016

montoya32 said:
Not really frustration, more like tired of weak individuals who don't take this seriously enough to put ANYTHING on the line. Time, money or effort would help. Some put it all on the line while others put it on the couch and like to critique he efforts and motives between handfuls of popcorn.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome to my world some days....

Minuteman · Aug 17, 2016

dblas said:
Welcome to my world some days....

Agreed, you've probably seen the worst of it these days.

Applehd · Aug 17, 2016

I will post up the new meeting thread when I confirm the meeting date.

Magnumst · Aug 17, 2016

Rack&Roll said:
Frankly, someone has to "sweat the small stuff" because the history we see in Maryland is that the Infringers use Bush League moves as building blocks for larger infringements that become entrenched.

It's difficult to read posts from someone on OUR SIDE criticizing work to restore basic freedom.

Especially when you won't help us.

iCoder80 said:
How I roll is I do not sweat the small stuff in life. To me, signing in to attend a public meeting is small stuff.

I'm surprised you all don't advocate wearing bandannas over your faces so the MSP can't catch a glimpse from their secret surveillance cameras.

I don't complain about the current administration infringing on 2A rights (at least not yet). I complain about the current administration not using their administrative power to undo the infringement caused by previous administrations.

Death by a thousand cuts starts with the the first swing of the knife.

redeemed.man · Aug 17, 2016

Jaybeez said:
There appears to be enough evidence, if you attend these meetings to witness the shenanigans, that the MSP is pushing back HARD, and trying to flex it's muscle and influence the Board. The newest location isnt helping.

Obvious tactics being employeed
-MSP is now providing the security for the meetings.

-MSP now has its own "jury box". In previous meetings 1 trooper, the one handling that case, would sit at his own table next to the applicant's table, both facing the board.
MSP now has their own table, facing the applicant and the board, equal in position to the board's admin. 3 troopers sit at this table throughout the entire meeting. It appears to give them the same air of authority as the board, and they are frequently asked by the board to assist with small tasks, or even to give advice on board duties and functions. They have in effect moved themselves from equal party to the applicant, to equal party to the board, and to an advisory roll.
Their commander also attends the meetings.

-The board has been attempting to schedule more hearings per meeting. MSP has routinely been settling cases in the hallway before and during the meetings for months. Why is this a problem? Because if these cases can be settled without going before he board, then by allowing them to languish for 3-6 months and be scheduled for hearings, and then withdrawn at the last second, is preventing the board from scheduling hearings for applicants that will go to hearing. This slow rolls the process and has a chilling effect on cases moving forward.6 cases scheduled, 2 settled in the hallway every week, means that 2 hearing slots go un used.
MSP has had months to settle these cases before hearing day.

- Bonnel (?) was taking things very personally last night. He seems extremely agitated. It was very unprofessional in my opinion. This reinforces the rumors i've heard about why troopers get hidden in licensing division. The animosity towards the applicant was palpable. This certainly isnt an improvement.

- The chair particularly, has mentioned increasingly, this concept of tabling or "holding over" cases, to allow msp to conduct more fact finding or investigation into an applicant or his claims. While this may seem helpful at first, when the hearing date has been reached, the time for msp investigation and decision making is OVER, its now time for the BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION. based on my next point...

-Jr lawyer Leggem had to remind the board last night that their job wasnt "reviewing" msp's decision, but to conduct a De Novo hearing, to reach their own conclusion based on their own judgement. This was after the board spent some time debating how to work within MSP's SOP... which isnt their job, but for some reason they have "forgotten" that.
That was the best thing i heard all night. That's sad. And should tell you the direction the board is now heading.

- the current hearing room, different from last week, has several sources of background noise, making even listening, much less audio recording, more difficult.

-the building "public" wifi is difficult to connect to, requires personal info, and may block mdshooters. Cell service is non existant in the building for me.

- the board is convinced they are in danger or face a threat, having a small public meeting with less than 20 attendees, 6 of whom are armed state troopers acting within their officual duties., several of which are highly vetted applicants, and the rest being regular attendees. All the while they are denying applicants based on lacknof credible threats.

Great post. Very enlightening. The truth you have exposed in this post is sad and frustrating.

Rack&Roll · Aug 17, 2016

Stoveman said:
I've got plenty of angst to go around.

I feel Montoya's frustration, those of us that do get a little worn out by those of us who only snipe from a keyboard......

.

Blacksmith101 · Aug 18, 2016

dblas said:
Several things that need to be asked:

What is Sgt Bonnell's purpose and reason for sitting at the table? He isn't the investigating trooper in most of the cases.

Why isn't the investigating trooper present for those appeals that come before the HPRB?

Who is the third trooper and his purpose at the table?

Applicants have been required to introduce their witnesses for the record, why doesn't MSP have to do the same for all three at the table?

If Sgt Bonnell and the other trooper have had nothing to do with the applicant's application, why and how can they testify for MSP?

It would be interesting for an applicant that is appealing their denial, request the board excuse and not permit those MSP employees who have had no direct activity on the permit application, to testify on behalf of MSP for that permit appeal.

Or perhaps the applicants should start bringing several people to testify on their behalf and also advise the board if that is the example being set by the MSP?

basscat · Aug 18, 2016

Blacksmith101 said:
Or perhaps the applicants should start bringing several people to testify on their behalf and also advise the board if that is the example being set by the MSP?

I may just do that for my hearing.

Gryphon · Aug 25, 2016

montoya32 said:
I did see that a "*****" attended the meeting last night with a phone number of ***-***-****.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been pretty busy lately and just catching up.

When I first saw this I thought it was a joke, just to make a point, and I just moved on. Reading it a second time I am not so sure. I hope that as a group we aren't complaining on one hand about respecting our personal privacy, then on the other posting somebody's real personal information.

montoya32 · Aug 25, 2016

Blacksmith101 said:
Or perhaps the applicants should start bringing several people to testify on their behalf and also advise the board if that is the example being set by the MSP?

As far as additional individuals to testify, if you have someone that can corroborate a threat or apprehension of danger, then that is what MSP statute/SOP allows. Remember, no longer are police reports required. I know many who attend these meetings feel a need to protect themselves and can attest that it they genuinely have a fear of apprehended danger.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

montoya32 · Aug 25, 2016

Gryphon said:
Been pretty busy lately and just catching up.

When I first saw this I thought it was a joke, just to make a point, and I just moved on. Reading it a second time I am not so sure. I hope that as a group we aren't complaining on one hand about respecting our personal privacy, then on the other posting somebody's real personal information.

I got it, I got got it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gryphon · Aug 25, 2016

dblas said:
Several things that need to be asked:

What is Sgt Bonnell's purpose and reason for sitting at the table? He isn't the investigating trooper in most of the cases.

Why isn't the investigating trooper present for those appeals that come before the HPRB?

Who is the third trooper and his purpose at the table?

Applicants have been required to introduce their witnesses for the record, why doesn't MSP have to do the same for all three at the table?

If Sgt Bonnell and the other trooper have had nothing to do with the applicant's application, why and how can they testify for MSP?

It would be interesting for an applicant that is appealing their denial, request the board excuse and not permit those MSP employees who have had no direct activity on the permit application, to testify on behalf of MSP for that permit appeal.

My guess is that it is well-intended to promote efficiency, and because all too often we heard a trooper testify they never saw something, or that somebody else didn't complete an investigation, or something was missing from the file, etc. I witnessed the Board get tired of this over many months trying to make the right decision for the right reasons. Several times the Board continued the matter wanting to get it right, e.g. a member of the military who the MSP hadn't even performed the required investigation for, but that ultimately got a permit. Plus, like it or not, these hearings by nature and design lack the formality of a true court.

Even so, you raise a good point Dblas. Just like an applicant the MSP LD should have to decide what evidence it will present and by who. Typically what I have seen is one trooper make the presentation, perhaps assisted by the investigating trooper. I don't see a problem with that, unless the second (or even a third) trooper has no first hand knowledge about a particular application and is just chiming in on the MSP's generic process or starts spouting what they think the law is. I have witnessed that only a couple of times when a presenting trooper struggling to make the MSP's case was joined by a second trooper blurting out and directly engaging an applicant. In a real court only one attorney gets to examine a witness - no tag teaming allowed.

But in fairness I have also seen witnesses for the applicant be allowed to testify in the narrative, i.e. present arguments for the applicant without being limited to a direct question from the applicant or the applicant's attorney. We saw this on the 16th when the Firearm Instructor (a retired Police Officer) testified at length not limited to answering a direct question.

I don't think its anything nefarious, but just the nature of less formal administrative proceedings.

ComeGet · Aug 25, 2016

Gryphon said:
Been pretty busy lately and just catching up.

When I first saw this I thought it was a joke, just to make a point, and I just moved on. Reading it a second time I am not so sure. I hope that as a group we aren't complaining on one hand about respecting our personal privacy, then on the other posting somebody's real personal information.

dblas · Aug 25, 2016

Jaybeez said:
There appears to be enough evidence, if you attend these meetings to witness the shenanigans, that the MSP is pushing back HARD, and trying to flex it's muscle and influence the Board. The newest location isnt helping.

Obvious tactics being employeed
-MSP is now providing the security for the meetings.

Nope, DPSC is providing security for the meeting as always, not MSP.

Jaybeez said:
-MSP now has its own "jury box". In previous meetings 1 trooper, the one handling that case, would sit at his own table next to the applicant's table, both facing the board.
MSP now has their own table, facing the applicant and the board, equal in position to the board's admin. 3 troopers sit at this table throughout the entire meeting.

This isn't anything new, they had their own table and started having three troopers at the table at the old location.

Jaybeez said:
It appears to give them the same air of authority as the board, and they are frequently asked by the board to assist with small tasks, or even to give advice on board duties and functions.

Perhaps they would like to have a wall to their back instead of the gallery? Did you happen to think of that? And no It doesn't give them the appearance of having the same or equal air of authority as the board.

Jaybeez said:
They have in effect moved themselves from equal party to the applicant, to equal party to the board, and to an advisory roll.
Their commander also attends the meetings.

Bullshot to the first part, fear monger much?
Either the Commander or the Assistant Commander have been coming to the meetings since the last 4-5 meetings at the previous locations, again, nothing new.

Jaybeez said:
-The board has been attempting to schedule more hearings per meeting. MSP has routinely been settling cases in the hallway before and during the meetings for months. Why is this a problem? Because if these cases can be settled without going before he board, then by allowing them to languish for 3-6 months and be scheduled for hearings, and then withdrawn at the last second, is preventing the board from scheduling hearings for applicants that will go to hearing. This slow rolls the process and has a chilling effect on cases moving forward.6 cases scheduled, 2 settled in the hallway every week, means that 2 hearing slots go un used.
MSP has had months to settle these cases before hearing day.

Did you ever think that maybe this because of the applicant having more information that they didn't provide in their applications? Perhaps because the applicant's seem to refuse to provide all of the information asked for by MSP and then provide the same information to the Board, is why the MSP denies them, but yet the board reverses the denial. I believe in all of the meeting I have attended, those cases that have been resolved by MSP "in the hallway" have been because the applicant has either provided additional information at the hearing (That MSP requested previously) or MSP had been trying to contact the applicant and the applicant not returning calls of e-mails because of the pending appeal.

Jaybeez said:
- Bonnel (?) was taking things very personally last night. He seems extremely agitated. It was very unprofessional in my opinion. This reinforces the rumors i've heard about why troopers get hidden in licensing division. The animosity towards the applicant was palpable. This certainly isnt an improvement.

While Bonnell is the lead/supervisory investigator, I believe that the actual investigator should be present, since MSP is required to present the troopers that actually handled the applications. I know for a fact of three appeals that Bonnell sat in, that he was not the investigator (unless he wears a skirt and goes by a different name on duty).

This, in my opinion, needs to stop and th actual investigator on the application needs to appear.

Jaybeez said:
- The chair particularly, has mentioned increasingly, this concept of tabling or "holding over" cases, to allow msp to conduct more fact finding or investigation into an applicant or his claims. While this may seem helpful at first, when the hearing date has been reached, the time for msp investigation and decision making is OVER, its now time for the BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION. based on my next point...

These all have been because the applicant has presented evidence that, had they presented to MSP, would have resulted in the issuing of a permit. That's not on the Board or MSP, that's on the applicant.

Jaybeez said:
-Jr lawyer Leggem had to remind the board last night that their job wasnt "reviewing" msp's decision, but to conduct a De Novo hearing, to reach their own conclusion based on their own judgement. This was after the board spent some time debating how to work within MSP's SOP... which isnt their job, but for some reason they have "forgotten" that.
That was the best thing i heard all night. That's sad. And should tell you the direction the board is now heading.

It is my understanding from listening to the hearing that the board delved into the SOP because the applicant constantly referred to the SOP in his testimony, not because the board is "moving in that direction".

Jaybeez said:
- the current hearing room, different from last week, has several sources of background noise, making even listening, much less audio recording, more difficult.

-the building "public" wifi is difficult to connect to, requires personal info, and may block mdshooters. Cell service is non existant in the building for me.

- the board is convinced they are in danger or face a threat, having a small public meeting with less than 20 attendees, 6 of whom are armed state troopers acting within their officual duties., several of which are highly vetted applicants, and the rest being regular attendees. All the while they are denying applicants based on lacknof credible threats.

dblas · Aug 25, 2016

boundlessdyad said:
Great post. Very enlightening. The truth you have exposed in this post is sad and frustrating.

Not a lot of truth in it when you really stop to think about the source of some of the issues. A lot of knee-jerk reaction to one meeting in my opinion.

dblas · Aug 25, 2016

Gryphon said:
My guess is that it is well-intended to promote efficiency, and because all too often we heard a trooper testify they never saw something, or that somebody else didn't complete an investigation, or something was missing from the file, etc. I witnessed the Board get tired of this over many months trying to make the right decision for the right reasons. Several times the Board continued the matter wanting to get it right, e.g. a member of the military who the MSP hadn't even performed the required investigation for, but that ultimately got a permit. Plus, like it or not, these hearings by nature and design lack the formality of a true court.

Even so, you raise a good point Dblas. Just like an applicant the MSP LD should have to decide what evidence it will present and by who. Typically what I have seen is one trooper make the presentation, perhaps assisted by the investigating trooper. I don't see a problem with that, unless the second (or even a third) trooper has no first hand knowledge about a particular application and is just chiming in on the MSP's generic process or starts spouting what they think the law is. I have witnessed that only a couple of times when a presenting trooper struggling to make the MSP's case was joined by a second trooper blurting out and directly engaging an applicant. In a real court only one attorney gets to examine a witness - no tag teaming allowed.

But in fairness I have also seen witnesses for the applicant be allowed to testify in the narrative, i.e. present arguments for the applicant without being limited to a direct question from the applicant or the applicant's attorney. We saw this on the 16th when the Firearm Instructor (a retired Police Officer) testified at length not limited to answering a direct question.

I don't think its anything nefarious, but just the nature of less formal administrative proceedings.

The above highlighted is what I have an issue with. I know of at least three appeals that Sgt Bonnell sat at the table and was not directly involved in the application process. He was there in the role as the supervisory investigator for MSP, not the actual field investigator that interviewed the applicant or contacted their references.

redeemed.man · Aug 25, 2016

dblas said:
Not a lot of truth in it when you really stop to think about the source of some of the issues. A lot of knee-jerk reaction to one meeting in my opinion.

In one sentence you speak of lack of truth as if it is a fact and the next sentence you state it is an opinion of yours. Which is it? Hopefully you don't forget that your experiences don't speak for others. I have had mostly positive experiences with MSP LD. I recognize that everyone has not had the same experience as me. The lack of consistency is not entirely the applicants fault. To state otherwise is a untrue. You are not the only one in communication with the powers that be. The lack of consistency at the LD is quietly acknowledged by quite a few in power at MSP.

Jaybeez · Aug 25, 2016

dblas said:
Nope, DPSC is providing security for the meeting as always, not MSP.

i must have been informed wrong

This isn't anything new, they had their own table and started having three troopers at the table at the old location.

Perhaps they would like to have a wall to their back instead of the gallery? Did you happen to think of that? And no It doesn't give them the appearance of having the same or equal air of authority as the board.

Is this standard for two party hearings?

Bullshot to the first part, fear monger much?
Either the Commander or the Assistant Commander have been coming to the meetings since the last 4-5 meetings at the previous locations, again, nothing new.

Did you ever think that maybe this because of the applicant having more information that they didn't provide in their applications? Perhaps because the applicant's seem to refuse to provide all of the information asked for by MSP and then provide the same information to the Board, is why the MSP denies them, but yet the board reverses the denial. I believe in all of the meeting I have attended, those cases that have been resolved by MSP "in the hallway" have been because the applicant has either provided additional information at the hearing (That MSP requested previously) or MSP had been trying to contact the applicant and the applicant not returning calls of e-mails because of the pending appeal.

I find that last part hard to believe, since MSP has to formally deny a permit once, and sometimes informally a secind time, before an appeal is requested. Does MSP request more information after making 1-2 denials usually?

While Bonnell is the lead/supervisory investigator, I believe that the actual investigator should be present, since MSP is required to present the troopers that actually handled the applications. I know for a fact of three appeals that Bonnell sat in, that he was not the investigator (unless he wears a skirt and goes by a different name on duty).

This, in my opinion, needs to stop and th actual investigator on the application needs to appear.

agreed

These all have been because the applicant has presented evidence that, had they presented to MSP, would have resulted in the issuing of a permit. That's not on the Board or MSP, that's on the applicant.

if it is eveidence that MSP "would have" accepted, then the board should go ahead an accept it, and allow the applicant to be issued a permit, rather than kicking the can back down the hallway... to further languish

It is my understanding from listening to the hearing that the board delved into the SOP because the applicant constantly referred to the SOP in his testimony, not because the board is "moving in that direction".

this was just my opinion. There was too much discussion about how the board should decided based on MSP's criteria, versus their own. I remember the board being bolder in past hearings.

If you'd have been there you could have talked me from my hysteria afterwards.

Blacksmith101 · Aug 25, 2016

Is the "additional information" additional or is it replacing information supplied to the MSP that was lost or not forwarded? I seem to recall reports of "missing information" from what was supplied to the MSP by the applicant.

HPRB August 16, 2016 Meeting Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Past President, MSI

Member

Throbbing Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

Attachments

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics