Gov. Hogan Appoints New HPRB Members

[montoya32]

The HPRB conducts public meetings. You can attend and record them. We need to begging creating a "database" of videos and recordings for our own use.

 

[Gryphon]

If I get denied for the same set of facts that someone else got approved, tell me how I'm going to know this. There needs to be a judicial ruling, which is public, for precedent. 99% of applicants are not going to consume their life digging and sniffing around other applications, even if they were public record. I doubt they are. Your PIA did not reveal details why people were approved.

Even administrative bodies issuing quasi-judicial decisions are bound to Equal Protection, non-arbitrary decisions, and stare decisis. Yes, it might involve a little work and coordination.

 

[Schipperke]

Even administrative bodies issuing quasi-judicial decisions are bound to Equal Protection, non-arbitrary decisions, and stare decisis. Yes, it might involve a little work and coordination.

I agree with you both on theory and fair play. We all know however we live in a different world. The Maryland system has been labeled a scheme for good reasons. If I bring the same set of facts to the table that have been approved, they'll deny because I'm fat. The board itself probably does not steep itself on knowing or dissecting past rulings other than the two judical cases they wave around.

 

[Schipperke]

The HPRB conducts public meetings. You can attend and record them. We need to begging creating a "database" of videos and recordings for our own use.

meetings or hearings?

 

[montoya32]

meetings or hearings?

Tomato/tomato

 

[Schipperke]

Tomato/tomato

I'll take that to mean hearings. Boards meet amongst themselves, and boards also conduct hearings. Meeting vs Hearing.

 

[Gryphon]

The Board may have the appellant attend, but it is not required. Get whatever argument you want to make in the letter requesting the formal appeal just in case. That should also serve to preserve the record which is the basis for any subsequent decision on a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court.

 

[dblas]

Sorry if I confused you, but the AAG that works assigned to the MSP and the AAG that works assigned to Public Safety & Correctional Services are BOTH subordinates to Frosh. Two different bodies potentially same result.

Yep, they both go back to the mother office for final sign on anything they provide to the respective Secretaries and their agencies.

 

[dblas]

I know the HPRB can reverse a denial and relax restrictions on permits. They cannot tighten restrictions and obviously do not get the opportunity to reverse the issuance of permits. If one person get a denial reversed and/or has restriction relaxed, then the SP must issue permits with attached restrictions per the HPRB's decision.

For example, if the SP denies me, but then the HPRB reverses that based on the information in my app, then from here on out the SP must issue permits to applicants with the same reasons I used.

Also, if the SP saddle my permit with XYZ restrictions and the HPRB relaxes or all together removes them, then the SP must issue permits to applicants using the same "g&s" reasons as I did. The SP will be forced to rewrite their policy based on the ultimate results from the HPRB. It will be up to the GA to legislate against, lessen or strengthen any decisions the HPRB hands out.

If only it worked that way, I would bet that they treat each application and each finding as it's own and not use it as the ability to set precedent for the next permit.

It would be interesting to do a PIA request to the HPRB and ask for the number of reversals and what the reason for request was.

 

[Schipperke]

If only it worked that way, I would bet that they treat each application and each finding as it's own and not use it as the ability to set precedent for the next permit.

It would be interesting to do a PIA request to the HPRB and ask for the number of reversals and what the reason for request was.

Interesting

OK you two, have at it again..

 

[esqappellate]

If only it worked that way, I would bet that they treat each application and each finding as it's own and not use it as the ability to set precedent for the next permit.
It would be interesting to do a PIA request to the HPRB and ask for the number of reversals and what the reason for request was.

To the extent that any administrative agency treats like circumstances differently, that is the essence of arbitrary and open to attack on that basis. Rational decision making is a basic due process requirement.

 

[Schipperke]

To the extent that any administrative agency treats like circumstances differently, that is the essence of arbitrary and open to attack on that basis. Rational decision making is a basic due process requirement.

Being that approvals can't really be scoured through, seems like a huge burden of proof charging arbitrary and irrational. If someone is approved, there is documentation why? I always thought the way they throw out "not disapproved" for gun purchases was some kind weasel wording too. I would think that only disapproval of CCW are documented as to why, but silent on if approved.

 

[dblas]

To the extent that any administrative agency treats like circumstances differently, that is the essence of arbitrary and open to attack on that basis. Rational decision making is a basic due process requirement.

After sitting through several of the HPRB hearings, I am of the opinion (and my opinion only) that the HPRB has no clue that they set precedent for each application or renewal denial they overturn. It would, however, be nice to have MSP on the record as to wether or not the findings of the HPRB on those applications that are overturned, are indeed used as guidance for future applications?

 

[esqappellate]

After sitting through several of the HPRB hearings, I am of the opinion (and my opinion only) that the HPRB has no clue that they set precedent for each application or renewal denial they overturn. It would, however, be nice to have MSP on the record as to wether or not the findings of the HPRB on those applications that are overturned, are indeed used as guidance for future applications?

Indeed it would be useful to know of MSP's approach to this. Since the Board sits to review what the MSP does on these applications, the MSP *should* be aware of how the Board is preceding. The Board, if it is rational, should be striving to develop coherent policy for approaching these decisions and communicating with the MSP on same. I mean, this is just really basic Admin Law 101.

 

[esqappellate]

Being that approvals can't really be scoured through, seems like a huge burden of proof charging arbitrary and irrational. If someone is approved, there is documentation why? I always thought the way they throw out "not disapproved" for gun purchases was some kind weasel wording too. I would think that only disapproval of CCW are documented as to why, but silent on if approved.

The Board only sits to review appeals from an adverse MSP decision. So, if they are being rational, then their reasoning for both types of decisions should be documented, especially decisions overturning the MSP in a given case (not that there are that many). Since decisions denying the appeal are subject to judicial review in circuit court, those decisions should likewise have an administrative record and a coherent decision. An abject failure to create an administrative record should be, all by itself, reversible error. It certainly is under Federal law.

 

[Gryphon]

What we know, at least from the boiler plate/form letters MSP is sending out, and from MSP's website, is that MSP is erroneously still relying on Scherr and Snowden despite intervening 2A case decisions. This is apparently under the belief that the HGPRB is still relying on those two cases as well. Whether they both act uniformly in their decisions is important, but what we really need is to get them to adopt an updated/revised definition of G&S. This can come directly from Pallozzi through the exercise of his unquestioned statutory authority, or by getting the HGPRB to understand Scherr and Snowden are no longer appropriate precedence. The former requires leadership and the exercise of discretion. The latter requires open minds and good faith consideration, and perhaps judicial intervention.

 

[Schipperke]

What we know, at least from the boiler plate/form letters MSP is sending out, and from MSP's website, is that MSP is erroneously still relying on Scherr and Snowden despite intervening 2A case decisions. This is apparently under the belief that the HGPRB is still relying on those two cases as well. Whether they both act uniformly in their decisions is important, but what we really need is to get them to adopt an updated/revised definition of G&S. This can come directly from Pallozzi through the exercise of his unquestioned statutory authority, or by getting the HGPRB to understand Scherr and Snowden are no longer appropriate precedence. The former requires leadership and the exercise of discretion. The letter requires open minds and good faith consideration, and perhaps judicial intervention.

Is there a ruling applicable to Maryland that supports this claim?

 

[Tomcat]

What we know, at least from the boiler plate/form letters MSP is sending out, and from MSP's website, is that MSP is erroneously still relying on Scherr and Snowden despite intervening 2A case decisions. This is apparently under the belief that the HGPRB is still relying on those two cases as well. Whether they both act uniformly in their decisions is important, but what we really need is to get them to adopt an updated/revised definition of G&S. This can come directly from Pallozzi through the exercise of his unquestioned statutory authority, or by getting the HGPRB to understand Scherr and Snowden are no longer appropriate precedence. The former requires leadership and the exercise of discretion. The letter requires open minds and good faith consideration, and perhaps judicial intervention.

Good luck with that. Del. Mike tried Smigiel v. Handgun Permit Review Board

 

[Schipperke]

Good luck with that. Del. Mike tried Smigiel v. Handgun Permit Review Board

Reality is a kick in the butt isn't it. LOL, the guy twirling his pen and looking like he was thinking about what bottle to take a nip from later, during the speech.

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

"What Second Amendment right do you have to carry?"

That tells you everything you need to know.