Courtney White, super choice as she tons of experience with not only firearms but also with the permit system in this State and others. Chris
Cypherpunk, can you confirm 3 have been replaced. i only knew of 1, and the names are the same as the last time i looked, albeit the dates have changed.
My 2 cents. The HGPRB is intended to provide an appeal mechanism (prior to initiating a civil action in circuit court) for applicants that have been "not approved" or "denied" by the MSP through the actions of the Secretary/Superintendent. However, the Superintendent has the statutory discretion to decide what constitutes G&S. The HGPRB only has authority to review not approved/denials by the Secretary. The review should be utilizing the G&S standard implemented by the Secretary provided it is lawful. In other words, the current HGPRB should be applying the current Super's standard, not inconsistently applying a prior administrations standard even if it was previously upheld, e.g. Scherr/Snowden. The HGPRB has no authority to review permits that have already been granted by the Secretary.
Bottom line is that Pallozzi will either have to develop a SOP/G&S standard of his own, or the HGPRB will likely continue to apply the old standard (Scherr/Snowden) by default. New members applying the old standard won't likely provide much relief.
comar says the hprb exists, can modify restrictions, and deals with appeals. that's all i can find. there doesnt appear to be any standard they apply or is applied to them. its all up to the member's personal bias. either against or towards carry. 3 new members means 3 new potential approving votes out of 5. and i dont think they are bound by scherr/snowden.
Naval officers also have firearms experience. [Jurgena]
I generally agree the current Board is free to make up there own rules and exercise their own collective discretion, but I think it needs to be in the context of the policy standard being implemented within the current Super's reasonable discretion so it is lawful. Don't forget about stare decisis. True, Scherr and Snowden shouldn't apply if Pallozzi implements a new standard including articulated self-defense. I would expect the Board to review for abuse of (or not) of that new policy on an individual applicant's basis. However, if MSP continues under the old policy there is at least an argument that the prior standard and case precedent from petitions to the circuit court (of the Board's prior decisions in Scherr/Snowden) affirming them is applicable. Just an argument. But the cleaner route, IMHO, is for a new standard to be implemented cutting off arguments (by the two remaining members) about the applicability of the old case precedence.
Maybe the easier way to think of it is that the HGPRB exists to make sure the Super fairly applies the standard (whatever it is at the time) to all, and doesn't abuse his discretion denying or restricting individual permits relative to the masses, and that should be true whether the Super and the Board are being restrictive under a liberal administration or more favorable under a more conservative administration. Again, just my thoughts.
Remember Frosh has an inside guy at MSP, and available to the HGPRB. He works for them as his client, but he is still a subordinate of Frosh.
As a NavVet, this made me chuckle.
What legal remedies are available to force the Board to comply with the laws under which they supposedly operate? I would think that there must be some action in law that could be taken.
Governor Hogan has quietly appointed 3 new members to Maryland's Handgun Permit Review Board (HPRB).
The HPRB was established in 1972 (Chapter 13, Acts of 1972) to review decisions regarding handgun permits. Any person whose application for a handgun permit or renewal of a permit has been rejected or whose permit has been revoked or limited may ask the Board to review the decision of the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. The Board can sustain, reverse, or modify the decision of the Superintendent, or conduct a hearing to establish the facts.
Maryland's Governor appoints the Board's five members from the general public to three-year terms with Senate advice and consent (Article 27, §36E).
The Handgun Permit Review Board has been the subject of some controversy for, among other things;
- Taking more than a year to hold hearings that are required to be held within 90 days.
- Taking an extended summer break, despite the backlog.
- Disallowing denied applicants to appear in person, to present their case.
- Unlawfully refusing to debate public policy, or hold votes in public session.
- Failing to comply with Maryland's Open Meetings laws by holding meetings, with little or no public notice, in room not generally accessible to the public and unlawfully and improperly adjourning to closed session.
According to information recently supplied by the Governor's office the newly appointed members are;
Richard Lee Jurgena (2017) is a Mail Advertising Company Executive and lives in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Courtney M. White (2017) is the Managing Director of IOTA Firearms & Security Training Academy, she lives in Baltimore City.
Robert D. H. Wilson (2018) is a Director of Marina Operations with Meisel & Cohen Properties, a former firefighter and former military, he lives in Queen Anne’s County.
Two Board Members remain - they are;
Charles M. Thomas, Jr. (2016), Chair (chosen by Governor) first appointed in February of 2002
A Democrat from Legislative District 43, Baltimore, MD. According to public records he has a MS Degree in Psychology, Howard University. Chairman, Mutual Housing Association of Baltimore, Board Member, Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation. Mr. Thomas has served on several educational boards, and is currently retired.
Rolinda S. Collinson (2016) first appointed in May, 2000
A Democrat from District 27, Friendship, MD, Ms. Collinson is currently employed as a Special Education Teacher in the state of Maryland.
Maryland is one of the last two or three holdout states that still refuse to grant handgun permits to responsible citizens who complete a comprehensive background investigation and safety training. Civil Rights and Second Amendment advocates are calling on Governor Hogan and his newly appointed Superintendent of State Police, William M. Pallozzi to recognize yesterday's court victory in WRENN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and use this opportunity to declare an end to Maryland's unlawful, dysfunctional and costly permitting scheme.
For More Information:
Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services Website
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/dpscs.html#handgun
Handgun Permit Review Board Website
http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/agencies/hprb.shtml
Is the bolded part above from a news article?
The OP contains my own words. It's not breaking news yet anywhere but here AFAIK.
I generally agree the current Board is free to make up there own rules and exercise their own collective discretion, but I think it needs to be in the context of the policy standard being implemented within the current Super's reasonable discretion so it is lawful. Don't forget about stare decisis. True, Scherr and Snowden shouldn't apply if Pallozzi implements a new standard including articulated self-defense. I would expect the Board to review for abuse of (or not) of that new policy on an individual applicant's basis. However, if MSP continues under the old policy there is at least an argument that the prior standard and case precedent from petitions to the circuit court (of the Board's prior decisions in Scherr/Snowden) affirming them is applicable. Just an argument. But the cleaner route, IMHO, is for a new standard to be implemented cutting off arguments (by the two remaining members) about the applicability of the old case precedence.
Maybe the easier way to think of it is that the HGPRB exists to make sure the Super fairly applies the standard (whatever it is at the time) to all, and doesn't abuse his discretion denying or restricting individual permits relative to the masses, and that should be true whether the Super and the Board are being restrictive under a liberal administration or more favorable under a more conservative administration. Again, just my thoughts.
Remember Frosh has an inside guy at MSP, and available to the HGPRB. He works for them as his client, but he is still a subordinate of Frosh.
What legal remedies are available to force the Board to comply with the laws under which they supposedly operate? I would think that there must be some action in law that could be taken.
so cut the bull, what does this actually mean?
should we all run out and apply for a permit?