Iirc, hollman was on vacation the past few weeks, and it was announced that he was writting the letters for the cases in which he motioned to overturn msp.
HPRB August 16, 2016 Meeting Thread
- Thread starter Applehd
- 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:
Iirc, hollman was on vacation the past few weeks, and it was announced that he was writting the letters for the cases in which he motioned to overturn msp.
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without going before he board, then by allowing them to languish for 3-6 months and be scheduled for hearings, and then withdrawn at the last second, is preventing the board from scheduling hearings for applicants that will go to hearing.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.
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
Yes, excellent observations and facts from Jaybeez above. This is top rate analysis, along with the well-founded recommendations from Gryphon (a lawyer) that the HPRB should heed immediately.
We agree that IDs can be checked to prevent the sale of products deemed inappropriate for minors. No purchaser names are being collected. (The MSP Ammo Logs were unlawful, and stopped, as an abuse of authority)
And to repeat, we agree that govt functions that involve conflict or disputed decisions can screen attendees for weapons. Collecting attendee identities has no security function, only a tracking function, and that's out of bounds.
When you enter a public library you aren't searched and don't have to notify the govt you are there. If you then anonymously enter a "quasi-judicial" function in one of the library community rooms, we agree a weapons search is necessary--but not registration or name-taking.
This should be the standard for ALL govt public business or meetings, and we owe it to the tradition of American freedoms to oppose any deviation from this.
Identity logs in govt buildings must end. The public has a right to enter the "public" areas of govt buildings to attend public govt functions/meetings/hearings without surrendering their identity for ANY reason if they so choose.
We agree that IDs can be checked to prevent the sale of products deemed inappropriate for minors. No purchaser names are being collected. (The MSP Ammo Logs were unlawful, and stopped, as an abuse of authority)
And to repeat, we agree that govt functions that involve conflict or disputed decisions can screen attendees for weapons. Collecting attendee identities has no security function, only a tracking function, and that's out of bounds.
When you enter a public library you aren't searched and don't have to notify the govt you are there. If you then anonymously enter a "quasi-judicial" function in one of the library community rooms, we agree a weapons search is necessary--but not registration or name-taking.
This should be the standard for ALL govt public business or meetings, and we owe it to the tradition of American freedoms to oppose any deviation from this.
Identity logs in govt buildings must end. The public has a right to enter the "public" areas of govt buildings to attend public govt functions/meetings/hearings without surrendering their identity for ANY reason if they so choose.
Thanks, but i had to go back and fix a ton of typos.
Were you in attendance last night? The building already has a sign in sheet, which I think violates the open meetings act, and requires the display of an ID. The chairman is asking for an ADDITIONAL sign in at the entrance to the room.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had to show ID and sign in at the main entrance security desk last night, and i was issued a visitor sticker. 20' away from this desk is the hearing room. Upon entering the hearing room i was asked to sign in again. This sign in sheet wanted my name, address, email, and phone number. That's enough personal information to conduct a successful burglary of your averge "gun nut's" home, but i digress.
Then upon leaving the hearing, i was asked to sign out of the building at the main entrance security desk.
Its a little silly, and excessive. And I assume the HPRB sign in sheet is being used by someone to match the identification of actual attendees with internet posters that claimed to attend.
I'm told this was a favorite past time of Knaub, matching mds screen names to applicants, printing out posts he deemed questionable, and putting those printouts in their application files.
And remember, MSP has a history of surveilling activists... someone please post the link.
Then upon leaving the hearing, i was asked to sign out of the building at the main entrance security desk.
Its a little silly, and excessive. And I assume the HPRB sign in sheet is being used by someone to match the identification of actual attendees with internet posters that claimed to attend.
I'm told this was a favorite past time of Knaub, matching mds screen names to applicants, printing out posts he deemed questionable, and putting those printouts in their application files.
And remember, MSP has a history of surveilling activists... someone please post the link.
Ok. I think this is my last point.
I don't know how a "quasi-judicial" body operates, its a term being used quite often by the board now. But all evidence points to the fact that "actual judicial" bodies all across the state routinely nullify md gun control laws in their decisions.
Senator Mc Fadden, a critic of the current HPRB membership and direction, even submitted a bill this last session to address the rampant nullification by Judges with regards to gun control, and those same Judges' frequent discisions that law enforcement fact finding and evidence was inadmissable.
Just sayin', nawmeen?
I don't know how a "quasi-judicial" body operates, its a term being used quite often by the board now. But all evidence points to the fact that "actual judicial" bodies all across the state routinely nullify md gun control laws in their decisions.
Senator Mc Fadden, a critic of the current HPRB membership and direction, even submitted a bill this last session to address the rampant nullification by Judges with regards to gun control, and those same Judges' frequent discisions that law enforcement fact finding and evidence was inadmissable.
Just sayin', nawmeen?
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,290
Was there any mention of moving the next meeting ahead to Sept. 13 as Sept. 6 would fall directly after Labor Day(Sept. 5th)?
quasi judicial is like quasi pregnancy
I didn't hear that come up.
What would stop anyone, including an anti in attendance, from taking a phone snap shot of the sheet as it is passed around the room?
Nothing at all. If they want everyone's name, phone number, email address and home address, what is the issue with video recording the meetings?
I assume the applicants who had concerns about safety were also required to sign in, so how safe is that list with the trooper they assigned to watch over it?
As I posted earlier, I am fairly certain that the open meetings act clearly states the public are required to cooperate with whatever security measures are in place for the building housing the meeting.
If that means signing in twice and showing photo id, I do not see any violation of the act.
Interesting point. The secretary is required to protect the privacy of applicants/appellants/people with permits, they wont even mention names in the hearings, but there their names are... written down including address and phone number, for any attendee to see.
In a room full of troopers? Over a permit? If you can easily envision that then is it a wonder that we live in the land of hoplophobia? You're buying into the mentality that normal folks can't be trusted.
I can stand outside the meeting, watch for new faces, wait till the meeting starts, enter and sign in, and memorize all the new names on the list, matching them to the order that the new faces arrived.
A security measure would be a metal detector or pat down, not a registration with personal info and the scanning of state issued IDs. I find less objection to giving some of my info as I am a pretty public person, but knowing I was in attendance and other info available with the scanning of my driver's license is a bit much. We all know the mentality of SOME stat officials and how they view the HPRB and those attending the meetings. How are we to know if these lists will or won't make it to a group of legislators and taint their impression of some of us when it comes to testimony?
No one here can guarantee what will or won't happen to those lists or what they will or won't be used for.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Interesting Talk to with Moco police officer today about country directives w/ ccw (42 Viewers)- Latest: swinokur
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
DECISION 2024 - PRIMARY ELECTION COMMENTARY AND ENDORSEMENTS (2 Viewers)
- Started by klutch
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
1 77r for two item purchase simultaneously w/Designated Collector uploaded (5 Viewers)- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
-
-