HPRB August 2, 2016 Meeting Thread

[Silent Partner]

I found it interesting MSP contacted the head of security at Sinai to inquire if they permitted their employees to bring firearms on premises. When they were told they did not, did MSP inquire if they could make provisions, such as providing a safe just inside the door at the guard station and why not ? I would have asked how many guards are on duty and what happens when one of them has to escort a Dr. to their car. Are the guards armed ? If so what do they do with their firearms when entering the building. What about the hospital, are they interested in protecting their most valuable assets or is it a question of liability ? There is no good reason why the MSP was upheld.

 

[ComeGet]

I think it's totally ridiculous that they did not approve the Doctor for a permit. Maybe they will feel good when he gets whacked on his head one evening for his prescription pad...The laws in MD are so out of touch.

Just from what I'm reading here I wonder if the board feared that this could be the camel's nose under the tent.

If they gave this doc a permit there would be hundreds if not thousands of others similarly situated whom they would have to give permits.

 

[Gryphon]

My blood pressure was running right up there with Applehd's last night, and a day later I still feel the need to rant a bit. I haven't posted much lately, so before I start, I will say that I am not blaming the MSP LD staff, the Board or any specific individuals, but rather the entire process which results in totally inconsistent results.

I have more questions than answers. Why did this case have to be appealed? Why was the doctor denied?

I could be wrong, but as I understood it the good doctor, an American Asian, applied under the need for "personal protection," which is expressly provided for under the statute. He did not apply under the sponsorship of his employer for a "business permit" which is pure MSP fiction in the first place. Hence, the MSP's inquiry into the policy of his employer was completely irrelevant. How far his vehicle is parked from the front door is irrelevant. How or where he will secure the firearm is irrelevant. None of those issues appear anywhere in the statute as considerations for either the MSP or Board for making a decision on issuing a permit. The issue under the current law is whether he has a reasonably articulated and corroborated/palpable need. Of course he had a plan for secure storage anyway, i.e. he testified he would have a safe professionally installed in his vehicle. That's probably better than most police patrol cars get.

Suppose the good doctor would change jobs and go to work for Hopkins with his wife? Shouldn't he still be able to defend himself? Does anyone really believe the areas around Sinai or Hopkins are safe at 3:00 am simply because the surgeon didn't document the crime to the satisfaction of the MSP.

I know a number of doctors and dentists who were routinely issued permits on the basis of the prescription narcotic drug issue alone. There haven't been any changes to the statutes. So was the MSP being arbitrary then, or now? Or was each case just "different," and why?

Why does the MSP LD and certain Board members feel the need to go beyond the considerations stated in the law itself looking for an excuse to deny an applicant his or her rights? Why does an on call contractor and part-time bartender get his restrictions lifted one week, and then two weeks later an on call cardiac surgeon in one of the worst areas of the City is denied any permit at all?

Until these inconsistencies are a thing of the past, and I don't mean by denying everyone that applies, it's hard to imagine that the citizens' and voters' complaints regarding the denial of fundamental rights will subside.

The only way to quell the fervor is to remove the subjectivity throughout the process. Make it simple, and easier to apply. Focus on denying those that are prohibited, and stop trying to find excuses to deny those that are law abiding and have articulated a palpable need for self-defense. Apply the law as written and do it uniformly. Stop trying to make it so complicated. Otherwise all we really have is an inconsistent system that allows some individuals the power to determine whether any given applicant has sufficiently begged or is worthy because they are somehow special.

Just I'magine if free speech, the right to vote, or the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure were applied in this inconsistent manner.

We have a bad system but are currently stuck with it. That doesn't mean it can't be applied in a simple and fair manner until it can be rewritten. There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is the citizens and voters that are getting screwed, and they haven't done anything wrong - they just want the ability to defend themselves.

 

[Stoveman]

My blood pressure was running right up there with Applehd's last night, and a day later I still feel the need to rant a bit. I haven't posted much lately, so before I start, I will say that I am not blaming the MSP LD staff, the Board or any specific individuals, but rather the entire process which results in totally inconsistent results.

I have more questions than answers. Why did this case have to be appealed? Why was the doctor denied?

I could be wrong, but as I understood it the good doctor, an American Asian, applied under the need for "personal protection," which is expressly provided for under the statute. He did not apply under the sponsorship of his employer for a "business permit" which is pure MSP fiction in the first place. Hence, the MSP's inquiry into the policy of his employer was completely irrelevant. How far his vehicle is parked from the front door is irrelevant. How or where he will secure the firearm is irrelevant. None of those issues appear anywhere in the statute as considerations for either the MSP or Board for making a decision on issuing a permit. The issue under the current law is whether he has a reasonably articulated and corroborated/palpable need. Of course he had a plan for secure storage anyway, i.e. he testified he would have a safe professionally installed in his vehicle. That's probably better than most police patrol cars get.

Suppose the good doctor would change jobs and go to work for Hopkins with his wife? Shouldn't he still be able to defend himself? Does anyone really believe the areas around Sinai or Hopkins are safe at 3:00 am simply because the surgeon didn't document the crime to the satisfaction of the MSP.

I know a number of doctors and dentists who were routinely issued permits on the basis of the prescription narcotic drug issue alone. There haven't been any changes to the statutes. So was the MSP being arbitrary then, or now? Or was each case just "different," and why?

Why does the MSP LD and certain Board members feel the need to go beyond the considerations stated in the law itself looking for an excuse to deny an applicant his or her rights? Why does an on call contractor and part-time bartender get his restrictions lifted one week, and then two weeks later an on call cardiac surgeon in one of the worst areas of the City is denied any permit at all?

Until these inconsistencies are a thing of the past, and I don't mean by denying everyone that applies, it's hard to imagine that the citizens' and voters' complaints regarding the denial of fundamental rights will subside.

The only way to quell the fervor is to remove the subjectivity throughout the process. Make it simple, and easier to apply. Focus on denying those that are prohibited, and stop trying to find excuses to deny those that are law abiding and have articulated a palpable need for self-defense. Apply the law as written and do it uniformly. Stop trying to make it so complicated. Otherwise all we really have is an inconsistent system that allows some individuals the power to determine whether any given applicant has sufficiently begged or is worthy because they are somehow special.

Just I'magine if free speech, the right to vote, or the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure were applied in this inconsistent manner.

We have a bad system but are currently stuck with it. That doesn't mean it can't be applied in a simple and fair manner until it can be rewritten. There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is the citizens and voters that are getting screwed, and they haven't done anything wrong - they just want the ability to defend themselves.

 

[eachurch1972]

Good point, they don't want to set a "precedent" of doing the right thing for people. They need to understand that they are messing with peoples lives and their ability to defend themselves from all of the vile, violent, thug, criminals running around Md and especially in that hole known as Baltimore. Again, if you are not a business owner or someone very connected, whistle dixie, in spanish while you are at it...

 

[Applehd]

...

Thank you very much for posting this. You have done me the honor of posting my exact thoughts without me receiving the ban hammer for the approximately 472 expletives that would have filled an entire page were it written in Applehd-eze... Again, my apologies for my swift departure from the meeting without the proper farewell bidding... Rack got the 411... and yes... in my PM, I pointed fingers and called names...

 

[rambling_one]

Mine was the first hearing of the evening.

The message I walked away with is that retirees from the intelligence community need not apply.

 

[BeoBill]

The message I walked away with is that retirees from the intelligence community need not apply.

That's the message I've been getting all along. International grudges from adversaries with long memories and similarly long reach expire after some arbitrary length of time (Years? Months? Weeks? Days? Hours?). I mentioned last night that their decisionmaking flow chart must look like a plate of spaghetti.

Or, to summarize, arbitrary and capricious

 

[rambling_one]

Not HPRB related but Rambling One also needs our prayers guys. I'm going to leave it there, but when you're on your knees talking to the Big Guy mention our brother.

Thanks...the well wishes are appreciated.

To keep this thread on track, I've posted my situation in the Water Cooler under the "Men, get your PSA tested..." thread.

 

[highli99]

Very disappointing to hear the heart surgeon got denied. The MSP once again went over and above to find excuses to violate their oaths to uphold the constitution.

 

[Racer Doug14]

I've read a few of these HPRB meeting notes. This one was fairly short. This process is a total joke! I know I'm preaching to the quire here. Gryphon summed up my thoughts 100%. Totally arbitrary in application to every case. No rythem one case to the next.

 

[Schipperke]

I've read a few of these HPRB meeting notes. This one was fairly short. This process is a total joke! I know I'm preaching to the quire here. Gryphon summed up my thoughts 100%. Totally arbitrary in application to every case. No rythem one case to the next.

They will get tougher. It's like they are on a quota system. If too many get over ruled in sequence, they need to get off the accelerator and sustain a few.

If the Realtors® case is still in purgatory, they should just remove restrictions, using the record they already have. The case mirrors and is no way remarkably different than a recent case that was unanimously overturned for a MSI officer having restrictions removed. The permit needs to be made a binary yes or no. Restrictions are nonsense.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Were the Moms Demanding Attention present ?

 

[dblas]

Were the Moms Demanding Attention present ?

Nope.

 

[Gryphon]

To be clear, the process is flawed by its almost 45 year old original design (to deprive minorities the right to defend themselves), by years of political meddling, and "administrators" that bang their heads against the wall trying to implement it. Now it pits us all against one another. There is no such need. Just like outdated state procurement laws it's time for an update. We just need some real leaders in the legislature to go to work.

 

[fidelity]

To be clear, the process is flawed by its almost 45 year old original design (to deprive minorities the right to defend themselves), by years of political meddling, and "administrators" that bang their heads against the wall trying to implement it. Now it pits us all against one another. There is no such need. Just like outdated state procurement laws it's time for an update. We just need some real leaders in the legislature to go to work.

Liberal white bigotry that they never recognize as the paternalism defines their worldview. Same with Bloomberg and his desire to introduce restrictions on sugary drinks, because the inner city masses are too stupid to make health choices on their own.

These data are probably not collected, but it would be illuminating to examine if the minority carry permit frequency in MD is lower than non-minority carry permit frequency when each is normalized to the number of minority vs non-minority gun owners, respectively, in the state.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Not necessarily.
A heavy percentage of Permits are in conjunction with security industry employment.
Said Industry is well represented by minority employees.


What the question was probably visualizing a demographic analysis of the elusive Personal Protection , or maybe those plus sole proprietor businesses.

 

[dblas]

Liberal white bigotry that they never recognize as the paternalism defines their worldview. Same with Bloomberg and his desire to introduce restrictions on sugary drinks, because the inner city masses are too stupid to make health choices on their own.

These data are probably not collected, but it would be illuminating to examine if the minority carry permit frequency in MD is lower than non-minority carry permit frequency when each is normalized to the number of minority vs non-minority gun owners, respectively, in the state.

What you describe above is statism, not liberalism. Liberalism wants less government, and more freedom for the citizens. What people are calling liberals today are actually statist, and are giving those of us that are true liberals, a bad name.

 

[eruby]

What you describe above is statism, not liberalism. Liberalism wants less government, and more freedom for the citizens. What people are calling liberals today are actually statist, and are giving those of us that are true liberals, a bad name.

Mark Levin approves of this post.

 

[daggo66]

What you describe above is statism, not liberalism. Liberalism wants less government, and more freedom for the citizens. What people are calling liberals today are actually statist, and are giving those of us that are true liberals, a bad name.

That very thing is what makes me nuts. I remember the 60's and 70's when they were against government and wanted to live off the grid in communes. Now they are all supporting more government. I just don't get it and can't understand how the hell that happened.