HPRB bill best argument

[jcutonilli]

So when this state elects another Democrat Governor, what happens to the process? I seem to recall it disappeared under O'Malley. Is that the answer?

 

[welder516]

I may be wrong but they held secret meetings on the down-low , until questions were asked .

 

[PowPow]

If we are arguing for the HPRB, are we playing into their hands and providing ammunition (no pun intended) for keeping 'may issue'? Also, if they abolish it does it give us additional ammunition to fight for "Shall issue"?

Shall issue is coming to Maryland. It's just a question of court timing as this point. The MGA wants to make us squirm as much as possible until then.

 

[Allen65]

So when this state elects another Democrat Governor, what happens to the process? I seem to recall it disappeared under O'Malley. Is that the answer?

There are no "good" choices in this state for pro-2A people. In this case, the least bad result is keeping the current HPRB intact for the remainder of Hogan's term and putting licenses in the hands of responsible individuals lawfully, as the HPRB has been doing. The more legal concealed carriers there are carrying in MD without incident, the weaker the antis' arguments are both politically and in court over the long term.

 

[jcutonilli]

I am not sure I would define that as the least bad result. It certainly preserves the status quo in the short term with potentially negative consequences in the long term. Assuming that what ever it is replaced with is impartial, the status quo may not change, but there would not be the negative long term consequences.

 

[Allen65]

I am not sure I would define that as the least bad result. It certainly preserves the status quo in the short term with potentially negative consequences in the long term. Assuming that what ever it is replaced with is impartial, the status quo may not change, but there would not be the negative long term consequences.

Is impartiality the only standard we're looking for? Denying everyone automatically would be impartial. A standard equivalent to Rule of Lenity would be what I'd want; deference to a declaration of need by a non-prohibited applicant.

The chance of MGA legislating a solution that gives that deference asymptotically approaches zero.

 

[Stoveman]

Is the HPRB a double edge sword? They are currently overturning MSP decisions with a Republican Governor, but what happens under a Democrat?

Of course it is and had Brown or Jealous won they would have no qualms appointing Jumpin' Jen, Guzzling Liz and Not So Tiny Dancer to the board knowing what the outcome would be.

Elections have consequences.

 

[Stoveman]

There are no "good" choices in this state for pro-2A people. In this case, the least bad result is keeping the current HPRB intact for the remainder of Hogan's term and putting licenses in the hands of responsible individuals lawfully, as the HPRB has been doing. The more legal concealed carriers there are carrying in MD without incident, the weaker the antis' arguments are both politically and in court over the long term.

To Hogan's credit he has populated the board with independent thinkers. But that's it. ZERO support for the three most recent recess appointments while they went through the confirmation process.

And a worse sin is that HIS inaction caused this travesty. Larry's got a gajillion percent approval rating and he expends ZERO political capital to instruct the Secretary of the MSP to stop with the stupid restrictions which caused the increase of applicants before the board which drew the attention of the MGA.

 

[LCPIWB]

Cross linking as it is important info regarding testimony.. Please check info posted https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=5503876&postcount=10

 

[jcutonilli]

Is impartiality the only standard we're looking for? Denying everyone automatically would be impartial. A standard equivalent to Rule of Lenity would be what I'd want; deference to a declaration of need by a non-prohibited applicant.

The chance of MGA legislating a solution that gives that deference asymptotically approaches zero.

It would depend on how you define impartial. While denying everyone automatically automatically would be treating them equally, it would not be treating them fairly. Denying everyone definitely would not be impartial because the outcome is biased to one particular outcome.

I use the term to distinguish it from a biased one, such as the one that existed under O'Malley.

The legislature wants to change things because they perceive the board as not being impartial. This can be seen as an opportunity to create a system that is more impartial and would not deny out rights when a different person is in the governors office.

 

[Occam]

This can be seen as an opportunity to create a system that is more impartial and would not deny out rights when a different person is in the governors office.

Alas, that opportunity is not one that the overwhelming majority of the state's legislators has any interest in pursuing. And because their voting constituency (where it counts - in the close-in, wealthy lefty 'burbs) is ignorant or malicious, that's unlikely to change. They consider "fair" to be "not having to worry that a few angry guys in flannel shirts will have guns." It's that bad, where the money and vote density is.

 

[Allen65]

The legislature wants to change things because they perceive the board as not being impartial. This can be seen as an opportunity to create a system that is more impartial and would not deny out rights when a different person is in the governors office.

I disagree with that statement. MGA is looking to change the law not because HPRB results are biased, but because the outcome desired by their leadership, the MD AG, and many individual legislators isn't being achieved by the current process.

That desired outcome of minimization of guns in private hands is overt and oft stated by Frosh, Dumais, Atterbury, Bowen, and others. They interpret the current law as meaning that the only circumstances where a person should be allowed to carry a gun in public are if they:

a. Require a weapon for their job in a profession directly related to law enforcement or security (including protection of assets that provide tax revenue).

b. Have a specific, identified entity who is currently, actively, and individually targeting them for death or serious bodily injury, and the targeting has been demonstrated by recent, prior attempts at harm.

And in the AG's case, I'm not sure he believes (b) should be justification because based on prior statements over the years, an act of violence in self defense is as undesirable as an act of violence with criminal intent. In his mindset, maintenance of public order and public safety are solely the purview of the State, not individuals, even those who are the would-be victims.

MSPLD's process embodies what's desired, and it's anything but impartial by my definition of the word. An undocumented, and therefore unchallengable, process that produces arbitrary and capricious results that often conflict with its own previous decisions was fine with MGA and MDAG prior to Hogan's election because it produced the general results wanted.

 

[Vetted84]

The legislature wants to change things because they perceive the board as not being impartial. This can be seen as an opportunity to create a system that is more impartial and would not deny out rights when a different person is in the governors office.

Not hard for them to have that perception. The voting of the board members seems to swing in the direction of the governor that brought them to the party.

 

[dblas]

I may be wrong but they held secret meetings on the down-low , until questions were asked .

They were quite surprised when Cypherpunk and myself showed up for a meeting in that cramped little room at the Glen Burnie barracks, and we weren't there for an appeal. They weren't quite sure what to do.

 

[welder516]

They were quite surprised when Cypherpunk and myself showed up for a meeting in that cramped little room at the Glen Burnie barracks, and we weren't there for an appeal. They weren't quite sure what to do.

And the MDS community is grateful for you guys poking around in the first place . Curiosity is a good thing and challenging them is even better

 

[jcutonilli]

I disagree with that statement. MGA is looking to change the law not because HPRB results are biased, but because the outcome desired by their leadership, the MD AG, and many individual legislators isn't being achieved by the current process.

That desired outcome of minimization of guns in private hands is overt and oft stated by Frosh, Dumais, Atterbury, Bowen, and others. They interpret the current law as meaning that the only circumstances where a person should be allowed to carry a gun in public are if they:

a. Require a weapon for their job in a profession directly related to law enforcement or security (including protection of assets that provide tax revenue).

b. Have a specific, identified entity who is currently, actively, and individually targeting them for death or serious bodily injury, and the targeting has been demonstrated by recent, prior attempts at harm.

And in the AG's case, I'm not sure he believes (b) should be justification because based on prior statements over the years, an act of violence in self defense is as undesirable as an act of violence with criminal intent. In his mindset, maintenance of public order and public safety are solely the purview of the State, not individuals, even those who are the would-be victims.

MSPLD's process embodies what's desired, and it's anything but impartial by my definition of the word. An undocumented, and therefore unchallengable, process that produces arbitrary and capricious results that often conflict with its own previous decisions was fine with MGA and MDAG prior to Hogan's election because it produced the general results wanted.

I never stated that the HPRB results are actually biased, just that they are perceived as being biased. Reality does not matter, just the perception of reality.

I have no doubt that certain individuals are extremely biased against firearms and nothing you or I say will change that. How you frame the problem can change how they and others perceive the problem. Fighting this issue as maintaining a biased board will not get you very far, especially given the numbers they have. Changing the board to something that is perceived as more impartial would likely have much better long term implications with little short term implications.

I can guarantee you that the AG does not believe that the maintenance of public order and public safety are solely the purview of the State. Just try and sue them arguing that they did not provide that protection and you will see them argue that they are not actually responsible and have qualified immunity.

You want to argue about the individual, but the state wants to argue about the public. You never talk about the societal implications of the individual, which means it is really about the public also. Nor do you really talk about the negative effects of state involvement. The federal government had to sue the state and city because how repressive the police force was to its citizens.

I see too many people that just want to thump there chest about the 2A and steadfastly maintain that it is only about individuals. I am frustrated that they want to stick to their guns and not modify the message to better address others perception of the issues.

 

[LCPIWB]

Dropped off testimony in the way home...
Saw that reps from NRA-ILA, MSRPA, 2A Maryland signed up to oppose.

On the way out of the building I heard a very grating voice and turned around to see none other than the Baron himself. I had to use all my self restraint from ripping that stash off his smug mug..

Reminder written testimony needs to be turned in by 3/7 5pm... Not the morning off. Witness sign up needs to complete by 8:30 on 3/8(hearing day).

 

[BrewDoc_MD]

I recently found this article from the American Enterprise Institute: the-conservative-case-for-civilian-review. While I don't think the author builds a solid case we could directly use in the HPRB, there are some good points in it.

The article mentioned the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. While they focus on local police department oversight, they provide resources and media advice that I think they could be used in the HPRB debate. Using phrases like, "ensures greater accountability," "builds bridges between MSP and the local community they serve," and "increases confidence in MSP and LEOs in general" would go over well with a more left-leaning MGA committee. You know, speak a language they might feel more comfortable listening to.

 

[BeoBill]

I disagree with that statement. MGA is looking to change the law not because HPRB results are biased, but because the outcome desired by their leadership, the MD AG, and many individual legislators isn't being achieved by the current process.

That desired outcome of minimization of guns in private hands is overt and oft stated by Frosh, Dumais, Atterbury, Bowen, and others. They interpret the current law as meaning that the only circumstances where a person should be allowed to carry a gun in public are if they:

a. Require a weapon for their job in a profession directly related to law enforcement or security (including protection of assets that provide tax revenue).

b. Have a specific, identified entity who is currently, actively, and individually targeting them for death or serious bodily injury, and the targeting has been demonstrated by recent, prior attempts at harm.

And in the AG's case, I'm not sure he believes (b) should be justification because based on prior statements over the years, an act of violence in self defense is as undesirable as an act of violence with criminal intent. In his mindset, maintenance of public order and public safety are solely the purview of the State, not individuals, even those who are the would-be victims.

MSPLD's process embodies what's desired, and it's anything but impartial by my definition of the word. An undocumented, and therefore unchallengable, process that produces arbitrary and capricious results that often conflict with its own previous decisions was fine with MGA and MDAG prior to Hogan's election because it produced the general results wanted.

You flatter the LD by describing the current raffle as a process.

 

[knovotny]

I emailed testimony to have printed and turned in yesterday. Thank you to anyone who is down there this morning.