Next step is the courts.
HPRB January 2, 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:
jeffie7
Ultimate Member
I wonder if they are going to be even more dicks since last time they had really good cases presented to them for issuing a permit.
Now they might go in with guns blazing so to speak. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
I really want to go but can't make it happen with the kids. Maybe if their little 9 month MSI onesie and the T3 shirt comes in I can take them for support. If anything maybe someone would put down the cell phone and enjoy the children being around.
Now they might go in with guns blazing so to speak. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
I really want to go but can't make it happen with the kids. Maybe if their little 9 month MSI onesie and the T3 shirt comes in I can take them for support. If anything maybe someone would put down the cell phone and enjoy the children being around.
SCDoGo
Member
- Dec 6, 2014
- 84
I for one would like to see a link to that case and read about it. Also did anyone get hold of those 2 members to find out why they voted as they did or did they really drink the MSP Kool Aid and lose their minds and witts???
IIRC, it was either a CO or SRO who doesn't carry on the job. MSP's reasoning was that if he didn't need a gun on the job, he didn't need to carry out of work.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
To answer PJDiesel, no, my "appeal hearing" during the 12/15 meeting wasn't necessarily my "last stand." 
I hesitated to post this because my appeal is still officially pending, but from the very start learning the MSP/HGPRB process and helping to educate others about the Administrative Law that governs these proceedings has been one of my goals. So WTH.
First, the Board has not actually issued a written decision in my case, and as such still retains complete jurisdiction over the disposition or outcome. Of those attending the meetings you will recall that Chairman Wilson has been seeking a vote to ratify the meeting minutes and actions taken at the "prior" meeting, before moving on to "new business" during the current meeting. That hasn't actually happened for the 12/15 meeting yet. But I do suspect Chairman Wilson will call for that vote during the January 5th meeting, after which the Board will issue a "final written decision" in my case to get a decision to me within 30 days required under the law. Note: I can't Notice a Petition for Judicial Review to the Circuit Court until I receive the HGPRB's final decision, and then I will have an additional 30 days to do so. So any decision on that is a way off.
Why is no final written decision yet important? While no advance notice has been given to the parties in my case, and so no additional testimony/evidence can be accepted into the record, the "fat lady hasn't actually sung" until the Board's decision is reduced to writing and issued to me. In other words, if any of the Board members were to have further considered the materials (like my binders) and/or reflected further on the legal arguments and have any doubts, then a motion could be made for further discussion and debate just on the prior record. That may or may not precipitate a revote of sorts? This is tantamount to a court reconsidering sua sponte its own decision originally stated orally from the bench prior to entering a final written order or judgment into the record which triggers any appeals - it's rare but it happens the purpose being to get the right decision.
I agree it might seem a little unusual, and something prior Boards rubber stamping disapprovals didn't do, but "reconsideration" is well within the authority of the Board and could well serve a valid purpose even if the outcome of any revote were exactly the same. The key is for the HGPRB to get the substance correct over form. For example, and I am being very candid here, I do not believe the record in my case adequately reflects the basis for affirming the MSP's decision beyond that at least 2 members clearly relied on the SOP furnished to it by the MSP. That in itself is an error of law.
I clearly demonstrated to Ms. White that the SOP she was waiving around and that she claimed the Board was bound to follow did not even exist at the time the MSP made the decision to "disapprove" my application. MSP never provided me a copy of it contemporaneously (again it didn't exist), or even prior to the hearing, they just gave it to the HGPRB as if it had been part of my file - it wasn't. So it wasn't even appropriate evidence of the MSP's action; it was window dressing after the fact. Besides, as Jack McCauley also pointed out the SOP was not reviewed and approved by the AG as Ms. White believed and suggested. And last, as I pointed out the SOP is not the applicable law under which the Board's decisions are to be made, but rather just an MSP SOP that perverts the actual requirements of existing statute and totally disregards the last 10 years of 2A jurisprudence. Accordingly, as it is, at most the record reflects an admission that at least one if not two members didn't even attempt to apply applicable law, but rather just accepted the SOP as gospel. That affected the vote, and is a clear cut error of text book Administrative Law.
Besides being an error of law, please keep in mind that the HGPRB is obligated to articulate the basis for its decision. Otherwise, the HGPRB's final decision is just as arbitrary as the MSP's original disapproval. Even without the error of relying on the SOP I don't think the record is all that clear on what the basis for affirming was. Remember, for those that were there, at no time during my application with MSP, prior to the 12/15 hearing, or even during the 12/15 hearing, did anyone from MSP rebut the legal analysis I presented to the HGPRB members. MSP, through Sgt. Bonnel if I recall correctly, testified something like "Snowden and Scherr that's what we always do." So if nothing else, reopening the discussion prior to issuing a final decision could clarify the record and rationale adopted by the HGPRB in making its decision.
This is important because if I where to Petition the Circuit Court for Judicial Review the error of relying on the SOP could by itself warrant a remand back down to the HGPRB for further proceedings. Frankly, I don't want that. I'd rather see the HGPRB make a well informed and considered decision on the applicable law (not a new SOP), and not hand me a cheap excuse to do this all over again in a year and a half.
Second, a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court is not an inexpensive, easy or quick process as Shipperke has suggested. The filing fee isn't so bad, but the transcript alone would probably run between $1,000 and $1,500. Of course I can brief the legal memoranda myself in all the spare time I have.
Time off of work for the hearings isn't a big deal - its just vacation time not spent with my wife. And last, the 8-10 months, or maybe a year, to get to a hearing, and then another few months to get a written opinion is no big deal either Add it all up and its probably more cost and time than moving north to PA 
Of course, if I get that far, there is nothing that actually requires the MSP to notice its intent to appear and participate in the judicial review process! Maybe it would be worthwhile just to see what happens, and to further document just how much Superintendent Pallozzi and the Governor support the 2A?
Honestly, I don't know anything more than the rest of you, but 12/15 was not necessarily my "last stand."
I hesitated to post this because my appeal is still officially pending, but from the very start learning the MSP/HGPRB process and helping to educate others about the Administrative Law that governs these proceedings has been one of my goals. So WTH.
First, the Board has not actually issued a written decision in my case, and as such still retains complete jurisdiction over the disposition or outcome. Of those attending the meetings you will recall that Chairman Wilson has been seeking a vote to ratify the meeting minutes and actions taken at the "prior" meeting, before moving on to "new business" during the current meeting. That hasn't actually happened for the 12/15 meeting yet. But I do suspect Chairman Wilson will call for that vote during the January 5th meeting, after which the Board will issue a "final written decision" in my case to get a decision to me within 30 days required under the law. Note: I can't Notice a Petition for Judicial Review to the Circuit Court until I receive the HGPRB's final decision, and then I will have an additional 30 days to do so. So any decision on that is a way off.
Why is no final written decision yet important? While no advance notice has been given to the parties in my case, and so no additional testimony/evidence can be accepted into the record, the "fat lady hasn't actually sung" until the Board's decision is reduced to writing and issued to me. In other words, if any of the Board members were to have further considered the materials (like my binders) and/or reflected further on the legal arguments and have any doubts, then a motion could be made for further discussion and debate just on the prior record. That may or may not precipitate a revote of sorts? This is tantamount to a court reconsidering sua sponte its own decision originally stated orally from the bench prior to entering a final written order or judgment into the record which triggers any appeals - it's rare but it happens the purpose being to get the right decision.
I agree it might seem a little unusual, and something prior Boards rubber stamping disapprovals didn't do, but "reconsideration" is well within the authority of the Board and could well serve a valid purpose even if the outcome of any revote were exactly the same. The key is for the HGPRB to get the substance correct over form. For example, and I am being very candid here, I do not believe the record in my case adequately reflects the basis for affirming the MSP's decision beyond that at least 2 members clearly relied on the SOP furnished to it by the MSP. That in itself is an error of law.
I clearly demonstrated to Ms. White that the SOP she was waiving around and that she claimed the Board was bound to follow did not even exist at the time the MSP made the decision to "disapprove" my application. MSP never provided me a copy of it contemporaneously (again it didn't exist), or even prior to the hearing, they just gave it to the HGPRB as if it had been part of my file - it wasn't. So it wasn't even appropriate evidence of the MSP's action; it was window dressing after the fact. Besides, as Jack McCauley also pointed out the SOP was not reviewed and approved by the AG as Ms. White believed and suggested. And last, as I pointed out the SOP is not the applicable law under which the Board's decisions are to be made, but rather just an MSP SOP that perverts the actual requirements of existing statute and totally disregards the last 10 years of 2A jurisprudence. Accordingly, as it is, at most the record reflects an admission that at least one if not two members didn't even attempt to apply applicable law, but rather just accepted the SOP as gospel. That affected the vote, and is a clear cut error of text book Administrative Law.
Besides being an error of law, please keep in mind that the HGPRB is obligated to articulate the basis for its decision. Otherwise, the HGPRB's final decision is just as arbitrary as the MSP's original disapproval. Even without the error of relying on the SOP I don't think the record is all that clear on what the basis for affirming was. Remember, for those that were there, at no time during my application with MSP, prior to the 12/15 hearing, or even during the 12/15 hearing, did anyone from MSP rebut the legal analysis I presented to the HGPRB members. MSP, through Sgt. Bonnel if I recall correctly, testified something like "Snowden and Scherr that's what we always do." So if nothing else, reopening the discussion prior to issuing a final decision could clarify the record and rationale adopted by the HGPRB in making its decision.
This is important because if I where to Petition the Circuit Court for Judicial Review the error of relying on the SOP could by itself warrant a remand back down to the HGPRB for further proceedings. Frankly, I don't want that. I'd rather see the HGPRB make a well informed and considered decision on the applicable law (not a new SOP), and not hand me a cheap excuse to do this all over again in a year and a half.
Second, a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court is not an inexpensive, easy or quick process as Shipperke has suggested. The filing fee isn't so bad, but the transcript alone would probably run between $1,000 and $1,500. Of course I can brief the legal memoranda myself in all the spare time I have.
Time off of work for the hearings isn't a big deal - its just vacation time not spent with my wife. And last, the 8-10 months, or maybe a year, to get to a hearing, and then another few months to get a written opinion is no big deal either Add it all up and its probably more cost and time than moving north to PA Of course, if I get that far, there is nothing that actually requires the MSP to notice its intent to appear and participate in the judicial review process! Maybe it would be worthwhile just to see what happens, and to further document just how much Superintendent Pallozzi and the Governor support the 2A?
Honestly, I don't know anything more than the rest of you, but 12/15 was not necessarily my "last stand."
Last edited:
Gryphon, put me down for $25 if there is any sort of fundraiser to take burden of you.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
Thanks - but that's not what my post was about.
I know, I was just putting it out there.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
No offense taken. It was one of the few funny things I have seen since starting this process.
Gryphon
Thank you for info. I hope, a slim hope at best, that the 2 members who voted against you read this and at least try to understand that MSP Spiked the Kool Aid, but then they still might not understand what you just wrote for the everyday person.. At least i can keep my fingers crossed, I hope others who read this can understand how things work.. Thank you for a free lesion in the law.
Thank you for info. I hope, a slim hope at best, that the 2 members who voted against you read this and at least try to understand that MSP Spiked the Kool Aid, but then they still might not understand what you just wrote for the everyday person.. At least i can keep my fingers crossed, I hope others who read this can understand how things work.. Thank you for a free lesion in the law.
His post above as well as his testimony before the HPRB was thoughtful, simple, factual and well articulated so that a common lay person like you or I could understand the law and the facts of his case.
Which makes it even more difficult to fathom why two members of the board voted they way they did....
le·sion
ˈlēZHən/
nounMedicine
noun: lesion; plural noun: lesions
a region in an organ or tissue that has suffered damage through injury or disease, such as a wound, ulcer, abscess, tumor, etc.
Yup, sounds about right!
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,842
What transcript are you paying for? Didn't we all already pay for the transcript?
In this county anyone can go online and get transcripts of board hearings held here.
We just filed an administrative appeal of a panel order, we have all the transcripts already (eight full days in fact). Some motions back and forward have already happened. (The obligatory motion for dismissal, and response)
Apparently things run different by board, county or state.
In this county anyone can go online and get transcripts of board hearings held here.
We just filed an administrative appeal of a panel order, we have all the transcripts already (eight full days in fact). Some motions back and forward have already happened. (The obligatory motion for dismissal, and response)
Apparently things run different by board, county or state.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
The procedure for judicial review in the Circuit Court is in SG 10-222 et seq. and is the same across the entire State. The official recording of the hearing must be reduced to a written transcript by a court approved stenographer - here paid for by the Petitioner. Typically costs about $5/page depending on service provider. Base on the amount read into the record by the Board, Lazuick and myself, plus all the follow up testimony (about 1 1/2 hours everyone talking fast) I am just guessing. Might be a little less, but its going to need a lot of work/clean up because the stenographer wasn't there. It has to be accurate because you need to be able to cite to it by page and line. The Court isn't going to listen to the recording.
If the HGPRB reversed the MSP decision, and MSP wanted to petition of judicial review, then MSP would have to pay for the transcripts. They would also have to issue a permit during the interim.
Last edited:
One suggestion I'd like to repeat here.
Way back at the beginning of our effort at oversight, someone asked what to wear to the meetings. I and others responded that "business casual" would be appropriate attire. I feel that is still the case. Here's why I feel the way I do. And this is solely and explicitly my opinion, and mine alone.
Those who are new to our effort should go back and read the first few recaps of the meetings when they were still being hosted by the MSP near BWI. Compared to the board meetings now, they were a complete and total clown show. And yet we as a group maintained our decorum and applied the pressure of righteousness to the board. There were plenty of opportunities to become overtly partisan (i.e., wearing NRA and MSI apparel, etc.), but all concerned recognized that the meetings were a State-sanctioned body meeting to conduct the "business pf the People" and conducted ourselves accordingly. An OP also expressed the opinion that the meetings were not rallies, and to save that kind of expression for 2A Tuesday. I think that still holds true today, and into the future.
I think what I'm getting at is this: If we show outright disrespect toward the Board, they will return the attitude. If y'all want to demonstrate, that's your right, but do it in the appropriate venue. Maybe go stand outside the MSP LD offices for a while. But don't turn the observer audience into a spectacle; it does no one any good at all. In fact, I can foresee it harming our position, since our adversaries constantly look for actions to smear us with.
Also, I applaud Tim and Gryphon for keeping their cool under intense fire. They did a MUCH better job of controlling themselves than I ever could. Again, BRAVO!
I've said my piece now - flame away. I'll return to observing.
BT
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,366
Gryphon
Thank you for your informative post #164 ( I won't quote it to save bandwidth). It certainly helps the average citizen understand what is going on and i'm certain helps others prepare wisely for their own battles. I and I am sure many others will help support your efforts if necessary in the future. Watching your case progress has been both an education and a eye opening experience.
Thank you for your informative post #164 ( I won't quote it to save bandwidth). It certainly helps the average citizen understand what is going on and i'm certain helps others prepare wisely for their own battles. I and I am sure many others will help support your efforts if necessary in the future. Watching your case progress has been both an education and a eye opening experience.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,842
At our OZAH , Ethics and HOA board hearings here, there is a stenotype operator at the hearing. (None at HPRB hearings?) The transcripts come out about five days after each hearing.
I for one would like to see a link to that case and read about it. Also did anyone get hold of those 2 members to find out why they voted as they did or did they really drink the MSP Kool Aid and lose their minds and witts???
No direct link to the case page, so do the following;
Go here: http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...tyName=&action=Search&courtSystem=B&company=Y
When you get to the search page change the search from person to company.
Enter in "Handgun Permit Review Board"
Run the search.
Go to the second page.
It is the first case at the top of the second page (n the Matter of Michael E. Fisher
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
Here it is. [UPDATE, note that the link below won't necessarily work because you need to accept terms and conditions on the main page. Go to http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/, accept terms, then search for Case No. 17C15019777 if you want to see the whole docket]
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...il.jis?caseId=17C15019777&loc=53&detailLoc=CC
" . . . although the error of law discussed in the proceeding paragraph should resolve this case, the Board committed a separate and independent evidentiary error when it required that Petitioner produce documentation of threats against him as a condition precedent to considering Petitioner's own testimony of threats against him."
I have not seen the entire written decision, but it certainly appears from what the Judge entered into Case Search that this is a Circuit Court reversing the prior HGPRB's decision to uphold the MSP's denial of a Special Police Officer's permit because 1) he IS in an assumed risk category, but more importantly to the rest of you 2) also noting that it was an "error of law" for MSP and the prior Board to require him to produce documentation of threats versus just his own sworn testimony. Sound familiar? When did you last hear that documentation requirement? Two weeks ago? MSP and its attorneys may argue that this decision has no precedential value to future cases because it was not in the Court of Special Appeals (the traditional appellate court), but yet it was issued by the Circuit Court sitting in its "appellate capacity" as the "appeals court" over the HGPRB and MSP. Make you feel better about what still is going on a few months later? MSP traditions die hard.
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...il.jis?caseId=17C15019777&loc=53&detailLoc=CC
" . . . although the error of law discussed in the proceeding paragraph should resolve this case, the Board committed a separate and independent evidentiary error when it required that Petitioner produce documentation of threats against him as a condition precedent to considering Petitioner's own testimony of threats against him."
I have not seen the entire written decision, but it certainly appears from what the Judge entered into Case Search that this is a Circuit Court reversing the prior HGPRB's decision to uphold the MSP's denial of a Special Police Officer's permit because 1) he IS in an assumed risk category, but more importantly to the rest of you 2) also noting that it was an "error of law" for MSP and the prior Board to require him to produce documentation of threats versus just his own sworn testimony. Sound familiar? When did you last hear that documentation requirement? Two weeks ago? MSP and its attorneys may argue that this decision has no precedential value to future cases because it was not in the Court of Special Appeals (the traditional appellate court), but yet it was issued by the Circuit Court sitting in its "appellate capacity" as the "appeals court" over the HGPRB and MSP. Make you feel better about what still is going on a few months later? MSP traditions die hard.
Last edited:
dblas
Always a gentleman and even, just as oft, a scholar.
Hat is off to you sir.
Always a gentleman and even, just as oft, a scholar.
Hat is off to you sir.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Moving out of the PRM to the sunny freedom of Florida
- Started by johnsopi
- Replies: 2
-
-