HPRB July 19, 2016 Meeting Thread

[Mr. Ed]

Most of us have an opinion about whether or not the MSP LD is pro 2A. Their actions indicate that they are not our friends. Steadfastly holding the party line and making it difficult, unpleasant, often unsuccessful and futile to actually get a useful permit (one that isn't so heavily restricted that it could be violated accidentally) has been MSP LD SOP for a long time.

Last night the MSP LD reps were challenged in a way that must have been a new experience for them. Their shock, displeasure, and probably anger were apparent in their body language. As others have said, this isn't personal. We are trying to regain our 2A RIGHTS, so that we can protect our own lives and those of our loved ones, and the MSP LD folks are systematically denying them based on historical decisions, habit, narrow interpretation of the law, and a fear of doing something that might get them, the LD, into trouble. Yes, they may take it personally to have their decisions overruled. Most of us would probably feel that way too, if one of our well thought out business decisions was overturned by a panel of folks outside of our chain of command. But I guarantee them that we take it a hell of a lot more personally when they deny us our God given right of self defense based on how they feel about our need.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during this morning's debriefing. Hell, I'd pay good money to be there as an observer. Last night's action by the HPRB just might be the catalyst that gets some changes moving. Bad news is that it could go either way... for or against us.

I'm ecstatic for Bill that he theoretically got his restrictions lifted. The proof will be in the pudding, or in this case in the mail. Prayers sent, and fingers are crossed.

 

[eruby]

Congratulations mxrider!!!!!

 

[Stoveman]

This sums it up. MSP has a clear culture that is Anti - 2A. Seen it time and time again. Cops don't want run of the mill citizens to carry guns freely. They don't want us to have equal footing. They want to remain "special". Quite frankly they can kiss my rear end. Hi guys. You don't support me, I sure as hell will not support you, and in these trying times you don't have many friends.



They are actually really sad about this and do not mean it. They would like for nothing else than to have it their way in every instance. MSP is not a friendly organization to 2A.






I tend to disagree. I think the dominant culture at MSP is fundamentally Anti-2A. It comes out very clearly when the Troopers get so PASSIONATE and ANGRY when their decisions are overturned. Trust me they take it VERY personally. The heated discussion in the parking lot supports this. They are not our friends in this arena.

Most of us have an opinion about whether or not the MSP LD is pro 2A. Their actions indicate that they are not our friends. Steadfastly holding the party line and making it difficult, unpleasant, often unsuccessful and futile to actually get a useful permit (one that isn't so heavily restricted that it could be violated accidentally) has been MSP LD SOP for a long time.

Last night the MSP LD reps were challenged in a way that must have been a new experience for them. Their shock, displeasure, and probably anger were apparent in their body language. As others have said, this isn't personal. We are trying to regain our 2A RIGHTS, so that we can protect our own lives and those of our loved ones, and the MSP LD folks are systematically denying them based on historical decisions, habit, narrow interpretation of the law, and a fear of doing something that might get them, the LD, into trouble. Yes, they may take it personally to have their decisions overruled. Most of us would probably feel that way too, if one of our well thought out business decisions was overturned by a panel of folks outside of our chain of command. But I guarantee them that we take it a hell of a lot more personally when they deny us our God given right of self defense based on how they feel about our need.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during this morning's debriefing. Hell, I'd pay good money to be there as an observer. Last night's action by the HPRB just might be the catalyst that gets some changes moving. Bad news is that it could go either way... for or against us.

I'm ecstatic for Bill that he theoretically got his restrictions lifted. The proof will be in the pudding, or in this case in the mail. Prayers sent, and fingers are crossed.

Or they could be pissed at what they see as inconsistency from the board.

Just food for thought.....

 

[mxrider]

Or they could be pissed at what they see as inconsistency from the board.

Just food for thought.....

Or a combination of many of these things.

 

[Schipperke]

You guys do offer them donuts I hope..

 

[basscat]

Why does MSP got their pantys in a bunch? Simple: EGO! How dare a civilian override their decisions. The higher in rank the bigger the ego. This doesn't apply to all of them but the majority of them.

 

[Mr. Ed]

You guys do offer them donuts I hope..

Actually, cookies this time. No takers.

 

[rambling_one]

Actually, cookies this time. No takers.

I took two. They were delicious, Ed.

 

[Magnumst]

Why does MSP got their pantys in a bunch? Simple: EGO! How dare a civilian override their decisions. The higher in rank the bigger the ego. This doesn't apply to all of them but the majority of them.

As it was stated last night and in previous meetings, MSP sees our carry rights as a mere "privilege" and "luxury" that they keep and hand out as they see fit. This is power that they see slipping through their fingers 1 permit at a time. Maybe someone should tell them that, that is the way we feel as our 2a rights die year by year.

 

[dblas]

What bothers me about this portion is the fact that this enables people to create law. If someone posted a no chewing gum sticker, would that then become law?

If it is changed to reflect how other states do it, there are specifications for the sign size, language, and picture. If it doesn't meet all three of those requirements by law then the sign is null and void.

 

[dblas]

FIFY for comprehensive accuracy.

NO, no, no....once you use those words, they shut down and stop listening and they can use all of their arguments.

Change the discussion and the verbiage to suit us, yes it is a Constitutional right, and changing the conversation don't change that, but what it does change is their ability to argue against it, because if the argue against the right to personal protection then that resonates with ALL of their constituents.


Look at the bigger picture that changing the conversation affects.

 

[dblas]

I am definitely not LR's sidekick, Kemosabe



Exactly.

My prediction of trouble was not meant as gloom and doom. I trust Dblas when he says we have good chances for inroads in the MGA while focusing on personal protection. It's a good strategy, IMO.

I was just pointing out the luck in having an unrestricted permit granted the first time the antis show up to a board meeting and the probability that they will twist it to guns being doled out like candy.

My intention was that we should be prepared for this and not be as blindsided as we were in Jurgena's case.

I absolutely agree we plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Indeed, congratulations, MX. I totally agree with you on this and am happy for you. And thanks for helping pave the way for the rest of us.

 

[dblas]

Or they could be pissed at what they see as inconsistency from the board.

Just food for thought.....

This....

 

[dblas]

You guys do offer them donuts I hope..

Cookies.

 

[BeoBill]

NO, no, no....once you use those words, they shut down and stop listening and they can use all of their arguments.

Change the discussion and the verbiage to suit us, yes it is a Constitutional right, and changing the conversation don't change that, but what it does change is their ability to argue against it, because if the argue against the right to personal protection then that resonates with ALL of their constituents.


Look at the bigger picture that changing the conversation affects.

If we don't enlarge "the picture" to include those concepts somehow, we will continue to have entities like the MGA, MPGV and the MSP LD continue to view our rights as "privileges" that they MAY (or MAY NOT) grant "exemptions" and "permits" for (after satisfying whatever onerous conditions they cook up).

That, IMO, is the BIGGER picture. Words have meaning. We need to be smarter with our employment of them.

 

[dblas]

If we don't enlarge "the picture" to include those concepts somehow, we will continue to have entities like the MGA, MPGV and the MSP LD continue to view our rights as "privileges" that they MAY (or MAY NOT) grant "exemptions" and "permits" for (after satisfying whatever onerous conditions they cook up).

That, IMO, is the BIGGER picture. Words have meaning. We need to be smarter with our employment of them.

The MGA shutdown and DOES NOT LISTEN when you use the term 2nd Amendment Right, this is about getting them to listen and not be able to have anything to stand on "SCOTUS said the right can be restricted" for example.

Using just the phrase, our god given constitutional rights only gets us so far, and hasn't gotten us much lately. Change the message, change the result. It really is that simple.

If you want to continue to use the same words, then by all means be my guest, but try not to put words in my mouth on how I am going to approach things as an individual.

And you are correct, words do have meaning and they already have made up their mind on what they mean to them. So change the message and become smarter with the employment of the message, not just the words.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Anyone know what the crazy moms are reporting about the meetings?

 

[DC-W]

Having testified in Annapolis every year since 2013, I can tell you without any hesitation that those in the MGA immediately shut off when hearing about Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason. They couldn't care less about "God-given rights" and don't view self-defense rights in the same vein as other rights.

It's an entirely futile effort to engage them this way and the same is true with the MSP and even in front of the board. It simply doesn't matter and the argument carries no legal weight whatsoever. This is Maryland, not Texas. Not Utah. Not Indiana.

Unless the players are changed in the long term, the game won't be changing any time soon. Using practical arguments tailored to your individual circumstances holds substantially more weight than merely bringing up rights.

 

[Tomcat]

NO, no, no....once you use those words, they shut down and stop listening and they can use all of their arguments.

Change the discussion and the verbiage to suit us, yes it is a Constitutional right, and changing the conversation don't change that, but what it does change is their ability to argue against it, because if the argue against the right to personal protection then that resonates with ALL of their constituents.


Look at the bigger picture that changing the conversation affects.

So Personal Protection is the new phrase. Need to start getting everyone on board with this before February

 

[dblas]

So Personal Protection is the new phrase. Need to start getting everyone on board with this before February

This is what I am saying yes, a personal protection argument can easily tailored for each and every one of us, giving us, 1,000, 5,000, however many different people with a different message with the same idea.