HPRB July 22, 2019 Meeting Thread

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!
  • Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,681
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Next applicant. Same issues as the person before him. He tents townhouses in Cecil County. Never knows if the provisions will result in applicant going to jail. Has no evidence. Was sucker punched by tenant who did 6 months in jail for attack. Sometimes probably in violation if restrictions.

    MSP said issued permit on landlord tenant issues. Consistent with other restrictions. Assault occured in 2012. Did not provide documentation of attacks.

    Applicant gave police a hospital report to MSP. Provided with permit issued in 2013.

    Looks like this means everything application must have all previous documents contained within. Looks like another new random rule and regulation.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    28,431
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    I swear some of this sounds like marriage counseling.


    "If you bring the MSP new info will you, MSP reconsider?"

    Okay, good, now play kissey face in the lobby.
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,681
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Next applicant same issue as yep applicant's before him. Said committee is not removing restrictions. Restrictions are vague. Worried about being in handcuffs. Works constantly.....not on a clock.
     

    Applehd

    Throbbing Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 26, 2012
    5,290
    Two words... Shit Show... this Board has no f**king idea what their powers are...

    p.s. ... or are just paying lip service to the peons...

    I'm sure "Silent Jack" feels more comfortable around this new lot of deniers...
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,681
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Next applicant a woman sitting next to me. Provided her testimony to the board and MSP. Laplata business owner. Local ties to community in a historical manner. Nutritional counselor. Operates a machine that scans the body. Hours from 630 to 4 pm. Arrives on office while other building Tennant's are not present. Wanted to increase her safety to outside her house. Goes to bank and discusses issues with clients outside the hours of business. Concerned about when she is conducting business and not. So, for example, not armed, then runs into client now doing business are unarmed.

    Believes that she has a duty to show up and make the request. Wants help to understand restrictions.
     

    EdHershon

    Active Member
    Oct 2, 2018
    127
    Annapolis
    As an attorney, I’m appalled by the clear lack of knowledge on the part of the Board members. It’s an embarrassment on the part of the Governor that these people are making judgments on the ability of the people to be granted their constitutional rights.

    The Board members are under the false impression that they cannot overturn a decision of the MSP. They believe that the restriction issue is settled law through Woolard.

    The restrictions issue has never been litigated in the Courts. Moreover Woolard only deals with good and substantial.

    Unfortunately, people appearing before this Board need to have legal representation.
     

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,480
    Underground Bunker
    The board was trained by the MSP , that is why the results are as they are . MSP & State can not win unless they set the game rules and put lackeys in for the guarantee of a win .
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,681
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Stevi's accomplice says there may be no authority for closed meetings. May be in violation of OMA.

    Said chairman said no closed meetings.

    Why is this suddenly an issue? I smell a rat.
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    There are a few consistent themes here:

    Woefully unprepared applicants

    Board members during their best "Trained by the MSP" circus monkey routine

    MSP handgun permit unit arguably one of the laziest government units in the state (i.e. we will not call WMTA)
     

    Applehd

    Throbbing Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 26, 2012
    5,290
    Just sayin'... I was not "woefully unprepared" when I went before the Board to have my restriction removed. I was actually asked by a lawyer friend if I had any law experience after he listened to my testimony. He was surprised when I told him I had none. That being said, I cannot see myself prevailing before this Board. They are clueless as to the power they wield. The vast number of references to the legislature by the Vice Chair sounds as if we are being taught a lesson by the Crown. Change the legislature or the beatings will continue.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,434
    Montgomery County
    These guys ARE aware that the panel has previously lifted restrictions, right? Hasn’t anyone they’re denying (removal) simply reminded them of that when they say to tell it to the legislature?
     

    CrabcakesAndFootball

    Active Member
    Jun 14, 2017
    697
    As an attorney, I’m appalled by the clear lack of knowledge on the part of the Board members. It’s an embarrassment on the part of the Governor that these people are making judgments on the ability of the people to be granted their constitutional rights.

    The Board members are under the false impression that they cannot overturn a decision of the MSP. They believe that the restriction issue is settled law through Woolard.

    The restrictions issue has never been litigated in the Courts. Moreover Woolard only deals with good and substantial.

    Unfortunately, people appearing before this Board need to have legal representation.

    That’s crazy. It’s not unusual to have an appellate administrative body that looks at the decisions of other agencies and is an administrative appeal that must be exhausted before Court. That exists all over the place in the law. Smalkin knows this of course. I don’t understand why they’re having such difficulty with the concept. Bizarre stuff.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,634
    Messages
    7,289,273
    Members
    33,491
    Latest member
    Wolfloc22

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom