There is loads of proof that they are NOT addressing the appeals chronologically.
HPRB September 15, 2015 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:
There is loads of proof that they are NOT addressing the appeals chronologically.
I have been following somewhat closely. I don't think anyone has abstained yet.
If not chronological, sure would be nice to first be reviewing cases where there is a question of whether a G&S standard has been met vs folks who are denied because of disqualifying information (e.g. felonies). I wonder if the latter group is more pushy in getting their cases to the review board - as obviously they aren't hesitating to request a permit which should be rejected on the merits - or it is being argued that the permit is essential for their employment so these appeals get prioritized.
IIRC, Mrs White abstained on at least one applicant vote at the previous meeting. May have been more.
I swear the previous HPRB meeting thread ended with the same discussion.
Thought that wasn't (basically ever) supposed to happen?
The CPA was not the owner of the firm.
This case could have been huge, IMO due to the specific lack of being a business owner or having documented threats. I was on the edge of my seat as they voted.....
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,292
Thought that wasn't (basically ever) supposed to happen?
Where the applicant hung himself was when he explained that although he was responsible for financial transactions, they were transmitted electronically and not by hand-delivery to financial institutions. He opted for more of a self-defense angle than the financial/business angle. He did, however, convey that being a fraud examiner put him in a precarious position when involved with million dollar clients. This is where Jurgena brought up that just because he had not been threatened YET... the facts favored him enough to warrant being granted a permit. i.e... you should NOT have to be a victim FIRST... to be granted a permit. Jurgena wears a white hat for a reason...
I type slow...
I know the man's fighting cancer but I wish Hogan would get off the pot and appoint someone to fill the vacancy. Seeing this case tonight being denied because of one board member's apparent spaghetti spine was disheartening to say the least.
Not sure which I enjoyed more tonight, the actual meeting or the group convo out on the curb afterwards... 
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,292
Not sure which I enjoyed more tonight, the actual meeting or the group convo out on the curb afterwards...
The after-meeting meetings are usually pretty enlightening... I like when people let their hair down(so to speak)... you get a little better feel for where they are coming from. It's good to hear differing points of view... and toss in a little Secret Squirrel stuff for good measure...
CypherPunk
Opinions Are My Own
- Apr 6, 2012
- 3,907
At least one of these cases was from an application submitted in Feb 2014.
Hearings within 90 days, no.
Accurate information to appellants, no.
Having longer than a 1 hour meeting to eliminate the backlog, no.
Meeting on the 5th Tuesday to work through pending cases, no.
Fair hearings based on applicable law, no.
Meeting minutes, no.
Public, OMA compliant meetings, no.
Hearings within 90 days, no.
Accurate information to appellants, no.
Having longer than a 1 hour meeting to eliminate the backlog, no.
Meeting on the 5th Tuesday to work through pending cases, no.
Fair hearings based on applicable law, no.
Meeting minutes, no.
Public, OMA compliant meetings, no.
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,292
If they can get through 6 reviews in 1 hour, then the meeting should be lasting 3 hours and the backlog should be gone in no time at all... Someone is screwing the pooch...
- Dec 22, 2009
- 4,759
Good to see you all are whipping them into shape..
...I suspect what you are witnessing is the same MO they have used for decades.....Not sure why you are expecting anything differently.....
shootin the breeze
Missed it by that much
IOTA Firearms and Security Training
CypherPunk
Opinions Are My Own
- Apr 6, 2012
- 3,907
Good to see you all are whipping them into shape..
There has been progress, but you wouldn't know it unless you were actually involved in the effort to advance 2A rights in Maryland.
Good to see you all are whipping them into shape..
SCDoGo
Member
- Dec 6, 2014
- 84
The chair can vote on all cases. Minimum quorum of 3 members must be present to convene. 4 members currently appointed (1 vacancy waiting to be filled) If any case ends in a tie, the appeal loses and MSPs position wins. The chair can often be seen not to vote in cases where the other members vote a majority, making his vote (either in assent or dissent of the majority) irrelevant, abstaining his vote and keeping it off the record.
Is this correct, a case (cpa) of SD as G&S was voted against by a Hogan appointee?
The no vote was by a person who has a business that trains "security" personnel.
Please don't say he hung himself, I thought that SD as G&S is what some want in MD. ? Looks like they are averaging 10 per month, not sure if this is good or bad without knowing the number back logged.
Thanks to all who attended.
The no vote was by a person who has a business that trains "security" personnel.
Please don't say he hung himself, I thought that SD as G&S is what some want in MD. ? Looks like they are averaging 10 per month, not sure if this is good or bad without knowing the number back logged.
Thanks to all who attended.
