HPRB July 12, 2016 Meeting Thread

[highli99]

So the commander of the LD and the Asst Commander were allowed into the closed session even though they were not technically a party to the hearing? Wash Frosh allowed in too? How about Vinny Demarco?

This grinds my gears. Double standard is not acceptable. How can we push back on this?

 

[Biggfoot44]

The LD brass could concievably be considered as representing the MSP LD in their official capacity.

 

[USAFRavenR6]

This grinds my gears. Double standard is not acceptable. How can we push back on this?

People are able to bring who they want into the hearings as witnesses or character references. We are afforded the same as the MSP, they are not doing anything out of bounds there.

We as a group need to stop listening to people who have never traversed this process and do not know what they are talking about. Changes are being made, I work with multiple people who do not own businesses that applied under security clearances as their G&S who have received their permits without having to go to the HPRB. That in my eyes is a win as we are chipping away at what constitutes as G&S and what does not.

 

[Blacksmith101]

People are able to bring who they want into the hearings as witnesses or character references. We are afforded the same as the MSP, they are not doing anything out of bounds there.

We as a group need to stop listening to people who have never traversed this process and do not know what they are talking about. Changes are being made, I work with multiple people who do not own businesses that applied under security clearances as their G&S who have received their permits without having to go to the HPRB. That in my eyes is a win as we are chipping away at what constitutes as G&S and what does not.

I agree we are making progress. The underlying problem is there should be no requirement for a G&S, time to reread the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

[BeoBill]

So the commander of the LD and the Asst Commander were allowed into the closed session even though they were not technically a party to the hearing? Wash Frosh allowed in too? How about Vinny Demarco?

If that closed session was the one in which they "discussed legal issues" then something is definitely brewing. That situation is most significant.

I will reserve changing my opinion of the LDs operations until I gather more facts to judge. Until then, I have observed little change in their views.

Granted, possessing a clearance makes one a target, but to my view it is only one factor to be considered in the process. If it was the only criterion, as has been implied, then many, many of us would apply.

As I said, I will reserve judgement.

 

[dblas]

So the commander of the LD and the Asst Commander were allowed into the closed session even though they were not technically a party to the hearing? Wash Frosh allowed in too? How about Vinny Demarco?

All of the troopers went even, even shows that in't have anything to do with the application.

 

[doublins]

My personal experience interacting with the MSP during the process of obtaining my permit was very positive. I talked to Lazuick directly in the hallway one day, and found him to be honest, respectful, receptive to hearing my questions, gave good info, and was open to following up on the phone if I had more questions.

My investigator was cordial, direct, receptive to my personal reasons stated for my G&S, openly supportive of civilian carry in general, stated that "more people should apply," than do, and thorough in following up with my contacts.

I personally refuse to buy into these theories of the MSP as an oppressive anti-2A agency hell-bent on denying our rights. I believe whole-heartedly that things are slowly improving. Our AG sucks, that is known, but I believe the process is improving, and I put my money where my mouth was and it worked.

 

[TheBulge]

My personal experience interacting with the MSP during the process of obtaining my permit was very positive.

My experience couldn't have been more different. Everyone I dealt with was completely unprofessional, lost documents, unreturned emails, they made my references call them, the decision was delayed well past the allotted timeframe, phone calls resorted in endless cycles of transfers usually resulting in a disconnection. When I asked why my assumed risk position wasn't accepted as G&S I was told "that's not what its for" and when I pointed out their SOP I was told "we have to change that".

 

[montoya32]

People are able to bring who they want into the hearings as witnesses or character references. We are afforded the same as the MSP, they are not doing anything out of bounds there.

We as a group need to stop listening to people who have never traversed this process and do not know what they are talking about. Changes are being made, I work with multiple people who do not own businesses that applied under security clearances as their G&S who have received their permits without having to go to the HPRB. That in my eyes is a win as we are chipping away at what constitutes as G&S and what does not.

Only if designated individuals are sworn in or attorneys.

 

[N3YMY]

I seem to recall there is a question of if they should even be able to have these closed hearings.

Doesn't the sunshine law dramatically restrict the circumstances under which they can conduct hearings behind closed doors?

Or is my memory faulty...?

 

[robmints]

Denials of previous holders being reviewed or restriction modification is in the law, iirc.

 

[BeoBill]

Discussion of PII is also a valid reason.

 

[eachurch1972]

Agree! There should be no need for G&S. Do Maryland citizens not deserve the right to protect themselves in and out of the home? Maryland has become a very, very violent place to live and work.