This happened today, 03/27/2014....CONFISCATION

PJDiesel · Mar 28, 2014

The fact that a vast majority of these bills never even see the light of day (vote) is just silly. Pretty simple really, if the HJC doesn't like it, no stress, ...just trash it! Something is fundamentally wrong there.

HappyCamper · Mar 28, 2014

Here's their playbook - straight from Alinsky. Study it and fight back using it against them.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

redeemed.man · Mar 28, 2014

HappyCamper said:
Here's their playbook - straight from Alinsky. Study it and fight back using it against them.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Good post

Johnthetoolguy · Mar 28, 2014

Clovis said:
If I understand what the OP is saying here, the young person picked up a regulated firearm in the last few days...did he have a HQL? If so, the MSP overlooked his PBJ something like at least 3 times. Haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I missed something.

Yes, that is what I was saying. He purchased a handgun about two weeks ago which means he had the HQL. It apparently took less than two weeks for the 'not disapproved' paperwork to come back, unless the dealer delivered w/o it. This I do not know, and I did not consider that possibility. I did not ask his Dad about that.
The other pick up was in December, but I do not know if that was a pre Oct 1 purchase or not.
Perhaps the state just wants to see people spend their money on the HQL, gun sale, restocking fee, attorney and have nothing to show for it in the end.

fabsroman said:
If the son hasn't been in any trouble since the PBJ, have him apply for an expungement. Problem solved in about 30 to 60 days. Only problem is whether the MSP is willing to hold the guns for the amount of time it takes for the expungement to go through so they can be returned to the son. If they are handguns, they can be transferred to his dad right now until the expungement goes through. If they are banned assault weapons, then he needs to get on the expungement route IMMEDIATELY and see if he can get it done in time for those banned firearms to be returned to him.

I have known this kid since he was 6 years old. I know he has not messed up since the PBJ, 'cause his father would have kicked the crap out of him.
From what my buddy told me, he now has possession of his son's long guns but the regulated items were moved somewhere else. They are not in the possession of the MSP according to my buddy. I would not be appropriate for me to say where (my buddy told me) the guns are.

Inigoes · Mar 28, 2014

John,

Get some amnesia, and edit your post.

iH8DemLibz · Mar 28, 2014

boundlessdyad said:
You could also look at it from the perspective of a major win (most likely in a court of law) regarding right to carry would crush the incrementalism war as a whole. Incrementalism is in its essence a long drawn out infringement process.

This can be taken two ways:

Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.

Or

The right for a person to carry a firearm automatically infers the right to own a firearm.

The courts really need to step up.

redeemed.man · Mar 28, 2014

iH8DemLibz said:
This can be taken two ways:

Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.

Or

The right for a person to carry a firearm automatically infers the right to own a firearm.

The courts really need to step up.

iH8DemLibz · Mar 28, 2014

boundlessdyad said:

ShallNotInfringe · Mar 28, 2014

Johnthetoolguy said:
Yes, that is what I was saying. He purchased a handgun about two weeks ago which means he had the HQL. It apparently took less than two weeks for the 'not disapproved' paperwork to come back, unless the dealer delivered w/o it. This I do not know, and I did not consider that possibility. I did not ask his Dad about that.
The other pick up was in December, but I do not know if that was a pre Oct 1 purchase or not.
Perhaps the state just wants to see people spend their money on the HQL, gun sale, restocking fee, attorney and have nothing to show for it in the end.

I have known this kid since he was 6 years old. I know he has not messed up since the PBJ, 'cause his father would have kicked the shite out of him.
From what my buddy told me, he now has possession of his son's long guns but the regulated items were moved somewhere else. They are not in the possession of the MSP according to my buddy. I would not be appropriate for me to say where (my buddy told me) the guns are.

Question 4 on the new 77R is clear. "Have you ever received a probation before judgement (PBJ) for a crime of violence? (refer to question 3 for the definition of a crime of violence...)"

Interesting that the MSP Not Disapproval process and the HQL issuance didn't catch this.

ShallNotInfringe · Mar 28, 2014

iH8DemLibz said:
This can be taken two ways:

Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.

Or

The right for a person to carry a firearm automatically infers the right to own a firearm.

The courts really need to step up.

Don't you mean this?

"Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.

Or

The right for a person to own a firearm automatically infers the right to carry a firearm.

Heck, that's what the 2nd amendment says, huh?

iH8DemLibz · Mar 28, 2014

ShallNotInfringe said:
Question 4 on the new 77R is clear. "Have you ever received a probation before judgement (PBJ) for a crime of violence? (refer to question 3 for the definition of a crime of violence...)"

Interesting that the MSP Not Disapproval process and the HQL issuance didn't catch this.

This was my first thought too.

But not "catching" it, it may allow the State to recover more than just the one firearm when they go to get the one firearm.

iH8DemLibz · Mar 28, 2014

ShallNotInfringe said:
Don't you mean this?

"Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.

Or

The right for a person to own a firearm automatically infers the right to carry a firearm.

Heck, that's what the 2nd amendment says, huh?

I see what you did there...

The whole "keep and bear" thing.

Kman · Mar 28, 2014

ShallNotInfringe said:
Question 4 on the new 77R is clear. "Have you ever received a probation before judgement (PBJ) for a crime of violence? (refer to question 3 for the definition of a crime of violence...)"

Interesting that the MSP Not Disapproval process and the HQL issuance didn't catch this.

It might be interesting, but it is not surprising. It all looks like an enormous CF and "making it up as they go" operation, to me. :sad20:

ShallNotInfringe · Mar 28, 2014

iH8DemLibz said:
This was my first thought too.

But not "catching" it, it may allow the State to recover more than just the one firearm when they go to get the one firearm.

Right. Smart fella you are

ShallNotInfringe · Mar 28, 2014

Kman said:
It might be interesting, but it is not surprising. It all looks like an enormous CF and "making it up as they go" operation, to me.

Nope I think ih8demlibz is onto something, if they see you have more than one, and they prevent the transfer, then there's a tip off that they'll be coming for the others. By letting the current transfer go through, they are ensnaring a person to confiscate the entire collection.

Don't forget they have a special task force down there working on this...

Name Taken · Mar 28, 2014

boundlessdyad said:
Maybe you missed the part about him being 17 when the alleged crime occurred. Is it possible that he didn't even commit a crime, maybe he was with a stupid friend who did. Maybe the judge wanted him to choose better friends so he sent his message through a PBJ. Have you ever spent anytime in a MD courtroom? Prior to 10/1/13 judges gave out PBJ's to damn near anyone for a first offense without even considering whether they were innocent or not. Walk into a PG or Baltimore City courtroom even today and you will see every first time arrestee that can't afford an attorney will be lined up gladly accepting a PBJ without understanding the consequences. PBJ's are and will continue to be given out to innocent people who don't understand the consequences. Not to mention the fact that when the alleged crime occur this law (SB281) wasn't even in place to begin with.

You just go right ahead and keep on judging someone you don't know and a story you only have pieces of. Must be nice to live life in the mistake free zone.

You apparently have some reading issues....in order to get PBJ the judge has to find them GUILTY. They then STRIKE the finding PENDING them not screwing up (or at least getting caught) before the probation is up.

The reality is you can continue to screw up often even while on a PBJ and STILL not get the original charge brought back up.

This was covered a few pages back though...might have missed it.

RoadDawg · Mar 28, 2014

2SAM22 said:
I think you are mistaken. A PBJ is not a guilty plea nor finding. The Defendant is simply agreeing to abide by terms of probation - before a judgement is made.

You are welcome to disagree... But explain then, why any innocent person would be on any probation?

This is the way that PBJ is viewed by the MSP. It is the ONLY way they can justify their actions in this matter. In the term "Probation Before Judgement", the "Judgement" is not referring to a finding of guilt or innocence. It refers to the penalty assessed. The Probation in this case hinges on the persons ability to abide by all laws during the probation period OR face the penalty for the crime they were charged with in the original case. Why would there be penalties in a case where the party is innocent.

No... PBJ is actually a self entered plea of guilty in return for delaying any penalty for a period of time. That time period is the probation. It exists as a period of time for the party to show the judge that they know how to abide by laws without having to suffer any penalty for their original violation.

redeemed.man · Mar 28, 2014

Name Taken said:
You apparently have some reading issues....in order to get PBJ the judge has to find them GUILTY. They then STRIKE the finding PENDING them not screwing up (or at least getting caught) before the probation is up.

The reality is you can continue to screw up often even while on a PBJ and STILL not get the original charge brought back up.

This was covered a few pages back though...might have missed it.

Nope didn't miss anything. Actually complimented you on some of your later posts. A Judge making a finding of guilty is BS in many of these instances (I am speaking of young first time offenders). Many young people who find themselves before a judge for the first time are scared and often not too bright. They don't know their rights, they don't understand "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". They think oh sh1t I've been arrested so I am f_cked. They don't hear anything but the part about no trial/no punishment from the Public Defender and will take the PBJ offer in a heartbeat. Many will do this even when innocent. If they knew the consequences they may not accept the PBJ. Public Defenders don't explain much to clients in my experience. Let's face it Public Defenders are part of the system that needs the cycle to continue to justify their existence. PBJ's get the case turned over quickly which is what the Public Defender, Assistant State's Attorney, and Judge all want.

fabsroman · Mar 28, 2014

PJDiesel said:
Buddy of mine is being told by the MSP (and his lawyer) they're unsure if he'll even be able to legally HUNT within MD, this is over a very similar situation I've mentioned in the other thread (old charge in DE, married the woman he had supposed domestic with ~8 years ago, still with her)

He could hunt with a bow. The entire PBJ thing making a person prohibited really bugs the heck out of me. Then again, there are a lot of crimes that make a person prohibited that bug the heck out of me too.

Name Taken · Mar 28, 2014

boundlessdyad said:
Nope didn't miss anything. Actually complimented you on some of your later posts. A Judge making a finding of guilty is BS in many of these instances (I am speaking of young first time offenders). Many young people who find themselves before a judge for the first time are scared and often not too bright. They don't know their rights, they don't understand "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". They think oh sh1t I've been arrested so I am f_cked. They don't hear anything but the part about no trial/no punishment from the Public Defender and will take the PBJ offer in a heartbeat. Many will do this even when innocent. If they knew the consequences they may not accept the PBJ. Public Defenders don't explain much to clients in my experience. Let's face it Public Defenders are part of the system that needs the cycle to continue to justify their existence. PBJ's get the case turned over quickly which is what the Public Defender, Assistant State's Attorney, and Judge all want.

So because they do not take their charge seriously and either A) Do their own research B) Consult with their attorney C) Think...maybe I'm in NOT GUILTY I shouldn't settle for something else that's not their own problem?

No difference then people who know they have a court case for 6 months and do nothing to obtain a lawyer....sorry you didn't take court seriously but now it's time to put your big boy pants on and man up.

The case or report is READ and heard by the judge..it's not like the judge looks at the person, see's the charges listed, and makes a decision. If they were NOT GUILTY or if doubt could be raised why wouldn't they attempt. The reality is the vast majority (pick a percentage over 75%) are guilty and are willing to take a PBJ to stay out of jail.

This happened today, 03/27/2014....CONFISCATION

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

~

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

When All Else Fails.

Ultimate Member

When All Else Fails.

Lil Firecracker

Lil Firecracker

When All Else Fails.

When All Else Fails.

Blah, blah, blah

Lil Firecracker

Lil Firecracker

Ultimate Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics