HB90 Disqualifying Crime – Domestically Related Crime

Norton · Dec 23, 2013

You have to admire Simmons' persistence, if nothing else.

Disqualifying Crime – Domestically Related Crime

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hb/hb0090f.pdf

Gryphon · Dec 23, 2013

I am all for reasonable domestic violence protection (not the current statutes that too easily allow for temp. domestic/peace orders), and for terminating the rights of those actually convicted of a crimes of violence from having access to firearms, but this is over the top by a guy that must think he is way smarter than the rest of us or just being overly cute!

Norton · Dec 23, 2013

In classic Simmons style, he will attempt to spin this as being good for gun owners.

teratos · Dec 23, 2013

Simmons left no Kool-Aid in the pitcher.

rwbow1969 · Dec 24, 2013

What a Dick.

Clovis · Dec 24, 2013

Having watched this delegate in action, no one, not even his loyal groupies, has a higher opinion of him than he does. Just ask him. This is some really cute legal manuever that will take a law school professor to explain. He really likes going after people with PBJs, low hanging fruit I guess.

Brooklyn · Dec 24, 2013

Opening the PBJ can of worms does not help them....

It increases the chance of getting the whole thing tosses under substantive due process.

in any case prepare to 30 hour hearings this time..

We need the numbers do not lake this without a fight.. make them pay..

I found decent logging only 20 min away and i think I can do better...

Vile Shadow · Dec 24, 2013

Norton said:
You have to admire Simmons' persistence, if nothing else.

Disqualifying Crime – Domestically Related Crime

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hb/hb0090f.pdf

I admire nothing about this man.

Name Taken · Dec 24, 2013

Other then piling on more anti gun laws what's the real foul in this proposition.

2nd Degree assault as defined other places in the law is excluded from a "crime of violence" definition. It's "logical" to me that if you have a PBJ for a "crime of violence" (1st Degree Assault, Rape, Attempted Murder, Robbery etc) that maybe you SHOULD be excluded.

I'd like to go one step farther and see them just limit WHAT the JUDGES can HAND OUT PBJ's for. That seems to solve this problem more then regulating it on the gun side. But the Judges who have ZERO accountability can't be restrained by any COMMON SENSE legislation in this state.

As for the domestic part I'm not overly against that idea either. I do know that "Domestic Assault" cases can be VERY made up. And a PBJ is an easy way to keep the "defendants" life in order while still documenting it through the court system. I would not want the PBJ on Domestic cases to be retro active. It should be received a PBJ for X date forward. No use in punishing someone who took a PBJ many years later.

Vile Shadow · Dec 24, 2013

Name Taken said:
I do know that "Domestic Assault" cases can be VERY made up. And a PBJ is an easy way to keep the "defendants" life in order while still documenting it through the court system. I would not want the PBJ on Domestic cases to be retro active. It should be received a PBJ for X date forward. No use in punishing someone who took a PBJ many years later.

This is ******** on it's face. :mad54:

Convictions should be the defining factor here, not PBJ's. What gives anyone the right to open a can of worms like this just because some states' attorney somewhere is too incompetent to build a decent case, with the judge being well aware of it?

Furthermore, expect the definition of "assault" to broadened significantly, probably even to include the use of foul language.

MJD438 · Dec 24, 2013

Exclusion of a Constitutionally-protected right must follow substantive due process of law. If there was enough to find that a person should have rights removed, said person should be incarcerated, not given PBJ, IMO.

rwbow1969 · Dec 24, 2013

It also expands on the definition of who is Domestically related: A person who had a sexual relationship with the defendant within 12 months before the commission of the crime.

As in; you dated and had sex with a person 11 months and 20 days ago and haven't seen them since that time. You run into them someplace and a scuffle ensues. You are now charged with Domestic Violence.

Mr H · Dec 24, 2013

rwbow1969 said:
It also expands on the definition of who is Domestically related: A person who had a sexual relationship with the defendant within 12 months before the commission of the crime.

As in; you dated and had sex with a person 11 months and 20 days ago and haven't seen them since that time. You run into them someplace and a scuffle ensues. You are now charged with Domestic Violence.

But you can still beat the tar out of other people you live with and NOT have sexual relations with them??

I'll read this in detail a little later, but at first glance it seems to fail out of the gate.

Another item I'll be interested in understanding, is what will be the burden of proof to establish a "sexual relationship".

rwbow1969 · Dec 24, 2013

squirrels said:
Is it saying that PBJ for 2nd Assault can still be a disqualification if it's related to a DV?

"OTHER THAN ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE."

The way I read it is you can still receive a charge of assault in the 2nd deg. and still be able to retain firearm ownership. I think the main change is who is considered a domestic relation.

I've been known to be wrong though.

rwbow1969 · Dec 24, 2013

Mr H said:
But you can still beat the tar out of other people you live with and NOT have sexual relations with them??

I'll read this in detail a little later, but at first glance it seems to fail out of the gate.

Another item I'll be interested in understanding, is what will be the burden of proof to establish a "sexual relationship".

Ask Bill Clinton.... :lol2:

Brooklyn · Dec 24, 2013

squirrels said:
Still not getting what the thrust of this law is.

Is it saying that PBJ for 2nd Assault can still be a disqualification if it's related to a DV?

I see what he's trying to do here. And I can appreciate it. But someone who gets PBJ for a DV is going to certainly have the "no guns" clause in their probation instructions. Which means that an immediate retaliation with a firearm is just as unlikely under that as this law, and the only difference is whether the individual can purchase a firearm in 6-12 months when their probation is over, or in 3-4 years when they can get it expunged.

PBJ is still not a conviction, except for firearms purposes related to violent crimes. Simmons wants to extend that to DV crimes.

I honestly don't have a HUGE problem with this law in principle. It's the practice where it'd break down. MD courts are a mess, as many have pointed out.

And I'm not sure that "no guns in the home" is necessarily a good idea when you're talking about a big male beating up a smaller female. By living with the PBJ-ee, the wife would also not be able to keep a gun in the house, which limits her ability to defend herself.

DV laws are a mess as well.

FWIW, OJ used a knife.

Well you should. This is not a 2a issue so much as a 14a issue..

And if you think Md courts are a mess what makes you think they are any better in any other state. Take a good look at family law and substantive due process.. you may find that this is just the tip of the ice berg.

Not_an_outlaw · Dec 24, 2013

What disturbs me is that many people probably take PBJ for a more serious crime, noting that if they don't misbehave it can be removed. For example, take an individual who has a crazy spouse and with children. He or she knows that once he or she is away from the crazy spouse, the chances of violating PBJ are slim. They may take a PBJ for reasons such as: no money to fight, don't want to put the children through this mess, and or its just a way to get the sordid events behind them.

Name Taken · Dec 24, 2013

Just take the PBJ away all together.

You are either innocent or guilty. This "warning system" crap that is PBJ is out of control anyway. Given out FAR to often.

Devil Dog · Dec 24, 2013

This is the same a-hole who attacked the mother of 3 murdered children when she testified in front of his committee, trying to get Maryland's law on Protective Orders in line with the rest of the country, which might have prevented her estranged husband from drowning their 3 babies.

Now he wants to be Senator.

Mx121 · Dec 24, 2013

The whole 2nd degree assault in MD is bull. I got a 2nd degree just for pulling a window and the glass fell on their lap. At no time did I try to harm anyone. And got 2nd degree assault and destruction of property.

HB90 Disqualifying Crime – Domestically Related Crime

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

inveniam viam aut faciam

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

My hair is amazing

Get Wiffit

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

...

Ultimate Member

...

Ultimate Member

Get Wiffit

Banana'd

Get Wiffit

Get Wiffit

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics