2011 Disqualifying crime changes are being enforced retroactively

[esqappellate]

Let me try to explain this, again.
There are a lot of quotes and stuff of what the law is now.. That means little to me, and in my case NONE of it applies if you want to find the truth about my charges. You need to do the hard part, and find out what the law was in 2004-2006, and when it was changed, for the worse. I was charged with a nonviolent misdemeanor, not a felony. I am not on the Md sex offender list, even though the prosecutor tried to hang that around my neck also.. I even voted, (democrat ticket) while in jail. A felon can’t do that, but I had to fight with the jail officials to get to make that vote.
Also, to those law / statute cut & paste posters. Did you take the time to look up the case / appeal that I quoted that started all this stuff, which I was trying to warn member about?
Re-read through the time line and see how the posts changed after I stated what I was convicted of. All of a sudden the topic changed from gun rights to questions of my guilt or innocence and what my charge “had to be”. What a bunch of, know it all, bull shitters.
Now, to Address a few other things.
Reconsideration was applied for and denied. My attorney (now disbarred and taking about $10K of my fees with him) advised me not to get a copy of the hard drive or even to look at the photos in court because it would make me look even worst. But I did look, and again, it was some real nasty stuff I had never seen before, or even conceive that human beings would do some of these things to a child, and then photograph and put it out there, on the web. It really didn’t matter. Court is just Kabuki Theater.. My fate was sealed long before I stepped into the courtroom.
The member, who said he only works on divorces without children, is right about the things people will fight over and do to each other. But he just scratched the surface . The child porn thing is a known scam that works almost every time..
A new warning. If your fighting with your wife or "loved one" change the password on your computer.

Yup, the law changed to a punishment of 5 years from 2 years in 2009. Acts 2009, c. 510, § 1, and Acts 2009, c. 511, § 1 It thus went from a NON disqualifying crime, to a disqualifying crime in 2009.

As to the case you cited, the actual case citation is Maryland State Police v. McLean , 197 Md.App. 430, 14 A.3d 658 Md.App.,2011, cert. denied, 420 Md. 83, 21 A.3d 1064 (Md. Jun 20, 2011), where the court held that "the statutory penalty to be considered is the penalty that exists for the crime, or its current equivalent, at the time of the application for a permit or renewal application to carry or otherwise possess a regulated firearm." And you are quite right about retroactive disqualification. Under that decision, MD is free to change the penalty into a disqualifying crime long after a conviction and thereby bar the continued possession of firearm by any person previously convicted when the crime was not disqualifying. This has federal law implications as a disqualifying crime for federal law purposes is determined by the law of the state in which the offense occurred. See 18 usc 921(a)(20). And yes, such retroactive application is constitutional. See, e.g., United States v. Farrow 364 F.3d 551 C.A.4 (N.C.),2004 ("While laws that retroactively increase 'punishment' or impose a 'penalty' violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, retroactive civil or regulatory ones do not.")

So sorry for your tale of woe. Your point as to the nastiness of divorce is certainly true.

 

[2SAM22]

also there is a new law of oct 2013 if you had a conviction or pbj that has an punishment of more than 2years jail time you can not get a hand gun today

It's not new, it's been Federal law for some time. Federal law states "one year" but that is because anything over 1 year is a felony in most states. Maryland is "special" and has up to 10 year misdemeanors.

Reading the Federal law further you'll find that they make an exception for any state designated misdemeanor less than two years.

So, ANY felony, and ANY crime carrying greater than 2 years achieves the same disqualification, nationwide, for life.

 

[Haides]

Yup, the law changed to a punishment of 5 years from 2 years in 2009. Acts 2009, c. 510, § 1, and Acts 2009, c. 511, § 1 It thus went from a NON disqualifying crime, to a disqualifying crime in 2009.

As to the case you cited, you miscited it. The actual case is Maryland State Police v. McLean
197 Md.App. 430, 14 A.3d 658 Md.App.,2011, where the court held that "the statutory penalty to be considered is the penalty that exists for the crime, or its current equivalent, at the time of the application for a permit or renewal application to carry or otherwise possess a regulated firearm." As to the nastiness of divorce, that is certainly true.

So this basically means that literally anything can eventually become a disqualifying crime, right?

 

[awdnick2986]

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND
ADOPTED BY THE CONVENTION
Which Assembled at the City of Annapolis on the Eighth Day of May, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-seven, and Adjourned on the Seventeenth Day of August, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-seven, and was Ratified by the People on the Eighteenth Day of September, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-seven, with Amendments through Two Thousand and Ten (including amendments proposed by the General Assembly and ratified by the voters through November 6, 2012).
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:
Art. 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.


No sure how they can go back and punish you under a new law. It seems to go against the Constitution of Maryland.

 

[2SAM22]

So this basically means that literally anything can eventually become a disqualifying crime, right?

The sky is the limit.

Police officers lost their jobs across the country when the change in the Federal law took place regarding D/V disqualification. I think it was around 1995 IIRC.

They had been convicted of a misdemeanor assault back in the day involving their spouse but the law was enforced retroactively and they were let go.

 

[gabe72]

what a crock,at this rate they could change any infraction to suit there agenda,gun control today,higher taxes tomorrow, whatever they want, this is getting out of control quickly, we disqualify someone from voting and turn around and let people vote who are illegal or vote multiple times.

 

[jaybee]

hmmm... it stops you from owning a gun

but would it stop you from becoming a sworn LEO in baltimore city

I heard the acceptance standards really dropped to get more city people on the force

 

[esqappellate]

So this basically means that literally anything can eventually become a disqualifying crime, right?

Yup. The State can't change federal law, but they can change the penalties for violations of state law. Now, they can't go back and make the person serve more time or retroactively increase the criminal punishment, but they can attach new civil consequences, like disqualification and make continued possession a crime, going forward. The OP is lucky, in a way, that the MSP did not arrest him for continued possession after the penalty had increased in 2009,.

 

[sxs]

You don't have to tell me about what women will do in order to get their way in a domestic situation.

I have a good idea of what you went through. I'm sorry for what you endured. I know you didn't make the original post to garner sympathy, but you have mine.

+1 I'm aware of a woman who left her husband while having an affair who has : had his car reposessed (it is in her name because it's her old car - but he was making the payments on because he was driving it per an agreement when they separated)...and charged him with Domestic Violence several months after they separated...no proof, just an accusation...that is now on his record. She's pissed that her new relationship with a guy who is a multi-time felon has been disclosed to her son's father ( a previous relationship) who is embroiled in custody suit with her over her threats to move the kid out of state (she wants to move with said felon). Funny thing is, said Dad filed the custody before ever talking to her soon to be ex-husband. She did these things because , in her words, 'I'm going to make your life a hell'. My own ex tried to use gun ownership against me as a basis for denying me shared custody of my kids and later tried to accuse me of 'stalking her' when I had pics taken to prove she was an adulterer (although no formal charges were ever pursued). These are far from the only issues of which I am aware. Divorce Court is a nasty business and often (although not always) sides with the mother.

 

[rrrrrrkevin]

hmmm... it stops you from owning a gun

but would it stop you from becoming a sworn LEO in baltimore city

I heard the acceptance standards really dropped to get more city people on the force

I took the civil service test and afterwards they took me to a room and explained that I had to get an expungement before I could return, then escorted me out of the building. I asked what it was and they said it was up to me to find out and not their job to tell me. The only thing on my record was a "street racing on a public highway" charge from 2004 which was dismissed and I was found not guilty after PTD. I was told that should not stop me but it has to be it because its the only thing there. It is a misdemeanor btw.

Another guy in the group raised his hand several times to ask about his extensive use and other criminal history and the officer that was administering the test assured him every time that it would not be a problem. Im just going to come out with this and I dont care if anyone thinks im a racist. The guy was black and I think that had to do with it. They had posters advertising diversity hiring events and they looked like the latest and greatest, and one banner that looked like it was printed in 1972 that advertised hiring military vets.

 

[Haides]

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND
ADOPTED BY THE CONVENTION
Which Assembled at the City of Annapolis on the Eighth Day of May, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-seven, and Adjourned on the Seventeenth Day of August, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-seven, and was Ratified by the People on the Eighteenth Day of September, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-seven, with Amendments through Two Thousand and Ten (including amendments proposed by the General Assembly and ratified by the voters through November 6, 2012).
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:
Art. 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.


No sure how they can go back and punish you under a new law. It seems to go against the Constitution of Maryland.

The problem with that is it only prohibits "punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws," but the law already existed and he was already punished. All they did was change the maximum penalty, not make a new law.

The federal law is what's the steaming pile of poo here, not the state. We already know Maryland is going to do whatever it can to hurt us. The federal law needs to be changed to disqualify based on the actual conviction, not just what the conviction could've been.

 

[2dogsbarking]

Yes she is crazy. It never came up in the trial, but she was molisted by a priest. She even testified in a Maryland state congress committee (under he first husbands / victims name) to try to get the statute of limitations extended for child molesters . I tried to get her 1st husban to testify that she was nuts but the guy was so destroyed he wouldn’t even talk about her on the phone, and I couldn’t bring myself to force another destroyed person into court.She's now working on victim # 4. I was #3. And each time she gets richer.

 

[2dogsbarking]

Thanks for finding and posting the case.
And to everyone, I regret some of what I wrote. Having to explain my past brought up a lot of anger and hate, and it just spilled onto my writing.

 

[jsm7977]

I took the civil service test and afterwards they took me to a room and explained that I had to get an expungement before I could return, then escorted me out of the building. I asked what it was and they said it was up to me to find out and not their job to tell me. The only thing on my record was a "street racing on a public highway" charge from 2004 which was dismissed and I was found not guilty after PTD. I was told that should not stop me but it has to be it because its the only thing there. It is a misdemeanor btw.

Another guy in the group raised his hand several times to ask about his extensive use and other criminal history and the officer that was administering the test assured him every time that it would not be a problem. Im just going to come out with this and I dont care if anyone thinks im a racist. The guy was black and I think that had to do with it. They had posters advertising diversity hiring events and they looked like the latest and greatest, and one banner that looked like it was printed in 1972 that advertised hiring military vets.

Whether youre right or not, bravo for calling it like you see it. Too many people ***** foot around these days and walk on the egg shells of political correctness when in reality someties it is what it is and the truth hurts. When I took the Balt city police physical test 15 years ago as an AACO resident, i was one of 4 white men in a class of 25. All others were black. We were told you get ONE chance to perform the tasks and if you cant do it, youre gone. So for months i strength trained to prepare. The day of the physical test when we had to bench press like 90% of our body weight, the white guys got no spot, the blacks that struggledd got a heavy spot, same with the lift the 15inch rim and tire up and look thru th center from a squatting position. one chance to pick it up, hold it for 10 seconds and sit it down without dropping it or falling over. there were a half dozen blacks that fell over and got 2nd and 3rd chances.ive never been in trouble a dy in my life to that point and my mom dad and step dad were all police. I passed all the physical, written, cant imagine i failed the background or poly and i got a denial letter. a year later at a titty bar downtowni saw one of the guys who dropped the tire and fell over in uniform on foot patrol.... it is what it is...

 

[bpSchoch]

I'm not am attorney but have studied the law somewhat extensively.

If I were to get a call from anybody in officidum, regarding my firearms, the answer would be none of your business and if I thought something might be up, I have them put away for safekeeping.

#1) Once you acknowledge having the firearm, then they know you broke the law (if indeed you broke it). Before that, it's only a belief that you own/have the firearm based on records. Once you say you do, well you have it don't you. At that point, if they would have to show probable cause and get a search warrant and I don't think the fact that you used to own one is enough to show probable cause.

#2) If they want to come to my house, I would say not without a search warrant that has been obtained through proper due process of law (proper probable cause or through a valid hearing).

#3) if they come to the house without a valid search warrant, don't consent to search. If they still do, then obviously you can't force them not to however I would have a recorder going with you in the audio repeatedly stating that you don't consent to the search. However it does become an unlawful search and it's not unheard of for unlawfully seized contraband, say 'weed' to be returned to owner.

In the end it's all about consent. Don't consent to answer the question and don't consent to their visit and search, period. Don't be a wuss. Learn to say no.

 

[Haides]

Yes she is crazy. It never came up in the trial, but she was molisted by a priest. She even testified in a Maryland state congress committee (under he first husbands / victims name) to try to get the statute of limitations extended for child molesters . I tried to get her 1st husban to testify that she was nuts but the guy was so destroyed he wouldn’t even talk about her on the phone, and I couldn’t bring myself to force another destroyed person into court.She's now working on victim # 4. I was #3. And each time she gets richer.

You must be a better man than me. I can all but guarantee I would've killed the bitch by now if I were in your shoes...

 

[2dogsbarking]

Just got a letter from MSP about my application being disapproved and how to appeal the disapproval.. After the feedback and info from this thread, what the point?
Might be easier to just send them a video of me beating my head against a brick wall.
Funny thing is they won’t get into the specifics of my disapproval, but the last paragraph says that if I think I was denied due to mental reasons, I should go to the Md. Dept. of health & mental hygiene
They are just adding insult to injury.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I am being infringed apon, dammit!

 

[2dogsbarking]

I can't kill the mother of my only child.

 

[Haides]

Have you contacted a lawyer yet?

 

[K.C.Dean]

What if a crime's sentence is reduced does it work the same way is that retroactive?