A Personal Visit from the MD State Police…

[sprocket80]

You really have no idea of what you're talking about either factually nor legally. Please stop.

You are correct Rusty. I did say I had not read all 12+ pages of the thread, talk to the federal or state police, etc etc,so I do not know all of the facts.

Also I said in one of my replies that not allowing an officer to search with out a warrant is criminal. That is obviously incorrect. Thank you for not pointing to this specific statement though. Poor editing on my part while combining two different sentences while typing the post.

 

[sprocket80]

MJD
As to your first assertion that I changed the base of the debate/argument with my rebuttal. My initial post was about the 556 and whether it was a regulated firearm in Maryland, the VA ffl should have known this, and why the police showed up at the OP's door. You changed the debate to his 4th Amendment rights with your rebuttal--- not me. They asked his to fill out the correct paperwork.


In response to your second assertion about me saying not allowing an officer into your home to search without a warrant was already addressed in my previous reply to Rusty S. I ran two sentences together while deleting text and it is true not that allowing an officer to search without a warrant is not criminal and well within your right as a citizen. So to you ..and for the second time..I apologize

I will apologize if I make an incorrect statement, but I am not going to keep wasting my time to respond to these sophomoric debate tactics every time someone twists my words then proceeds to attack me on their mis-stated assertion.

Not complying with an officer during an investigation, or when he asks you a question or asks to see your gun, drivers license, etc etc etc etc etc ETC is NOT criminal behavior...nor did I say it makes you a criminal.....stop twisting my words folks. Being indignant, getting belligerent, and otherwise spewing blind anger at the officer just because he had the audacity to show up at your front door is how criminals behave. If you act this way, expect his training, conditioning, and experience to kick in. He may worry your buddy is standing inside the house ready to blow his guts out through the door with a shotgun. Use common sense if you have any. Don't assume every police officer is a just jack-booted thug just itching to to bust your door in and violate your rights and your home. My advice is answer his questions, be brief, and do not offer any additional information. Thanks for your advice but:
You can stand there outside of your front door with your arms folded and tell him you know your rights and you don't have to answer any questions and be correct by exercising your 4th and 5th Amendment protected rights. You also hopefully do not have anything important to do the rest of that day because you might be spending the good part of it at the police station waiting for and answering questions (or not) through your lawyer. You can do whatever you want..while putting your lawyers kids through college. In the case of the OP; thankfully he had a brain. He could have said "Come back when you have a warrant." And they would have returned and trashed his condo. His rights would have remained intact, but his home would not.

In response to the text you highlighted in red from my response to you (after you changed the base of my debate from the 556 to the OPs 4th rights)...you see no evidence?? What? are you the OPs lawyer? Either way my "blanket" statement was made only on what they OP said in HIS post. It is plainly obviously but I'll break it down for you anyway.

I will type v e r y s l o w l y so you can keep up:

(1) The 556, by all literature and history out there to be read...including Sigs's own website, is not a copy of the 550/551 (as listed MD code). The 556 is a version of the Swiss military 500 series rifles adapted to appeal to the American market. To argue the point it is not the same gun is worthless. Its regulated and the VA FFL is (hopefully for his sake) just ignorant or careless.

(2) The transaction was documented. If it wasn't then how did they get the OPs name and address genius??

(3) The FFL dealer was in Virginia.

(4) The officers were from Maryland.

(5) They were investigating. You said yourself that there were reports of several people getting visits from MSP. If this does not qualify as an investigation, I do not know what in your mind would.

(6) Clearly....seems pretty clear.

I do not know how any of this escaped you but if you don't get it by now; I'll pray for you.

 

[Wojo]

MJD
As to your first assertion that I changed the base of the debate/argument with my rebuttal. My initial post was about the 556 and whether it was a regulated firearm in Maryland, the VA ffl should have known this, and why the police showed up at the OP's door. You changed the debate to his 4th Amendment rights with your rebuttal--- not me. They asked his to fill out the correct paperwork.


In response to your second assertion about me saying not allowing an officer into your home to search without a warrant was already addressed in my previous reply to Rusty S. I ran two sentences together while deleting text and it is true not that allowing an officer to search without a warrant is not criminal and well within your right as a citizen. So to you ..and for the second time..I apologize

I will apologize if I make an incorrect statement, but I am not going to keep wasting my time to respond to these sophomoric debate tactics every time someone twists my words then proceeds to attack me on their mis-stated assertion.

Not complying with an officer during an investigation, or when he asks you a question or asks to see your gun, drivers license, etc etc etc etc etc ETC is NOT criminal behavior...nor did I say it makes you a criminal.....stop twisting my words folks. Being indignant, getting belligerent, and otherwise spewing blind anger at the officer just because he had the audacity to show up at your front door is how criminals behave. If you act this way, expect his training, conditioning, and experience to kick in. He may worry your buddy is standing inside the house ready to blow his guts out through the door with a shotgun. Use common sense if you have any. Don't assume every police officer is a just jack-booted thug just itching to to bust your door in and violate your rights and your home. My advice is answer his questions, be brief, and do not offer any additional information. Thanks for your advice but:
You can stand there outside of your front door with your arms folded and tell him you know your rights and you don't have to answer any questions and be correct by exercising your 4th and 5th Amendment protected rights. You also hopefully do not have anything important to do the rest of that day because you might be spending the good part of it at the police station waiting for and answering questions (or not) through your lawyer. You can do whatever you want..while putting your lawyers kids through college. In the case of the OP; thankfully he had a brain. He could have said "Come back when you have a warrant." And they would have returned and trashed his condo. His rights would have remained intact, but his home would not.

In response to the text you highlighted in red from my response to you (after you changed the base of my debate from the 556 to the OPs 4th rights)...you see no evidence?? What? are you the OPs lawyer? Either way my "blanket" statement was made only on what they OP said in HIS post. It is plainly obviously but I'll break it down for you anyway.

I will type v e r y s l o w l y so you can keep up:

(1) The 556, by all literature and history out there to be read...including Sigs's own website, is not a copy of the 550/551 (as listed MD code). The 556 is a version of the Swiss military 500 series rifles adapted to appeal to the American market. To argue the point it is not the same gun is worthless. Its regulated and the VA FFL is (hopefully for his sake) just ignorant or careless.

(2) The transaction was documented. If it wasn't then how did they get the OPs name and address genius??

(3) The FFL dealer was in Virginia.

(4) The officers were from Maryland.

(5) They were investigating. You said yourself that there were reports of several people getting visits from MSP. If this does not qualify as an investigation, I do not know what in your mind would.

(6) Clearly....seems pretty clear.

I do not know how any of this escaped you but if you don't get it by now; I'll pray for you.

Cough Cough

 

[Rack&Roll]

"l

MJD
.....stop twisting my words folks.""

"Don't assume every police officer is a just jack-booted thug just itching to to bust your door in and violate your rights and your home...""

"...And they would have returned and trashed his condo. His rights would have remained intact, but his home would not."

"In response to the text you highlighted in red from my response to you (after you changed the base of my debate from the 556 to the OPs 4th rights)...you see no evidence?? What? are you the OPs lawyer? Either way my "blanket" statement was made only on what they OP said in HIS post. It is plainly obviously... but I'll break it down for you anyway."




Dear Sprocket Esq: Above are a few sentences from your 15th post here on the boards. You say don't assume every officer is a jack-booted thug, but then you warn in the next sentence that cops returning with a warrant would surely act like..jackbooted thugs! So which is it?

And finally in your response above beginning "In response...." Nothing is "plainly obviously" as you say..or is it? You say you know everything that happened. Wait, what?

Slow your roll down, bro...make Post #16 count...

 

[zoostation]

MJD
As to your first assertion that I changed the base of the debate/argument with my rebuttal. My initial post was about the 556 and whether it was a regulated firearm in Maryland, the VA ffl should have known this, and why the police showed up at the OP's door. You changed the debate to his 4th Amendment rights with your rebuttal--- not me. They asked his to fill out the correct paperwork.


In response to your second assertion about me saying not allowing an officer into your home to search without a warrant was already addressed in my previous reply to Rusty S. I ran two sentences together while deleting text and it is true not that allowing an officer to search without a warrant is not criminal and well within your right as a citizen. So to you ..and for the second time..I apologize

I will apologize if I make an incorrect statement, but I am not going to keep wasting my time to respond to these sophomoric debate tactics every time someone twists my words then proceeds to attack me on their mis-stated assertion.

Not complying with an officer during an investigation, or when he asks you a question or asks to see your gun, drivers license, etc etc etc etc etc ETC is NOT criminal behavior...nor did I say it makes you a criminal.....stop twisting my words folks. Being indignant, getting belligerent, and otherwise spewing blind anger at the officer just because he had the audacity to show up at your front door is how criminals behave. If you act this way, expect his training, conditioning, and experience to kick in. He may worry your buddy is standing inside the house ready to blow his guts out through the door with a shotgun. Use common sense if you have any. Don't assume every police officer is a just jack-booted thug just itching to to bust your door in and violate your rights and your home. My advice is answer his questions, be brief, and do not offer any additional information. Thanks for your advice but:
You can stand there outside of your front door with your arms folded and tell him you know your rights and you don't have to answer any questions and be correct by exercising your 4th and 5th Amendment protected rights. You also hopefully do not have anything important to do the rest of that day because you might be spending the good part of it at the police station waiting for and answering questions (or not) through your lawyer. You can do whatever you want..while putting your lawyers kids through college. In the case of the OP; thankfully he had a brain. He could have said "Come back when you have a warrant." And they would have returned and trashed his condo. His rights would have remained intact, but his home would not.

In response to the text you highlighted in red from my response to you (after you changed the base of my debate from the 556 to the OPs 4th rights)...you see no evidence?? What? are you the OPs lawyer? Either way my "blanket" statement was made only on what they OP said in HIS post. It is plainly obviously but I'll break it down for you anyway.

I will type v e r y s l o w l y so you can keep up:

(1) The 556, by all literature and history out there to be read...including Sigs's own website, is not a copy of the 550/551 (as listed MD code). The 556 is a version of the Swiss military 500 series rifles adapted to appeal to the American market. To argue the point it is not the same gun is worthless. Its regulated and the VA FFL is (hopefully for his sake) just ignorant or careless.

(2) The transaction was documented. If it wasn't then how did they get the OPs name and address genius??

(3) The FFL dealer was in Virginia.

(4) The officers were from Maryland.

(5) They were investigating. You said yourself that there were reports of several people getting visits from MSP. If this does not qualify as an investigation, I do not know what in your mind would.

(6) Clearly....seems pretty clear.

I do not know how any of this escaped you but if you don't get it by now; I'll pray for you.

Thanks for all the condescension, but unfortunately this is a forum for grown ups.

 

[swinokur]

nicely done Zoo.

 

[Bolts Rock]

I dont know how to include quoted previous post sections, .

I'll make it easy for you the quote function is there.....................................................................\/

 

[MJD438]

Thanks for all the condescension, but unfortunately this is a forum for grown ups.

Thank you, sir. I am glad I decided to stop refuting the poster in question. Gotta love the "you are twisting my words" debate tactic (don't believe I twisted anything...but, oh well).

 

[bbrown]

Thank you, sir. I am glad I decided to stop refuting the poster in question. Gotta love the "you are twisting my words" debate tactic (don't believe I twisted anything...but, oh well).

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[rnfjr6950]

Ok, Where can I get some of these stickers.

I have several relatives ("Old Line" Howard Countians) who would love these!

PM me if you know a source.

Thanks!

 

[hvymax]

"l

MJD
.....stop twisting my words folks.""

"Don't assume every police officer is a just jack-booted thug just itching to to bust your door in and violate your rights and your home...""

"...And they would have returned and trashed his condo. His rights would have remained intact, but his home would not."

Just handpicked units of "Ambitious Officers".

 

[sfchoffman]

To my knowledge there's never been a definition of what constitutes a "copy".

That copy horse left the barn a long time and now that it's out, it's hard to gather it back.

Not saying I like it, but it is what it is.

Now, if they are just saying "we feel like it should be regulated just because...." then that's a little different.

They can say a copy is any firearm with any parameters ! They all take magazines, they all shoot bullets, they all are made of metal and plastic, They all have triggers, barrels on and on. The rules they played by last year is not the rules they play by now or the future...We get closer each year to a police state in Maryland. Look at what Germany was doing in the 30's. It's incremental, until they have the noose around your neck....

 

[Brooklyn]

They can say a copy is any firearm with any parameters ! They all take magazines, they all shoot bullets, they all are made of metal and plastic, They all have triggers, barrels on and on. The rules they played by last year is not the rules they play by now or the future...We get closer each year to a police state in Maryland. Look at what Germany was doing in the 30's. It's incremental, until they have the noose around your neck....

No they can't.


We are why.


10k in Lawyers Mall on 4 Feb 2014. 20k would be better.


There are also relevant court decisions that make and infinitely elastic definition of copy problematic .

 

[Ab_Normal]

No they can't.


We are why.


10k in Lawyers Mall on 4 Feb 2014. 20k would be better.


There are also relevant court decisions that make and infinitely elastic definition of copy problematic .

Yes they can. They did it before and they are doing it now.

You could put enough people on lawyers mall to make it tip over into the bay and the very same legislators who were playing solitaire, surfing the internet, clacking away on their cell phones, etc. would still ignore them. I'm not saying don't go but I going to suggest not expecting much until a lot of the bums in Annapolis are thrown out of office. My apologies to any bums for associating many of our legislators with them.

You are putting all your faith in a court system has been corrupted by the very people (legislative and executive branches) that they were meant to keep in check.

 

[sfchoffman]

Seems to me they are useing the "Copy" tag on several of these issues they are doing right now...The Hbar and Sig 556, SBR thread....They will not stop with their pusuit of banning and or confiscation of firearms in MD. They havent even started in 2014 yet !

 

[Ab_Normal]

Seems to me they are useing the "Copy" tag on several of these issues they are doing right now...The Hbar and Sig 556, SBR thread....They will not stop with their pusuit of banning and or confiscation of firearms in MD. They havent even started in 2014 yet !

If you understand that the ultimate goal is total control of people then it becomes much clearer why they twist, stretch, or outright ignore the laws as written.

 

[Brooklyn]

Yes they can. They did it before and they are doing it now.

You could put enough people on lawyers mall to make it tip over into the bay and the very same legislators who were playing solitaire, surfing the internet, clacking away on their cell phones, etc. would still ignore them. I'm not saying don't go but I going to suggest not expecting much until a lot of the bums in Annapolis are thrown out of office. My apologies to any bums for associating many of our legislators with them.

You are putting all your faith in a court system has been corrupted by the very people (legislative and executive branches) that they were meant to keep in check.

No I am telling what scotus has already said..

I have no faith in the courts. And unless I see 10k in lawyers mall I will have no faith in us either. If bellyaching got it done we would have won by now. Complaining not doing something...

 

[Ab_Normal]

No I am telling what scotus has already said..

I have no faith in the courts. And unless I see 10k in lawyers mall I will have no faith in us either. If bellyaching got it done we would have won by now. Complaining not doing something...

I must have missed where scotus said what a copy was. Do you have a link?

 

[Brooklyn]

I must have missed where scotus said what a copy was. Do you have a link?

What it said in heller I believe is no defacto ban on a class of weapons. That means it must be specific not infinitely elastic.. the more it covers the closer it gets to a defacto ban. In ca I believe there is case law about ban lists that require clarity...

And this based on the idea of unconstitutionally vague

So based on what the courts have already done there is no reason to think they can continue to tighten indfeinately ...

Now we don't know if the court will reverse this ban. And. We need be careful.. in the end it us up to the state to prove that the burden to the 2a is justified... until they make an argument we should play it coy epecially in public..


Its thier burden and the court has slowly begun to realise that..

Let's wait till we loose before we panic...

 

[asdaven]

Yeah Heller is a tricky one. It protected the right to self defense and struck down the D.C. gun ban but did not fully answer the question of how much the 2nd Amendment applied to state laws. However, this should set a precedent for the banning of MD's former regulated firearms which should be unconstitutional. Or any other state "ban" for that matter. Or a ban anywhere for that matter, but regulation okay. I wouldnt say it applies to the new handgun licensing requirement. That might be more of a potential violation of the 4th and/or 5th Amendment due to the fingerprinting. But that would be a hard one to argue. But what if by doing all that, that you end up incriminating yourself in the future when Maryland changes its laws again? Its also easy to say that its not a problem to give up 1st Amendment right to privacy to our Federal Government if it catches terrorists. Its even easy for me to say that. However, the complication there is that when citizens give up rights to supposedly protect us and in the interest of "national security"......the government goes father and abuses/exploits the information they get. Such as the scandal of the IRS targeting conservative groups. All political and nothing to do with national security. Really our system of political parties is to blame for our a problem. A argument between the political parties of political beliefs saying I believe this and I believe this.....ur wrong I'm right etc etc.....gets us nowhere other than a stalemate. History, the Constitution, and Supreme Court challenges to the Constitution should be the basis of legislation. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and yes states are sovereign to the Federal Government in many case, they are not sovereign to the Constitution.

In addition, we can't blame law enforcement. They are forced to enforce some laws that many of them don't agree with. Yeah some of them abuse their power, have a power trip, etc. However, I'm friends with police officiers in MSP and several county police departments in Maryland. And there are many many police officers who are really great people out there that support our cause and completely disagree with SB 281. But have to enforce it because that's they're job and thats what they swore to do. These people protect our lives and welfare everyday and many have families that count on them coming home alive everyday. Unfortunately our State is against arming the populus which not only makes our lives more dangerous but actually makes their life more dangerous as that burden is placed on them completely to protect us. We also got to think about our gun dealers too. This law has some discrepancies that dealers could get in big trouble for a honest misunderstanding of the new law. Potentially forcing them out of the state or to shut down out of fear. It's a no-win for any party here other than our politicians trying to look good. All political. Not practical or beneficial to the people and probably not legal or constitutional.