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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    The simple solution....get rid of this PBJ non sense.

    The state can either find your guilty, not guilty, or STET the case...well maybe not STET because that brings up even more complicated issues.

    I get the idea that a constitutional right shouldn't be infringed upon based off of finding of anything other then GUILTY. That's a fundamental and literally finding of the law.

    I'd argue that based on fundamental interpretations of the law that PBJ's have no business in the court setting. The basic principle of our legal system is to punish those who are found guilty of a crime and to FREE those who can not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime. To tell someone "if you don't mess up again we'll brush this under the rug" doesn't really flow with me. It's abused by the judges, states attorneys, and defense attorneys and I'm assuming whoever wrote it into law didn't really intend for it to be employed the way it currently is.

    Why or how we got away from it is beyond me.

    Now you are making sense. I think your earlier number of 99% who accept PBJ's are guilty is a stretch. Guilty means found guilty by a Judge or Jury so your number can't possibly be "right" because no judgement has occurred if a PBJ is granted. I agree PBJ is abused to the point of ridiculousness in MD. We don't have enough facts in this case (this thread) to make a blanket judgement of "oh well he should have thought about it when he committed the crime". We have no idea what he did or if he even did anything at all.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    When you really start looking into it not really. If those who were found guilty actually were kept in jail the amount of cases the court would see would go WAY down. But since the revolving door is good for business (judges, attorneys, etc) and the laws are wrote by many attorneys there is no incentive to jail folks.

    I'd venture to say the majority of crime is done by the same few folks over and over and over again.

    I would be way off...but I think if the "regulars" to the system were put away the system would thin itself out over time.

    Now you are onto something. I agree 100%. Recidivism is the lifeblood of the criminal justice system. Lock them up and throw away the key and not only do you have a strong deterrent to new criminals but you have kept your repeat offenders from repeating. Of course they will commit crimes in jail/prison but the public as whole won't have to deal with that sh1t. The lawyers, well let's just say there would be less need for them. This will of course never happen because our State Government is controlled by those who need this sick cycle to continue.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    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.

    I do like the notion of demanding a retrial for a PBJ in this instance on the grounds of altered consequences...or something like that, at least it sounds good.

    No need. In this instance a simple expungement will do the trick. Easy to fill out the form without an attorney and if conditions are right it will be granted nearly 100% of the time if not a full 100%. (Conditions: passage of time since incident, waiver signed, etc.)
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    No need. In this instance a simple expungement will do the trick. Easy to fill out the form without an attorney and if conditions are right it will be granted nearly 100% of the time if not a full 100%. (Conditions: passage of time since incident, waiver signed, etc.)

    Expungement is an individual fix.

    Demanding reconsideration or suing the state for breach of contract (in a class action, even better) has more potential for challenging (and removing) the Simmons amendment in FSA 2013 for the entire state.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    Expungement is an individual fix.

    Demanding reconsideration or suing the state for breach of contract (in a class action, even better) has more potential for challenging (and removing) the Simmons amendment in FSA 2013 for the entire state.

    I agree but with our collective resources spread out among the NUMEROUS 2A infringements I would prefer we focus on issues with no remedy in place like "shall issue carry in MD", or "assault weapons bans". At least expungement provides a remedy for this situation even if just an individual one. In other words: "sure it is a priority" but I wouldn't rank as the highest one since there is an individual remedy.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    So how did this slip through? I thought the best and brightest were working against this bill?

    Lol. Whatever "victories" that were had during FSA 2013, were meant to provide an illusion or had direct proof of being thrown out for other reasons.

    The pistol grip and telescoping stock elements of the copycat test would not have passed the American Disability Association sniff test, and they knew it.

    The registration aspect was thrown out because they realized they would have a CT situation on their hands and wanted to take a wait and see approach to that.

    The Simmons amendment was a Lautenberg style move.

    They used an Overton window approach to get what they wanted by overshoot and "compromise", then used regulations to get a little more (live fire and now with SBR/SBS interpretation on copycats).
     

    Ab_Normal

    Ab_member
    Feb 2, 2010
    8,613
    Carroll County
    Yeah, yeah I know all that. But I got PM's telling me to stop rocking the boat that these things were being worked on 'behind the scenes' - I think is how it was put.

    Makes me wonder whose side some people are on.:envy:
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    I agree but with our collective resources spread out among the NUMEROUS 2A infringements I would prefer we focus on issues with no remedy in place like "shall issue carry in MD", or "assault weapons bans". At least expungement provides a remedy for this situation even if just an individual one. In other words: "sure it is a priority" but I wouldn't rank as the highest one since there is an individual remedy.

    Grudgingly agree with your schema. :(

    Although shall issue is dead in MD. We must wait for another state's case to make cert in SCOTUS and the ruling to apply.

    The HQL case is on ice.

    In light of the CA ruling this week on their AWB and magazine capacity challenge, I would expect the court to uphold the MD law in spite of logic and arguments.

    What happens next year if someone down there gets the bright idea to make having 8 points ever accumulated on a drivers license a prohibiting factor? Or any PBJ? Or...? Or...?

    With the majority they have, anything they can dream up, they can whine and complain, cajole and manipulate into law to satisfy the hungry grabbers. And any Pro2A logic, amendment or question just ignored/disregarded.

    Look at the situation with FSA 2013, it took them 3 months to pass it and here we sit waiting for a day in court a year later. As soon as a ruling comes down, they'll just get their pens out and scribe a new bill, with more 2A infringement if they win or a new 2A infringement if they lose.
     

    Ab_Normal

    Ab_member
    Feb 2, 2010
    8,613
    Carroll County
    Grudgingly agree with your schema. :(

    Although shall issue is dead in MD. We must wait for another state's case to make cert in SCOTUS and the ruling to apply.

    The HQL case is on ice.

    In light of the CA ruling this week on their AWB and magazine capacity challenge, I would expect the court to uphold the MD law in spite of logic and arguments.

    What happens next year if someone down there gets the bright idea to make having 8 points ever accumulated on a drivers license a prohibiting factor? Or any PBJ? With the majority they have, anything they can dream up, they can whine and complain, cajole and manipulate into law to satisfy the hungry grabbers.

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    Grudgingly agree with your schema. :(

    Although shall issue is dead in MD. We must wait for another state's case to make cert in SCOTUS and the ruling to apply.

    The HQL case is on ice.

    In light of the CA ruling this week on their AWB and magazine capacity challenge, I would expect the court to uphold the MD law in spite of logic and arguments.

    What happens next year if someone down there gets the bright idea to make having 8 points ever accumulated on a drivers license a prohibiting factor? Or any PBJ? With the majority they have, anything they can dream up, they can whine and complain, cajole and manipulate into law to satisfy the hungry grabbers.

    Maybe we should devote our time to changing the procedural maneuvers available to the politicians to avoid voting on bills before elections. Like a rule/law against "bills stuffed in the desk drawer". We had some good potential bills this year and a committee head can just crush the will of the people by not allowing a vote. Damn near sounds like communism or some other totalitarian scheme to me. Sure doesn't sound like democracy.
     

    iH8DemLibz

    When All Else Fails.
    Apr 1, 2013
    25,396
    Libtardistan
    I agree but with our collective resources spread out among the NUMEROUS 2A infringements I would prefer we focus on issues with no remedy in place like "shall issue carry in MD", or "assault weapons bans". At least expungement provides a remedy for this situation even if just an individual one. In other words: "sure it is a priority" but I wouldn't rank as the highest one since there is an individual remedy.

    You are correct to a point in that PBJ is fairly isolated, but this type of "restriction" could easily be expanded and applied to many different people for many different problems or difficulties one has had in the past.

    I'll let the viewing public build their own lists in their own minds.

    They are going after PBJ because it's low hanging fruit. Once the lower hanging fruit has been taken care of, they will have to move up a little higher on the tree.

    Mild thread jack alert:

    This is what spun me up so much in Annapolis this year. Last year it was no guns on Public school property to protect the students. This year it's no guns on Private school property to protect the students. The one glaring component in both laws is separating students from guns. The next logical step is that the students have to go home sometime. The State can't separate students from guns if we have guns in our homes. Again, another logical step is clear. Anyone care to guess what that step is?

    It's the incrementalism war that we are losing.

    Just my personal opinion, but I feel the PBJ issue has far wider implications than carry permits.
     

    RedWolf762

    Active Member
    Jan 18, 2013
    159
    Freedom
    Mmmm.

    Agreed with above. I'd add, SERIOUS move towards recalls too.

    I agree with a move toward recalls. We keep playing by the house rules and we keep getting beat. At some point we are going to have to make a serious push to change the rules in order to peruse a different outcome.
     

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    You are correct to a point in that PBJ is fairly isolated, but this type of "restriction" could easily be expanded and applied to many different people for many different problems or difficulties one has had in the past.

    I'll let the viewing public build their own lists in their own minds.

    They are going after PBJ because it's low hanging fruit. Once the lower hanging fruit has been taken care of, they will have to move up a little higher on the tree.

    Mild thread jack alert:

    This is what spun me up so much in Annapolis this year. Last year it was no guns on Public school property to protect the students. This year it's no guns on Private school property to protect the students. The one glaring component in both laws is separating students from guns. The next logical step is that the students have to go home sometime. The State can't separate students from guns if we have guns in our homes. Again, another logical step is clear.

    It's the incrementalism war that we are losing.

    Just my personal opinion, but I feel the PBJ issue has far wider implications than carry permits.

    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.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,891
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom