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!
  • RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,181
    That is incorrect information. A PBJ is not a guilty plea, a guilty plea is a plea and a PBJ is a disposition resulting from a plea. The difference is more than semantics and more than the absence of a penalty. In fact, many PBJs come with a penalty as part of the probationary aspect. The penalty could be a fine, community service, etc. The "before Judgment" means just that, probation is levied before judgment, if probation is satisfied judgment is never entered, i.e., you never have a criminal conviction on your record for that particular offense. What you do have, obviously, is a notation that you accepted a PBJ.

    Show me ANYWHERE in Law... ANY law that states an INNOCENT person can be compelled to go through (serve) Probation.

    Sorry but the way the state views this is the ONLY way that they can use it to take away your right to own a firearm.
    PEOPLE FOUND INNOCENT ARE NOT RESTRICTED.
    PEOPLE FOUND INNOCENT DO NOT GET PROBATION.

    The defendant must ACCEPT a PBJ and sign for it. That signature signifies that the defendant agrees that the state has sufficient evidence to find him/her guilty. Once agreed to and signed signed, the defendant must appeal within a specific time period.

    I have been in court many times and listened to the Judge ask the Defendant, "Do you agree to accept "Probation Before Judgement"?

    Argue the point to a Judge and the MSP... I know what I have seen and heard in open court.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Of course, we do get into technicalities. The probation occurs BEFORE judgement. There was never a guilty verdict. There is never truly a sentence. How can you be prohibited when you were never actually convicted of a crime?
     

    Alutacon

    Desert Storm
    May 22, 2013
    1,119
    Bowie
    Of course, we do get into technicalities. The probation occurs BEFORE judgement. There was never a guilty verdict. There is never truly a sentence. How can you be prohibited when you were never actually convicted of a crime?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm with you as far as agreeing that what the legislature did here isn't cool. That doesn't mean that it is difficult to conceptually wrap my round about how they reasoned it.

    They're argument is that despite the fact that you do not have a conviction on your record, you did enter a courtroom, take an oath and admit under that oath to underlying facts that would have been sufficient to convict you of the crime you were charged with. The legislature has essentially said that "we don't care whether you have a conviction. your admission to the elements of the crime with which you were charged suffice to negate your 2A rights."

    is it ********?? yes it is. but, nonetheless, that's their reasoning.

    you don't need to agree with your enemy to strive to understand him.
     

    Alutacon

    Desert Storm
    May 22, 2013
    1,119
    Bowie
    Show me ANYWHERE in Law... ANY law that states an INNOCENT person can be compelled to go through (serve) Probation.

    Sorry but the way the state views this is the ONLY way that they can use it to take away your right to own a firearm.
    PEOPLE FOUND INNOCENT ARE NOT RESTRICTED.
    PEOPLE FOUND INNOCENT DO NOT GET PROBATION.

    The defendant must ACCEPT a PBJ and sign for it. That signature signifies that the defendant agrees that the state has sufficient evidence to find him/her guilty. Once agreed to and signed signed, the defendant must appeal within a specific time period.

    I have been in court many times and listened to the Judge ask the Defendant, "Do you agree to accept "Probation Before Judgement"?

    Argue the point to a Judge and the MSP... I know what I have seen and heard in open court.

    I don't have the code in front of me and I'm not about to look it up, but it is implicit in the court's authority to grant a PBJ disposition, so that's where in the law you would find it. and technically, I don't know that at the time the PBJ is granted that one could consider himself innocent. in fact one would have just finished pleading guilty to a crime, it is only after the PBJ is granted AND SATISFIED that the option for the actual judgment to never be entered matures.

    i think you are too narrowly defining the term "probation" and are thinking of it only as something that comes post judgment of guilt. the law does not limit it so.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Don't get me wrong, I'm with you as far as agreeing that what the legislature did here isn't cool. That doesn't mean that it is difficult to conceptually wrap my round about how they reasoned it.

    They're argument is that despite the fact that you do not have a conviction on your record, you did enter a courtroom, take an oath and admit under that oath to underlying facts that would have been sufficient to convict you of the crime you were charged with. The legislature has essentially said that "we don't care whether you have a conviction. your admission to the elements of the crime with which you were charged suffice to negate your 2A rights."

    is it ********?? yes it is. but, nonetheless, that's their reasoning.

    you don't need to agree with your enemy to strive to understand him.


    You are innocent until proven guilty. While you agree that that facts are likely enough to convict you, you have NOT been proven guilty. What does that make you? :confused:

    Law is full of technicalities. If people are so dangerous they cannot have firearms, and the facts in the case are compelling enough to convict, they should not be given probation.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    You are innocent until proven guilty. While you agree that that facts are likely enough to convict you, you have NOT been proven guilty. What does that make you? :confused:

    Law is full of technicalities. If people are so dangerous they cannot have firearms, and the facts in the case are compelling enough to convict, they should not be given probation.

    Yes you have been found guilty but that verdict is striked pending completion of probation.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Yes you have been found guilty but that verdict is striked pending completion of probation.

    What about the "before judgement" part? It is NOT a conviction, since it is BEFORE the judgement. Perhaps I'm reading too far into this.....
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Don't get me wrong, I'm with you as far as agreeing that what the legislature did here isn't cool. That doesn't mean that it is difficult to conceptually wrap my round about how they reasoned it.

    They're argument is that despite the fact that you do not have a conviction on your record, you did enter a courtroom, take an oath and admit under that oath to underlying facts that would have been sufficient to convict you of the crime you were charged with. The legislature has essentially said that "we don't care whether you have a conviction. your admission to the elements of the crime with which you were charged suffice to negate your 2A rights."

    is it ********?? yes it is. but, nonetheless, that's their reasoning.

    you don't need to agree with your enemy to strive to understand him.

    The defendant does not take an oath to plead guilty and then ask for a PBJ. In fact, I usually do all the talking in those circumstances and the defendant never says a word unless the judge asks him/her a direct question.

    Now, if we elect to go to trial and the defendant decides to actually testify, then the testimony will be under oath. However, in that case there will never be an admission of guilt, merely a guilty finding by the judge.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    You are innocent until proven guilty. While you agree that that facts are likely enough to convict you, you have NOT been proven guilty. What does that make you? :confused:

    Law is full of technicalities. If people are so dangerous they cannot have firearms, and the facts in the case are compelling enough to convict, they should not be given probation.

    They should never be let back out of prison!!!!!!!!!!! This is what pisses me off in Maryland. You can be a convicted felon, get out of prison, and never get your right to own a firearm back. Heck, you could be convicted of a misdemeanor that carries more than a 1 year sentence and never get your 2nd Amendment Right back. Plenty of other states give a person's rights back after they have served their sentence or they have stayed clean for a certain length of time.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    I thought it always said one year for a felony? Never really paid much attention because I don't have any.

    Nope, it says:

    Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

    There are a lot of crimes out there that carry 18 month sentences that would make you think twice about losing your 2nd Amendment Right over them.
     

    protegeV

    Ready to go
    Apr 3, 2011
    46,880
    TX
    There are income requirements to get a public defender (see below). If you think just being innocent is good enough I believe you are greatly mistaken.

    D. Income Level.

    (1) For an individual whose assets and net annual income are less than 100 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, eligibility for services of the Office may be determined without an assessment regarding the need of the applicant.

    (2) Assets considered shall include all liquid and nonliquid assets of the applicant, excluding the applicant's principal residence and primary vehicle.


    http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=14.06.03.05.htm

    Fed poverty guidelines start at just over $11K for 1 person...

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

    For serious? If you are completely innocent you must mortgage your house, sell your car, etc to pay for a lawyer???

    I understand retaining a good lawyer is a good idea, I was just responding to the example where the 22 y/o ran out of money and could no longer continue the legal process with the current lawyer. :shrug:
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    For serious? If you are completely innocent you must mortgage your house, sell your car, etc to pay for a lawyer???

    I understand retaining a good lawyer is a good idea, I was just responding to the example where the 22 y/o ran out of money and could no longer continue the legal process with the current lawyer. :shrug:

    If you are completely innocent, the case shouldn't be that hard. When there is an issue regarding your innocence, then it gets tough and expensive. See OJ Simpson, Zimmerman, etc.

    With that said, yes you are responsible for the costs of your attorney. Most judges will not allow an attorney to get out of a criminal case, especially once the trial has begun. However, most attorneys will not work for free either. Just like most doctors, dentists, construction workers, sanitation engineers, cashiers, fast food workers, etc.
     

    JADCecil

    Member
    May 7, 2013
    89
    Cecil County
    What about the "before judgement" part? It is NOT a conviction, since it is BEFORE the judgement. Perhaps I'm reading too far into this.....

    There is relatively recent case law on this point which goes against this interpretation. Involving an Anne Arundel (?) politician, court said she was disqualified from service bc of a PBJ. Not saying I agree, but the Court of Appeals disagrees with us.
     

    gabe72

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 26, 2012
    1,218
    sharpsburg
    Don't forget expert witnesses,tests etc,they don't come free,look at how easy it is to have a restraining order taken out on someone,child abuse allegations and mention firearms in the same sentence as abusein this state and see how fair the jjustice system is in this country,if someone makes a mistake and pays there debt to society and then stays trouble free why do we feel the need to take away there 2a rights,why not all of them or keep them locked up permanently,hell if we label everyone that ever had a run in with the.law and continue to punish them for life then we shouldn't be shocked when they continue to commit crimes with no disregard.some people deserve to be locked away and some can repay there debt to society and be productive,some not all.
     

    2SAM22

    Moderator Emeritus
    Apr 4, 2007
    7,178
    Here is the deal with the 1 year vs 2 year. I had a brain fart earlier on the PBJ thing but you can take this info to the bank.

    Federal law specifies 1 year and that is the language used on much of the paperwork you fill out to purchase a firearm. This is because in most States, anything over a year is a felony. MD is "special" and has 10 year misdemeanors. So, further in the Federal law it specified that State designated misdemeanors carrying greater than two years are prohibiting. So, a MD conviction for a misdemeanor carrying 18 months, or 2 years for that matter isn't prohibiting Federally.

    Anything over 2 years, or a felony is prohibiting is probably a more clear way to state it. Any conviction for a common law offense is prohibiting because the max penalty is greater than 2 years (anything not cruel or unusual).

    So, in MD if you are convicted of resisting arrest or telephone misuse, a conviction is prohibiting - for life (unless you get a governor's pardon)- nationwide - because the max penalty is greater than 2 years (3 years for both IIRC).

    Also, any domestic violence conviction is prohibiting. Nevada has some assault laws where the max penalty is 6 months, but if it a D/V related, you're toast as far as firearms.
     

    Ab_Normal

    Ab_member
    Feb 2, 2010
    8,613
    Carroll County
    What about the "before judgement" part? It is NOT a conviction, since it is BEFORE the judgement. Perhaps I'm reading too far into this.....

    It seems like it is either guilty until proven innocent or the guilty verdict is expunged after a predetermined length of time agreed to by the courts and defendant.

    What am I missing?
     

    Ab_Normal

    Ab_member
    Feb 2, 2010
    8,613
    Carroll County
    Wow. I couldn't believe it. So, I went and looked at the ATF website, and it is indeed a year. When did that become law that any person convicted of a crime that could be punishable by more than one year in prison is prohibited from owning a firearm?

    I foresee the state bumping up the max penalties to 2+ years for everything including minor traffic.
     

    Ab_Normal

    Ab_member
    Feb 2, 2010
    8,613
    Carroll County
    They should never be let back out of prison!!!!!!!!!!! This is what pisses me off in Maryland. You can be a convicted felon, get out of prison, and never get your right to own a firearm back. Heck, you could be convicted of a misdemeanor that carries more than a 1 year sentence and never get your 2nd Amendment Right back. Plenty of other states give a person's rights back after they have served their sentence or they have stayed clean for a certain length of time.

    That would be the UNALIENABLE part of their rights. But hey why Md start adhering to the Charters of Freedom now?:sad20:

    While I certainly am not going to encourage someone to not follow the laws, and especially those who commit violent acts against otherwise innocent people, I think those who just continue to ignore assinine laws may be ahead of the curve so to speak.
     

    2SAM22

    Moderator Emeritus
    Apr 4, 2007
    7,178
    I foresee the state bumping up the max penalties to 2+ years for everything including minor traffic.

    And they could do so. MD can make the standards stricter than the Federal law. So in essence a MD prohibitor would cease to be a prohibition once the person moved from MD.

    Of course MD could also make the maximum penalty on even minor crimes 2+ years and pretty much prohibit everyone convicted Nationwide-for life. Scary.

    Back in the early 90's felony theft was $300+, then they made it $500+, now it is $1000+. I'm convinced because it allows more criminals to vote. Democrat. But that is just the conspiracy theorist in me.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,418
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom