Firearms enforcement unit - wow

c4snipar · Jan 21, 2017

If only for some bounced checks, MSp was at their petty finest

Mark75H · Jan 21, 2017

c4snipar said:
If only for some bounced checks, MSp was at their petty finest

Only doing their job as assigned by the legislature. Not their fault.

mopar92 · Jan 21, 2017

Mark75H said:
Only doing their illegal and unconstitutional (in this juncture) job as assigned by the legislature. Not their fault.

Sure

Rack&Roll · Jan 21, 2017

There has been significant tension between the MSP and the Handgun Permit Review Board for months. I would not rule out payback time by an agency that has acted as the Democrat's private army for decades.

All you have to know is that the MSP testifies every year about it's own gun control wishes before the legislature to know this is true.

lawdog89 · Jan 21, 2017

We don't seize guns for bounced checks. Sounds like you're not getting all of the facts. I'm not saying anything bad about your friend but bounced checks....no.

zoostation · Jan 21, 2017

lawdog89 said:
We don't seize guns for bounced checks. Sounds like you're not getting all of the facts. I'm not saying anything bad about your friend but bounced checks....no.

Back in the 60's, a lot of bounced checks were charged as felonies. Even small ones. I dealt with this issue on criminal histories before, though not really relating to guns. I don't remember what the statute was or whatnot, but I have seen it.

Any CH that old would almost certainly require a hand search and that would explain the time lag in between approving and then retracting the HQL. In one assignment I was in I dealt with a lot of CH issues and stuff that old is almost always incomplete, illegible, or lost altogether. Most of what I saw never even made it to microfiche. About the only way to get a handle on 90 percent of it is to have someone in a courthouse basement or at Iron Mountain start pulling ancient files.

Like I said, I don't blame MSP. If someone applies and something pops up they have to follow it to the conclusion. I doubt they liked doing this very much either. I blame the stupid laws both state and federal that fail to take situations like this into account.

whistlersmother · Jan 21, 2017

Mark75H said:
Only doing their job as assigned by the legislature. Not their fault.

The state police ignored hundreds of people breaking the universal background check in Washington state. They chose to ignore an unconstitutional law.

MSP is the lapdog of the MGA. Maryland should just do away with the governor position - the MGA rules it all and has the army to do so.

F5guy · Jan 21, 2017

lawdog89 said:
We don't seize guns for bounced checks. Sounds like you're not getting all of the facts. I'm not saying anything bad about your friend but bounced checks....no.

Yes but it seems guns are seized for failing hql and the reason for failing hql is misdemeanor for bad checks. All a result of more in depth background checks via MD. Again this person was not disapproved in the past prior to hql scrutiny. And furthermore was granted an hql only to get a call sometime later revoking.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

protegeV · Jan 21, 2017

whistlersmother said:
The state police ignored hundreds of people breaking the universal background check in Washington state. They chose to ignore an unconstitutional law.

MSP is the lapdog of the MGA. Maryland should just do away with the governor position - the MGA rules it all and has the army to do so.

this

CharlieFoxtrot · Jan 21, 2017

dblas said:
I thought they already kicked in on 10/1/16

The part about getting assault and battery convictions expunged under certain circumstances doesn't kick in until this October.

Silent Partner · Jan 21, 2017

This is absolutely obscene and should not be allowed to stand.

While it's not MSP's fault they do not need to prosecute as aggressively as they have, it's like they take it personally.

I hope someone at MSI or the NRA-ILA is taking notes and preparing to meet with legislators to draft bills to reverse these.

I am still seriously pissed that I can not purchase the Beretta 92 FS Centennial offered by Baltimore's Best Pawn due to the fingerprinting aspect of the HQL I've considered joining the lawsuit. :mad54:

fabsroman · Jan 22, 2017

F5guy said:
It's totally true why would I make it up. Presenting a false instrument is a misdemeanor is how it was explained to me. Have fun with it though guys and appreciate the support.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, a crime, any crime, is either a misdemeanor or a felony. Speeding is a misdemeanor. Civil infractions are a different beast.

Now, it appears I am going to have to get up to speed with the new expungement rules. Such is life. No rest for the ever changing law.

I really would be curious to know if three bounced checks from the 60's really made this guy prohibited. Granted, shoplifting of a large enough amount in this state is enough to make somebody prohibited.

As I have been saying, way too many laws in place. As far as I am concerned, unless a person commits a violent crime, I have no issue with them having the right to possess a firearm. Hell, even then, my position is that if somebody is free in society, all, and I mean all, of their rights should be restored. If we trust them to walk among us, we have to trust them to possess a firearm because they are going to get one if they want one, even if they are prohibited.

Rant over.

Hawkeye · Jan 22, 2017

F5guy said:
Yes but it seems guns are seized for failing hql and the reason for failing hql is misdemeanor for bad checks.

If what you've presented is how it went down, his guns weren't seized for failing his HQL. He failed his HQL because he was a prohibited person (made so retroactively for the bad checks he wrote 50 years ago as discussed above) and then the MSP realized that he was a prohibited person who already owned guns, so they seized them.

This is a perfect example of why the retroactive thing is total ********.

swinokur · Jan 22, 2017

A misdemeanor with a possible sentence of more than two years makes him a prohibited person. Note it's the possible penalty not the actual sentence that makes him prohibited.

Here is a link to the legislation on expungement of misdemeanors

http://2ainmd.com/2016/09/23/new-ex...rs-in-maryland-2016-justice-reinvestment-act/

dad4 · Jan 22, 2017

F5guy said:
Had a longtime friend and former Maryland State champion sporting clays shooter have MSP show up this week to seize all his guns. All this happened since he applied and was granted hql ahead of the election only to have it revoked a week later. All this for 3 bounced checks of $5, $10 &$15 in 1966. This man is in his seventies. So pathetic I'm sick.

Thanks to the OP for sharing this real example with us. I am not a lawyer as I believe most aren't and stories such as this one helps to realize how precarious our 2A rights are in MD. I lost my job in December and am pretty close to retirement age. An awareness such as this is making me look really hard at moving out of this state. Pretty scary stuff considering this is America land of the free. Unless you are subject to FSA13.

redeemed.man · Jan 22, 2017

Zzzzz_man said:
If so, that's truly pathetic. I want to think there's a lot more to this than $30-worth of bounced checks from 51 years ago but, if not, if that's the only excuse needed to impound/confiscate someone's entire collection of firearms then WTF. If something like that is legal in MD then add that to the list of things I won't regret leaving behind when I move to SC later this year.

You'll be missed when you move my friend. Maybe you can add me to your SC deed, LMAO

redeemed.man · Jan 22, 2017

mopar92 said:
Because Maryland illegally and unconstitutionally made retroactive offenses with potential penalties greater than 1 year prohibiting offenses for handgun ownership. The Federal standard is 2 years IIRC.

So what this means is:
Person A commits minor crime (lets say stealing a duck) when they're 18 before 2013 (IIRC thats when the law was enacted). They get slapped with a charge that carries a maximum sentence of 1 year. They plead guilty and move on with their life.
3 years later they attempt to get an HQL and get denied and house raided by MSP.
Person B is Person A's accomplice for stealing a duck and also pleads guilty. He buys a shotgun the next week so no one can steal his ducks and him and his ducks live happily ever after because he and the ducks give no fvcks.

One correction: Prohibiting offenses for all gun ownership, not just handgun.

CharlieFoxtrot · Jan 22, 2017

boundlessdyad said:
One correction: Prohibiting offenses for all gun ownership, not just handgun.

Yes this is what really caught up a lot of people since before 2013 it just applied to handguns.

kgain673 · Jan 22, 2017

Hawkeye said:
If what you've presented is how it went down, his guns weren't seized for failing his HQL. He failed his HQL because he was a prohibited person (made so retroactively for the bad checks he wrote 50 years ago as discussed above) and then the MSP realized that he was a prohibited person who already owned guns, so they seized them.

This is a perfect example of why the retroactive thing is total ********.[/QUOTE

So we're advocating the MSP deliberately ignore laws that were passed by elected officials? What happens when they allow a person to remain in possession of a firearm when they know that person is prohibited and that person kills someone with that firearm? The state police is not a sheriffs office and does not get the choice to chose what laws they want to enforce.

redeemed.man · Jan 22, 2017

kgain673 said:
Hawkeye said:

If what you've presented is how it went down, his guns weren't seized for failing his HQL. He failed his HQL because he was a prohibited person (made so retroactively for the bad checks he wrote 50 years ago as discussed above) and then the MSP realized that he was a prohibited person who already owned guns, so they seized them.

This is a perfect example of why the retroactive thing is total ********.[/QUOTE

So we're advocating the MSP deliberately ignore laws that were passed by elected officials? What happens when they allow a person to remain in possession of a firearm when they know that person is prohibited and that person kills someone with that firearm? The state police is not a sheriffs office and does not get the choice to chose what laws they want to enforce.

Click to expand...

I didn't take Hawkeye's post that way at all. His complaint was about the law not about MSP enforcement.

Firearms enforcement unit - wow

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Official MDS Court Jester

R.I.P

Active Member

, ,

Peace through strength

Active Member

Ready to go

,

Active Member

Ultimate Member

The Leatherstocking

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

,

I'm sorry for the typos!!

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics