Antiques reclassified as Modern? SB0467 HB0318

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!

    • Register Log in
    D

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,109
    Inigoes said:
    The MSP checks 16 of it's databases as well as being the POC for the NICS.

    Yes, the No-fly list is one of them.
    Click to expand...

    Ummmmmm, No it's not, since the FBI does not share the no fly list with the NICS database or any outside organizations that are not a part of the security group that utilizes and updates the no fly list.

    The no fly list was a major bill last year as well and all of this came out in testimony.
     
    Inigoes

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,563
    SoMD / West PA
    Inigoes

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,563
    SoMD / West PA
    dblas said:
    And we completely debunked his comments in the committee hearings last year. He had no clue about what he spoke of.
    Click to expand...

    His comments are out for public consumption, with no retractions.

    What has been said in testimony, only remains in transcripts.
     
    S

    steveh326

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 23, 2012
    1,602
    Mt. Airy
    Mark75H said:
    No, what you are advocating is making the all crimes in question misdemeanors.

    A felon is a felon. You do the crime you do the time. Felony is for life, misdemeanor is forgiven after atonement.
    Click to expand...

    correct me if I am wrong... I thought in MD even misdemeanors with potential sentencing > 2 years was forfeiture of gun rights for life, and that the MGA went thru a couple years ago and changed min sentencing on a whole raft of misdemeanors to be > 2 years so they all apply now... working from feeble memory tho so this could be totally wrong.
     
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,732
    steveh326 said:
    correct me if I am wrong... I thought in MD even misdemeanors with potential sentencing > 2 years was forfeiture of gun rights for life, and that the MGA went thru a couple years ago and changed min sentencing on a whole raft of misdemeanors to be > 2 years so they all apply now... working from feeble memory tho so this could be totally wrong.
    Click to expand...

    That is correct. However, if you were already convicted, the duration of the possible sentence is only what it was at the time you were convicted. If they change it from a 1yr sentence to a 5 year, it only matters that at the time it was a 1 year state misdemeanor.

    It would be nice if the laws were changed so that it is the ACTUAL sentence if confinement that matters, not the possible.

    The only retroactive restriction is for domestic violence if I am remembering correctly. Which should be patently unconstitutional, but SCOTUS has ruled it is just fine to take away your rights later.
     
    Biggfoot44

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    33,217
    I don't off hand remember the case, but it was the challenge to the Lautenberg Amendment .
     
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,732
    Biggfoot44 said:
    I don't off hand remember the case, but it was the challenge to the Lautenberg Amendment .
    Click to expand...

    Correct. I have to go look up the case, but it has to do with the Lautenburg amendment. If you had a conviction that would make you a prohibited person under the law PRIOR to the law's passage, as of the passage of the law, you are now prohibited. It is an ex post facto law which is prohibited by the constitution, but SCOTUS upheld it.

    It is one thing if it made those penalties moving forward, but it banned them for anyone previously convicted. An extreme example, but it would like extending someone's sentence after they were convicted because the law was changed so now DUI is changed from a 6-month sentence to a 5 year minimum.

    It only seems to be with firearms that the courts seem to think this is okay.

    It would be an interesting legal challenge to this law for anyone convicted under it if they were either in possession prior to the law (best legal case) or were convicted prior to the law's passage (which hopefully it doesn't). the person would likely get screwed by the courts, sadly
     
    Mike OTDP

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,324
    Anyway, is this bill alive, dead, or what? I can come up and testify if needed...but would prefer not to lose a day's work if it's not needed.
     
    Biggfoot44

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    33,217
    Stats for Testimony

    This was a tough one, as the numbers are so small, and not tracked separately by UCR, or any other similar data collection available to the public ( if at all). But I did find something in a small town Penna newspaper.

    The May 02, 2007 Edition of the Allentown Morning Call had a bylined article by Pamela Lehman touching on the subject. In the wake of a local murder-suicide, she reported upon several scattered incidents . And importantly to us asked the ATF . The unnamed ATF Official told her that ATF Tracing inquiries showed 15 murders in the US involving Antique or Replica weapons for the years 1996-1999 . ( Trace data in general is highly flawed for making general conclusions. But presumably the numbers involving Murder are more precise. In any case, this is the only numbers I've ever seen on the topic.)

    1996-1999 Total Murder 7 non Neglegent Homicide - 59,774
    1996-1999 Antique & Replica - 15 , 0.025% ( 0.00025)
    1996-1999 ( Everyday objects & body parts , as discussed in my post on the Long Gun Bill ) -15,693 , 26.25%

    So on a nationwide basis, a US resident is 1,046 times more likely to be killed by pointy things, random everyday objects, or bare hands than be killed by an Antique or Replica .
     
    esqappellate

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,408
    lazarus said:
    Correct. I have to go look up the case, but it has to do with the Lautenburg amendment. If you had a conviction that would make you a prohibited person under the law PRIOR to the law's passage, as of the passage of the law, you are now prohibited. It is an ex post facto law which is prohibited by the constitution, but SCOTUS upheld it.

    It is one thing if it made those penalties moving forward, but it banned them for anyone previously convicted. An extreme example, but it would like extending someone's sentence after they were convicted because the law was changed so now DUI is changed from a 6-month sentence to a 5 year minimum.

    It only seems to be with firearms that the courts seem to think this is okay.

    It would be an interesting legal challenge to this law for anyone convicted under it if they were either in possession prior to the law (best legal case) or were convicted prior to the law's passage (which hopefully it doesn't). the person would likely get screwed by the courts, sadly
    Click to expand...

    Here is some research on that point. I don't see where the SCT has actually ruled on ex post facto application of the Lautenberg Amendment 18 usc 922(g)(9), but the lower courts certainly have. In their view, a firearms disqualification is not a "punishment" as used in the Ex Post Facto clause. It merely attaches a new consequence to future conduct for a crime that was committed in the past. See United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 322–23 (4th Cir.2000); cf. United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290–91 (2d Cir.1994) (upholding conviction under felon in possession statute even where predicate felony conviction occurred decades before enactment of the statute). The critical factor in these decisions is that the prohibited conduct - possession of a firearm - occurred after enactment of the disqualifying statute. See Mitchell, 209 F.3d at 322–23 (“As it is undisputed that [the defendant] possessed the firearm after the enactment of § 922(g)(9), the law's application does not run afoul of the ex post facto prohibition”). It is immaterial that the predicate offense occurred before § 922(g)(9) was enacted. “A law is not retroactive simply because it ‘draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.’ ” Hemmings, 258 F.3d at 594 (quoting Cox v. Hart, 260 U.S. 427, 435 (1922)). The upshot is that the Ex Post Facto clause is not applicable to the disqualification as long as the prohibited possession took place subsequent to date the law made possession criminal
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Jlowes gun sales Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,533
    Messages
    7,285,340
    Members
    33,473
    Latest member
    Sarca

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom