"Disapproved" for Hand Gun Purchase... Questions...

GBMaryland said:

I'm going to call them, but the town is question is notorious for not caring one little bit unless you're an attorney.

(On my day in court in this town, they actually proceeded in alphabetical order by last name. They tried three complete cases before mine, all of the traffic violations, and proceeded to empty the courtroom of anyone that could witness my trial. Then, they tried mine, and, after the officer, judge, and local DA went into the judges chambers to discuss the evidence, found me guilty. Needless to say, my lawyer was going nuts...)

NJ, in general, has an attitude problem in the courts. Basically, if you show up in court, even if you are perfectly well behaved, etc., and you don't have an attorney... the judge typically will not have the time of day for you.

I've seen a few instances where two (or more) people show up for court, one with an attorney and one without... and the judge absolutely gives defferential treatment to the client with the attorney.


Actually, what I should do, now that I think about it... is get a local attorney from the town to take care of this. That's much more likely to go off without a hitch, as they'll be well known to the court.

Click to expand...

It's NJ - hire a local - pay the vigorish!

G O B said:

It's NJ - hire a local - pay the vigorish!

Click to expand...

I've actually sent letters to all of the courts involved, and specified that I need to know what they are reporting in the court record databases, as the criminal databases don't appear to show anything related to conviction. (Why would they?) However, since I got off on appeal, part of me wonders if there isn't a record in the court's database, separate from the criminal database, that has not been updated.

The more and more I look at this, the more likely this is.

So far, I'm the entity that seems to have copies of the court case. Neither the municipal court (where all of this started) or the superior court have any paper documentation... nor do they seem to have eletronic records.

In so far as expungement, I'll start the process of doing it myself, and if I run into issues, then I'll pay the $3500.00 to have a lawyer do it.

Given that I've got nothing else on my record, other than a few speeding tickets in the last 20 years, this will probably not be an issue. (It IS alot of paperwork...)

GB

I am a new member here, and reading this really pisses me off (nothing against you, just the system) I want to know how a person with a Maryland CCW can keep his CCW even though he has a 20+ year history of ex-parte's against 2 different ex-wife's. This person also sells firearms legally.

robert1970 said:

I am a new member here, and reading this really pisses me off (nothing against you, just the system) I want to know how a person with a Maryland CCW can keep his CCW even though he has a 20+ year history of ex-parte's against 2 different ex-wife's. This person also sells firearms legally.

Click to expand...

I assume you are not talking about the OP of this thread. If you have clearer details and wish to discuss this, I suggest you open your own thread. As this is your first post be warned that you may be considered a Troll or a plant trying to stir up trouble. Bring facts and let the records speak for themselves.

-Boxcab

...and finally:

Yesterday I received a call from the LT of the CID troop in question, asking to speak with me. (We've missed each other...)

...and today, I receive a letter indicating that the whole issue has been rectified:

- I'm not under consideration for a perjury charge as I didn't commit perjury
- New Jersey is misreporting that I've been convicted (eletronically, somewhere...)
- The original letter was generated automatically along with the hundreds of others that are typically sent out
- ...and some other minor details

Special thanks got out to Senator King's office for resolving this to my satisfaction!

I now have a letter in my hand that indicates that I was approved for the firearm sale, and that the previous letter indicating that I was a purgerer (sp?) is not valid.

GB

Congratulations!

GBMaryland said:

...and finally:

Yesterday I received a call from the LT of the CID troop in question, asking to speak with me. (We've missed each other...)

...and today, I receive a letter indicating that the whole issue has been rectified:

- I'm not under consideration for a perjury charge as I didn't commit perjury
- New Jersey is misreporting that I've been convicted (eletronically, somewhere...)
- The original letter was generated automatically along with the hundreds of others that are typically sent out
- ...and some other minor details

Special thanks got out to Senator King's office for resolving this to my satisfaction!

I now have a letter in my hand that indicates that I was approved for the firearm sale, and that the previous letter indicating that I was a purgerer (sp?) is not valid.

GB

Click to expand...

congrats!!

Thanks guys.

One thing to note is that it's clear the MDSP are not really interested in issuing letters.

The letter I recieved made it a point of stating that they have 100s of letters they send out indicating that people have committed purjury. The implication is that it's too much work to send out follow-up letters indicating that you didn't commit a crime.

I'm not impressed what that implication at the moment. However, it appears that I'll probably speak with the LT at some point, and I guess we'll see what he has to say.

I really can't give him too much crap about anything other than not responding in writing once it's clear a person did nothing criminal. The officers were all professional, even if the investigator attempted to punt to the licensing division.

GB

While the issue is fresh, suggest to Senator King that an amendment to the law should be made that would require the MSP to clear up their own mess by requiring a letter recinding any purgury letter that is found to be in error. Maybe he could request an investigation into the number of times this occures every year and how the MSP can minimize such errors.

Just some thoughts that might help the next guy/gal.

Good that you have been made "whole" again.

-Boxcab

I object to the idea of purgery charges being filed unless there is clear evidence you lied on the application. The OP here had no idea he had an outstanding issue, why should be even be considered for pergery charges.

gprimr1 said:

I object to the idea of purgery charges being filed unless there is clear evidence you lied on the application. The OP here had no idea he had an outstanding issue, why should be even be considered for pergery charges.

Click to expand...

Well, you are correct about that... unfortunately, I've got to say that it appears that NJ *MAY* be reporting that I was convicted... in some obscure database. [A standard law enforcement based full background check does not show me as convicted of anything...]

The biggest issue I see is that the MDSP did not seem the least bit interested in putting it in writing that I was perfectly clear and clean. [So I need to follow-up on that...]

I've filed FIOA and PIA requests... and I've called the Senator's office to see about changing the law, etc.

Lastly, I've called the MDSP Lt. several times [at his original request], and have not heard back. So this tells me that he really has no interested in dealing with this. So, while I was going to be nice, talk to him, and then let it go... Now, I'm going to give it one more try, and then I'm going to be a bastard about it.

I literally getting ready to follow the motto I learned in the USAF "Nuke 'em 'til they glow, and shoot 'em in the dark."

GB congrats!!! I'm glad you got everything cleared. I'm waiting on the word myself so I can pick up mine. Enjoy your new purchase when you get it.

Let recap for everyone the end story:

1) I was charged 20 years ago in NJ with a Petty Disorderly Persons Offense [aka minor misdemeanor]

2) The local court opted to rail road me, and on appeal I the conviction was vacated. [I was illegally detained, searched, and charged.]

3) I apply to purchase a "regulated" firearm in MD, and find out that I've been disapproved. [WTF?]

4) I call the Sgt at the Firearms Registration section, fax over the court documents, and the whole "disapproved" issue goes away within 4 hours. [I have my revolver in a day.]

5) I receive a letter from the MSP CID unit indicating that I've committed perjury, and cannot own firearms in MD. I call them up, and I'm told that everything's been taken care of, I'm not under consideration for anything, etc.

6) When I ask "When will you be sending the letter indicating that I and NOT guilty of committing perjury and that as of the date up to the day I purchased my new revolver I was allowed to own firearms in MD?" The inspector in question punts to the Firearms unit in an attempt to not have to get involved.

7) I go to Senator Nancy King, via email, and within 24 hours her staff is working on this issue. [My letter basically says that it is misconduct for an law enforcement agency to knowingly fail to recant written accusation of a crime.]

8) After two months, I get a phone call from the MSP Lt. in charge of the unit, which an indication that the letter is on its way... and that I should call him back.

9) I have called him several times, and he's not called me back. So, unless he's got a really good reason, this will eventually get ugly. [Unlike myself, it appears that my lawyers goal in life is to take as many pensions from public servants as is humanly possible.] I will eventually call one more time, say the things my lawyer has instructed, and then hang up.

10) I have initiated FOIA requests from the Feds covering this same information. [...as the Feds should have this information in their records.]

11) I have initiated PIA requests from the MSP Central Records, CC'ing ALL of my elected officials.

12) I have recommened that the law be modified to require reporting in all statistics, and that these include the number of letters set out by the MSP accusing people of perjury, and the number of retraction letters they send when they know the previous letters we false.