Press Release 3/4

1obxnut · Mar 5, 2014

Question (stupid as it might seem): How often does the state police get involved with domestic violence or any violent crimes unless there is a car chase involved on a highway..I've been on "ride-alongs" where "County and/or City Police" was called to handle the situation, even other "crimes" like drunken disorderly, DUI & DWI involving auto crashes..I did not see any MSP..do they (PD and MSP) have a linked system? or is this another "failure" of gov't

daNattyFatty · Mar 5, 2014

1obxnut said:
Question (stupid as it might seem): How often does the state police get involved with domestic violence or any violent crimes unless there is a car chase involved on a highway..I've been on "ride-alongs" where "County and/or City Police" was called to handle the situation, even other "crimes" like drunken disorderly, DUI & DWI involving auto crashes..I did not see any MSP..do they (PD and MSP) have a linked system? or is this another "failure" of gov't

I'm going to answer what I think your question is. In some jurisdictions, like Baltimore city and county, those departments are the primary law enforcement agency. They will be handling the calls for service. In Baltimore county, the state has primary responsibility for crashes on 695, 83 and 795. Unless they witness something elsewhere and take action, that's about all they do.

In Harford co, I believe they go 50-50 with the sheriff's on calls for service. The three towns handle their own calls and can freely request msp or sheriff assistance.

In some counties (Carroll, up until a few years ago), msp is the only show in town.

ShallNotInfringe · Mar 5, 2014

This was the basis for this article that went out: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014...rs-linking-gun-registry-to-criminal-database/

We need people watching every piece of legislation coming out of Annapolis that assigns criminal charges greater than 1 year (4473) or two years (77R).

And getting down there raising hell about what it does to 2nd amendment rights.

Their new tactic is to criminalize all kinds of things (through new laws or assigning new penalties) to decimate our ranks.

And...

We need PBJ folks to start raising holy hell about having the state threatening their firearms confiscated by a plea bargain used long ago and get the state in court over that Godforsaken Simmons amendment. That should have been a standalone lawsuit.

They will not sleep, they will not stop. We can't either.

dblas · Mar 5, 2014

mopar92 said:
Yep so they can ride the shuttle to the Senate or the House of Delegates.

Not from the baseball stadium, they can't. From the football stadium, you can.

dblas · Mar 5, 2014

iH8DemLibz said:
If they have the names of 110,000 "would-be" criminals, they can go after them anytime they want. I think they're blowing smoke up our collective puckers on this point. I think that they think they have no legal standing to go back 10-20-30-40-50 years and retroactively turn an otherwise model citizen into a crazed, gun-toting, would-be, killer. This form of gasbaggery could convince some gun owners to part with their firearms out of fear. Their goal is a complete and total elimination of firearms by any and all means possible. Let us not forget that.

I made that argument in my testimony yesterday.

danb · Mar 5, 2014

Don't get it. The databases "talk" when we BUY guns, right? When someone is arrested... are you telling me they don't check the gun registry FIRST? I find it hard to believe the MSP does not or could not check when someone is arrested/convicted.

Clovis · Mar 5, 2014

Mr H said:
Seems to me he repeated that release almost verbatim last night, near the end of the hearing.

He really wants to hang his hat on these numbers (even though they don't appear to have any basis in fact).

He's an ideologue, make no mistake about it. He's also a true believer, and will follow his marching orders.

The Naval Academy baseball stadium?!!

Is there a baseball stadium there? I wonder why he/they would want people to show up at the red pin point, cause I don't know what is there. Thought it might be some super secret anti-gun gathering point. But judging from how many showed up in favor of Simmons, I guess he got everyone lost.

mopar92 · Mar 5, 2014

dblas said:
Not from the baseball stadium, they can't. From the football stadium, you can.

Look I was TRYING to cover up the fact that I'm a technological retard. And that I had no clue why it was there.

dblas · Mar 5, 2014

mopar92 said:
Look I was TRYING to cover up the fact that I'm a technological retard. And that I had no clue why it was there.

So it was a translation error. :lol2:

mopar92 · Mar 5, 2014

dblas said:
So it was a translation error.

Sí

Clovis · Mar 6, 2014

mopar92 said:
Look I was TRYING to cover up the fact that I'm a technological retard. And that I had no clue why it was there.

Ah, you're not alone. Technology certainly makes me feel, well, lost.

Doctor_M · Mar 6, 2014

Mr H said:
As long as they are allowed to keep redefining "illegal", then yeah... the numbers could be anything.

THIS ^^. There is literally no limit to what they might be able to do. We've all made jokes about late library books being the new standard for disqualifying offenses.... but they could define it as anything. Allegations (not convictions) could be the new threshold in the near future, with the logic being, "Well this person could potentially be a threat to the public, and until we sort it out, he will be disarmed". It's not that far of a stretch. Every one of the upstanding citizens on this board (hard working, law-abiding, family loving, etc., etc.) could easily be swept into a new category of prohibited persons with the stroke of a pen. If they can do it, they likely will. It is a clear and present danger.

Maverick0313 · Mar 6, 2014

Hopalong said:
The twisted, evil part of myself that I keep tucked in the dark corners of my brain actually hopes this passes.

The reason? To see it fail horribly and serve as fodder for an epic court case banning all state-level gun registries.

Evil hypotheticals aside though, this needs to fail. There is far too much room for abuse here. Depriving people of their rights and property should take a judge's order, not a hit in a database.

Amen.

ericahls · Mar 6, 2014

I am still stuck on the fact that they think that they are going to go door to door collecting firearms from 110,000 people legal or not.

Sounds like a job they will give the new guy :-)

daNattyFatty · Mar 6, 2014

danb said:
Don't get it. The databases "talk" when we BUY guns, right? When someone is arrested... are you telling me they don't check the gun registry FIRST? I find it hard to believe the MSP does not or could not check when someone is arrested/convicted.

Apparently, they don't "talk" post trial. I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem for MSP to do so, if notified.

What I'm betting is that there is no software or program that goes through the district and circuit court dockets each day, finds disqualifying convictions and then forwards that to MSP.

If not that, then I'm betting that no one at DPSCS notifies MSP once someone enters their realm (either as an inmate, on probation or parole).

We can't have a database going back over the years and decades just looking for people and convictions though.

CrazySanMan · Mar 6, 2014

Unfortunately this is going to embolden the lawmakers in CT and could cause a lot of bloodshed.

Press Release 3/4

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Ultimate Member

Lil Firecracker

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Official MDS Court Jester

Past President, MSI

Official MDS Court Jester

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Retired and loving it

Active Member

Ultimate Member

2013'er

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics