2011 Disqualifying crime changes are being enforced retroactively

2dogsbarking · Nov 6, 2013

I still think my act of filing for a firearm started this. I can't beleive they are going after all the existing, now illegal owners yet. It would have made the news. Again, this effects hundreds if not thousands of Md. gun owners. And, if your charged with anything and it comes out you have gun - even granpas old 12ga., thay can pile that on top of whatever your charged with / even if your found not guilty of the 1st charge. What is it now for having a illegal gun? 5 years?

2dogsbarking · Nov 6, 2013

Theres no point. The Md Supreme court refused to hear the first appeal. I have no money to try to get this fixed in a Fed court. In gereral, I have no money.

2dogsbarking · Nov 6, 2013

I don't think so. This is tied into the max sentence and what kind of crime.

MDFF2008 · Nov 6, 2013

The Men's Rights people I know would love this. It's sickening what she did.

Haides · Nov 6, 2013

gprimr1 said:
The Men's Rights people I know would love this. It's sickening what she did.

Say what? Men have rights?!
:shocked:

fabsroman · Nov 6, 2013

bpSchoch said:
I'm not am attorney but have studied the law somewhat extensively.

If I were to get a call from anybody in officidum, regarding my firearms, the answer would be none of your business and if I thought something might be up, I have them put away for safekeeping.

#1) Once you acknowledge having the firearm, then they know you broke the law (if indeed you broke it). Before that, it's only a belief that you own/have the firearm based on records. Once you say you do, well you have it don't you. At that point, if they would have to show probable cause and get a search warrant and I don't think the fact that you used to own one is enough to show probable cause.

#2) If they want to come to my house, I would say not without a search warrant that has been obtained through proper due process of law (proper probable cause or through a valid hearing).

#3) if they come to the house without a valid search warrant, don't consent to search. If they still do, then obviously you can't force them not to however I would have a recorder going with you in the audio repeatedly stating that you don't consent to the search. However it does become an unlawful search and it's not unheard of for unlawfully seized contraband, say 'weed' to be returned to owner.

In the end it's all about consent. Don't consent to answer the question and don't consent to their visit and search, period. Don't be a wuss. Learn to say no.

First off, in Maryland you cannot audio record a conversation with somebody without that other person's consent. You might want to do some more research.

If the MSP is giving you a Disapproved on a Form 77r and asking for the surrender of the firearm, your best bet would be to surrender the firearm. Pretty easy to obtain a warrant for a search of your residence, and if you are prohibited at that point they could probably leave the search parameters as vague as "guns and ammunition" since they already know you took possession of a firearm based upon the Form 77r. Granted, if you did not do an 8 day release and already have possession of the firearm, the simple route would be to tell them the dealer still has the firearm and you would like to have it transferred to somebody else.

Pissing them off and forcing them to get a warrant is most definitely going to result in a search of your house, which you will not be able to audio record, and probably result in you being charged with several gun crimes.

If you have deep pockets for bail and attorneys fees and no aversion to handcuffs or jail time, by all means give them the finger and tell them to go get a warrant. If you are like me, you would be more than willing to meet them on the front porch and surrender the firearm in question while praying that they do not charge you with anything, and without them coming in and searching through the entire house.

fabsroman · Nov 6, 2013

Haides said:
Say what? Men have rights?!

Of course men have rights.

They are the following:

You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

lol

Haides · Nov 6, 2013

^Best response you could have possibly given. Awesome. Lol

By the way, how much are you going to charge us for that legal advice?

ke3gk · Nov 6, 2013

2dogsbarking said:
I can't beleive they are going after all the existing, now illegal owners yet.

You got that right - it's only a matter of time.

henn5849 · Nov 6, 2013

2dogsbarking said:
I still think my act of filing for a firearm started this. I can't beleive they are going after all the existing, now illegal owners yet. It would have made the news. Again, this effects hundreds if not thousands of Md. gun owners. And, if your charged with anything and it comes out you have gun - even granpas old 12ga., thay can pile that on top of whatever your charged with / even if your found not guilty of the 1st charge. What is it now for having a illegal gun? 5 years?

did you lose all guns? Or just regulated?

bpSchoch · Nov 6, 2013

fabsroman said:
First off, in Maryland you cannot audio record a conversation with somebody without that other person's consent. You might want to do some more research.

If the MSP is giving you a Disapproved on a Form 77r and asking for the surrender of the firearm, your best bet would be to surrender the firearm. Pretty easy to obtain a warrant for a search of your residence, and if you are prohibited at that point they could probably leave the search parameters as vague as "guns and ammunition" since they already know you took possession of a firearm based upon the Form 77r. Granted, if you did not do an 8 day release and already have possession of the firearm, the simple route would be to tell them the dealer still has the firearm and you would like to have it transferred to somebody else.

Pissing them off and forcing them to get a warrant is most definitely going to result in a search of your house, which you will not be able to audio record, and probably result in you being charged with several gun crimes.

If you have deep pockets for bail and attorneys fees and no aversion to handcuffs or jail time, by all means give them the finger and tell them to go get a warrant. If you are like me, you would be more than willing to meet them on the front porch and surrender the firearm in question while praying that they do not charge you with anything, and without them coming in and searching through the entire house.

My point is to act not in fear but in knowledge. I'm not saying to record without their knowledge (but that's beside the point as an officer in their official capacity is considered to be in their public capacity). I personally would go through forcing them go get the search warrant or do a bad search. Then you have something you can go to court with. If you just consent without proper justification, then you just basically agreed to it and no court case can follow. i.e. you gave it to them. We need some court cases.

Pwilliams1 · Nov 6, 2013

Sorry for your situation. I have a very close friend who went through something similar. The mother of his only child had his son taken away from him with one phone call. All so she could pump the child support money into her veins. People are capable of horrible things.

markc · Nov 6, 2013

bpSchoch said:
My point is to act not in fear but in knowledge. I'm not saying to record without their knowledge (but that's beside the point as an officer in their official capacity is considered to be in their public capacity). I personally would go through forcing them go get the search warrant or do a bad search. Then you have something you can go to court with. If you just consent without proper justification, then you just basically agreed to it and no court case can follow. i.e. you gave it to them. We need some court cases.

I believe you are correct and fabsroman is wrong in regards to the recording (even video). You are allowed to record officers acting in official capacity, even when off duty. See "motorcycle helmet video of off duty officer pulling gun prematurely" case.

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2013

markc said:
I believe you are correct and fabsroman is wrong in regards to the recording (even video). You are allowed to record officers acting in official capacity, even when off duty. See "motorcycle helmet video of off duty officer pulling gun prematurely" case.

Recording video is fine under the statute. It is when you record a conversation that it is not fine according to the statute.

I just read the court opinion regarding the motorcycle case and the Judge did state that an officer should not expect any privacy while performing his duties in public. Problem here is that the opinion was that of a trial court judge and not an appellate opinion. So, it only sets precedence within the county it was issued in. Hard to believe the State's Attorney's office did not appeal it.

I also read through these links:

http://peopleslawoffice.com/the-right-to-record-police-officers/

http://cnsmaryland.org/2013/04/26/u...upporting-citizens-recording-police-officers/

Garcia was found Not Guilty of disorderly conduct. It would be interesting to get a copy of the Judge's opinion in that case.

It appears that the ability to record audio and video of officers performing their public "duties" is in a state of flux in Maryland and it is currently being worked out. Me, I am all for being allowed to record them with both video and audio. I have written my representatives about the wiretap statute being a pile of crap as far as it prohibits a person from recording a law enforcement officer's actions. Not only am I all for dash board cams, but I think all officers should be required to wear a helmet with a camera on top of it. When they have the ability to shoot people and then fabricate a story afterward and/or plant evidence afterward, they should be required to wear helmet cams. Just as law enforcement can track us via all the cameras posted everywhere, their actions should be tracked too. With great power comes great responsibility.

Now, if somebody can show me a reported opinion from an appellate court striking down the wiretap law as it pertains to law enforcement, then I will stand corrected. Until then, audio recording law enforcement in Maryland can put you in the test case pool. That is actually a pool that I would not mind joining if push comes to shove. It is actually something that has bothered me for over a decade.

I did notice one possible problem. The policy change pertains to law enforcement performing its duties in public. Is the execution of a search warrant done in public when it is done inside a person's house? I don't know the answer to this. Can a law enforcement officer expect any type of privacy while executing a search warrant under those conditions?

It would be really nice if SCOTUS did something useful and took up one of these cases to say it is completely legal to record law enforcement officers while they are on duty, or while they are executing any of their duties in their official capacity.

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2013

bpSchoch said:
My point is to act not in fear but in knowledge. I'm not saying to record without their knowledge (but that's beside the point as an officer in their official capacity is considered to be in their public capacity). I personally would go through forcing them go get the search warrant or do a bad search. Then you have something you can go to court with. If you just consent without proper justification, then you just basically agreed to it and no court case can follow. i.e. you gave it to them. We need some court cases.

See, I wouldn't force them to get the search warrant because they are going to get it and then search the entire house for ALL your firearms. Just agree to surrender the one they are looking for, that they know you have because of the Form 77r you submitted, and then pray they do not charge you with illegal possession of a firearm and perjury on the Form 77r. Both charges look bad to prospective employers.

Every matter is different, but when they have you dead to right, what is it going to matter if they get a search warrant or not? By completing Form 77r, both at the time you submit it for approval and then the copy when you go to pick up the firearm, you are already in a heap of trouble if you are prohibited.

Edit to add: You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money, while you're sitting at the table.

bpSchoch · Nov 7, 2013

fabsroman said:
See, I wouldn't force them to get the search warrant because they are going to get it and then search the entire house for ALL your firearms. Just agree to surrender the one they are looking for, that they know you have because of the Form 77r you submitted, and then pray they do not charge you with illegal possession of a firearm and perjury on the Form 77r. Both charges look bad to prospective employers.

Every matter is different, but when they have you dead to right, what is it going to matter if they get a search warrant or not? By completing Form 77r, both at the time you submit it for approval and then the copy when you go to pick up the firearm, you are already in a heap of trouble if you are prohibited.

Edit to add: You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money, while you're sitting at the table.

My point was not for a case where you filled a Form 77r, but a case where they are doing a fishing expedition based on what they believe that you are now prohibited past 'crimes' and their assuming you still own a firearm based on a past sale. The point is if they call you to ask if you have the firearm, you don't tell them. Until and if you answer, it's only an assumption and not a fact that you still own the weapon (whether you in fact own it or not). There is here a potential issue of ex=postfacto law and the issue of a law that is pretty murky which has constitutionality issues if not clear. Go do some research on due process of law and unclear laws. The only way to deal with it is going to court.

bpSchoch · Nov 7, 2013

fabsroman said:
Recording video is fine under the statute. It is when you record a conversation that it is not fine according to the statute.

I just read the court opinion regarding the motorcycle case and the Judge did state that an officer should not expect any privacy while performing his duties in public. Problem here is that the opinion was that of a trial court judge and not an appellate opinion. So, it only sets precedence within the county it was issued in. Hard to believe the State's Attorney's office did not appeal it.

I also read through these links:

http://peopleslawoffice.com/the-right-to-record-police-officers/

http://cnsmaryland.org/2013/04/26/u...upporting-citizens-recording-police-officers/

Garcia was found Not Guilty of disorderly conduct. It would be interesting to get a copy of the Judge's opinion in that case.

It appears that the ability to record audio and video of officers performing their public "duties" is in a state of flux in Maryland and it is currently being worked out. Me, I am all for being allowed to record them with both video and audio. I have written my representatives about the wiretap statute being a pile of crap as far as it prohibits a person from recording a law enforcement officer's actions. Not only am I all for dash board cams, but I think all officers should be required to wear a helmet with a camera on top of it. When they have the ability to shoot people and then fabricate a story afterward and/or plant evidence afterward, they should be required to wear helmet cams. Just as law enforcement can track us via all the cameras posted everywhere, their actions should be tracked too. With great power comes great responsibility.

Now, if somebody can show me a reported opinion from an appellate court striking down the wiretap law as it pertains to law enforcement, then I will stand corrected. Until then, audio recording law enforcement in Maryland can put you in the test case pool. That is actually a pool that I would not mind joining if push comes to shove. It is actually something that has bothered me for over a decade.

I did notice one possible problem. The policy change pertains to law enforcement performing its duties in public. Is the execution of a search warrant done in public when it is done inside a person's house? I don't know the answer to this. Can a law enforcement officer expect any type of privacy while executing a search warrant under those conditions?

It would be really nice if SCOTUS did something useful and took up one of these cases to say it is completely legal to record law enforcement officers while they are on duty, or while they are executing any of their duties in their official capacity.

This is from the first circuit where Massachusetts has a similar law to Maryland in regards to wiretapping, (and a very good source on the first amendment and citizens)
http://www.westudylaw.org/media/kunena/attachments/770/filmingpoliceglik1764P-01A.pdf

Also I have references to 2 other cases in MD where the DOJ has weighed in on the subject:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_SOI_1-10-12.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/garcia_SOI_3-14-13.pdf

I believe the above info should about settle the issue.

Also there is a guy who specifically follows this issue:
http://photographyisnotacrime.com
His website is followed nationally and has been quote by other mainstream news sources in the past.

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2013

bpSchoch said:
My point was not for a case where you filled a Form 77r, but a case where they are doing a fishing expedition based on what they believe that you are now prohibited past 'crimes' and their assuming you still own a firearm based on a past sale. The point is if they call you to ask if you have the firearm, you don't tell them. Until and if you answer, it's only an assumption and not a fact that you still own the weapon (whether you in fact own it or not). There is here a potential issue of ex=postfacto law and the issue of a law that is pretty murky which has constitutionality issues if not clear. Go do some research on due process of law and unclear laws. The only way to deal with it is going to court.

I fully understand about due process and statutory construction. The OP wasn't talking about MSP on a fishing expedition. His story revolves around a Disapproved on a Form 77r for which MSP wants the gun surrendered. It is all fine and good to tell people to face palm law enforcement when you are not the one that will have to post bail, pay for an attorney, and possibly go to prison. I know what my rights are, and I know what law enforcement can do. Sometimes it is just easier to cooperate versus pissing people off that are in a position of power. Then again, sometimes it behooves you to piss them off. End of the day, it all depends on the situation.

Plus, why the heck would MSP be calling random people out of the blue asking if they owned a firearm and then threatening them with a search warrant? Maybe they should ask if you have any illegal drugs, illegal aliens, stolen goods, etc. while they are at it.

bpSchoch · Nov 7, 2013

fabsroman said:
I fully understand about due process and statutory construction. The OP wasn't talking about MSP on a fishing expedition. His story revolves around a Disapproved on a Form 77r for which MSP wants the gun surrendered. It is all fine and good to tell people to face palm law enforcement when you are not the one that will have to post bail, pay for an attorney, and possibly go to prison. I know what my rights are, and I know what law enforcement can do. Sometimes it is just easier to cooperate versus pissing people off that are in a position of power. Then again, sometimes it behooves you to piss them off. End of the day, it all depends on the situation.

Plus, why the heck would MSP be calling random people out of the blue asking if they owned a firearm and then threatening them with a search warrant? Maybe they should ask if you have any illegal drugs, illegal aliens, stolen goods, etc. while they are at it.

from what I saw on other post, it wasn't necessarily random in that they were going over sales records for the past and following up on some of them. My point today is today, then was then and just because a bought one back then, doesn't mean I have one today and I shouldn't have to tell them if I still have one either (5th amendment). This is why we don't want a registry because then they would know who has one and who doesn't. And yes, it would be a fishing expedition and not a very good probable cause to get a search warrant because in the past I purchased a firearm and today they believe I'm not allowed to have one.

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2013

bpSchoch said:
This is from the first circuit where Massachusetts has a similar law to Maryland in regards to wiretapping, (and a very good source on the first amendment and citizens)
http://www.westudylaw.org/media/kunena/attachments/770/filmingpoliceglik1764P-01A.pdf

Also I have references to 2 other cases in MD where the DOJ has weighed in on the subject:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_SOI_1-10-12.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/garcia_SOI_3-14-13.pdf

I believe the above info should about settle the issue.

Also there is a guy who specifically follows this issue:
http://photographyisnotacrime.com
His website is followed nationally and has been quote by other mainstream news sources in the past.

You do a lot of research about this stuff I take it. Then do some research on what actually counts as precedent (i.e., what a trial court must follow).

An opinion from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals only applies to the district courts and other trial courts within that jurisdiction. Maryland is located within the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. While the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals opinion is persuasive, it is NOT binding.

The DOJ weighing in on the subject is not binding either. Until the Maryland Court of Special Appeals or the Maryland Court of Appeals, the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, or the US Supreme Court weighs in on this matter, nothing is binding on a Maryland trial court. Now, if you want to settle this matter, wherein I could actually advise a client to record law enforcement at will with absolutely ZERO worry, then find me an opinion from one of those courts I just mentioned.

If you were a practicing attorney, you would know better than to give a client advise to record a conversation with law enforcement without telling the client that the law is still in a state of flux and there is no guarantee that he will not be charged with a crime, possibly end up in jail, and possibly end up with a criminal record for recording a conversation with law enforcement.

2011 Disqualifying crime changes are being enforced retroactively

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

HAM from U.N.C.L.E.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics