HB623?

[DavidMS]

I got a flyer from Del Luiz Simmons regarding HB623. It looked like a fishing expedition for email addresses more than anything else.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0623&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS

I copied the synopsis from the mgaleg site:

Requiring the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to integrate the Criminal Justice Information System with the Maryland Automated Firearms System to allow the Department of State Police to identify individuals who purchased a firearm prior to October 1, 2013, and were subsequently convicted of a disqualifying crime requiring the surrender of firearms; etc.

It doesn't seem problematic other than being an end-run around the state properly submitting data to NICS which every state should be obligated to do.

 

[fabsroman]

I got a flyer from Del Luiz Simmons regarding HB623. It looked like a fishing expedition for email addresses more than anything else.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0623&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS

I copied the synopsis from the mgaleg site:


It doesn't seem problematic other than being an end-run around the state properly submitting data to NICS which every state should be obligated to do.

No, based upon your synopsis this would be akin to what is happening in California where the police come and visit you AFTER you have been convicted of a disqualifying crime because the MSP firearms database shows you purchased a scary assault weapon prior to October 1, 2013 and are no longer allowed to possess it since you are disqualified.

 

[Mr H]

I got a flyer from Del Luiz Simmons regarding HB623. It looked like a fishing expedition for email addresses more than anything else.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0623&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS

I copied the synopsis from the mgaleg site:


It doesn't seem problematic other than being an end-run around the state properly submitting data to NICS which every state should be obligated to do.

IMO, this is another "indefinite lookback" bill submitted this year, which will submit MDers to continual scrutiny for the foreseeable future, rather than MSP getting it right in the first place. They screwed up over the summer, and have no clue what's what... and this is a poor attempt to backtrack.

 

[Bolts Rock]

IMO, this is another "indefinite lookback" bill submitted this year, which will submit MDers to continual scrutiny for the foreseeable future, rather than MSP getting it right in the first place. They screwed up over the summer, and have no clue what's what... and this is a poor attempt to backtrack.

 

[fabsroman]

IMO, this is another "indefinite lookback" bill submitted this year, which will submit MDers to continual scrutiny for the foreseeable future, rather than MSP getting it right in the first place. They screwed up over the summer, and have no clue what's what... and this is a poor attempt to backtrack.

Well, your opinion is wrong.

10–205.

(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL INTEGRATE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM WITH THE MARYLAND AUTOMATED FIREARMS SYSTEM TO ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS WHO PURCHASED A FIREARM BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED OF A DISQUALIFYING CRIME REQUIRING THE SURRENDER OF FIREARMS.

(B) AT LEAST TWO TIMES EACH YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SHALL PERFORM A CHECK FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO PURCHASED A FIREARM BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED OF A DISQUALIFYING CRIME REQUIRING THE SURRENDER OF FIREARMS.

That is the proposed language of the bill. It is NOT so the MSP can continue to look back to see if there were prior offenses in place when it issued the ND, but it is to allow MSP to compare its firearms registry with the names of people that are SUBSEQUENTLY convicted of a disqualifying crime AFTER they have received the ND.

This is exactly what is being done in California. What the bill does not say within the bill or the synopsis is that a MSP confiscation squad will be out shortly twice a year to make sure those that become disqualified surrender their weapons. Granted, no idea how they would actually get a search warrant , but who knows. Maybe the registry and subsequent disqualifying crime will be enough for the search warrant.

 

[fabsroman]

For the record, I am not a fan of this bill and this entire registration stuff is complete BS.

 

[Mr H]

no comment??



This one really bothers me, especially when taken in combination with other bills, which look to go back in the past (even beyond statutes of limitations) to determine criminality where there may have been none.

It seems to be a mini-theme this year.

 

[fabsroman]

no comment??



This one really bothers me, especially when taken in combination with other bills, which look to go back in the past (even beyond statutes of limitations) to determine criminality where there may have been none.

It seems to be a mini-theme this year.

It doesn't go back in time to determine criminality. What it does is compare past records of who has bought guns with current records of who has been convicted of a disqualifying crime. Possessing a firearm while disqualified is a crime, and it would be a current charge if the person is actually in possession of a firearm. They are just using old records to see who might be in violation of the law.

I wonder how many people that are disqualified actually know they are disqualified. I had to deal with this about this time last year for a client with a DUI. He had no idea he would be disqualified.

 

[Threeband]

They intend to keep all gun owners under closer and closer scrutiny, always watching for a rationale to declare them "prohibited persons", and confiscate their guns.

Watch for more ex post facto disqualifications to be enacted.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

It doesn't go back in time to determine criminality. What it does is compare past records of who has bought guns with current records of who has been convicted of a disqualifying crime. Possessing a firearm while disqualified is a crime, and it would be a current charge if the person is actually in possession of a firearm. They are just using old records to see who might be in violation of the law.

I wonder how many people that are disqualified actually know they are disqualified. I had to deal with this about this time last year for a client with a DUI. He had no idea he would be disqualified.

Agreed.

Not necessarily a bad thing.... Get convicted of a disqualifying crime and you lose your firearms.

But.... That statute of limitations...

Do you know what the penalties are for not complying with psa 5-117.1? I can't discern that answer from the FSA 2013 language.

 

[Mr H]

Well, since you quoted him, l'll answer him...

There is more than just this one bill that has a "lookback" provision, so yeah... I'm looking at the bigger effect. Also, anything that looks to enhance the effects of what the state has tried to accomplish this past year is, IMO, a potential problem.

You're wasting your time responding to me, Fabs. And looking into other threads it seems I'm not the only one who cares little for what you say.

 

[The sphinx]

It's baby steps to confiscation. I'm totally against a gun registry as most of us are. This bill is only possible bc of the gun registration. IMO that alone makes this bill crap. They of course will justify it as getting the guns out of the wrong hands and that's all fine but again they are targeting the wrong people. I'm sure they all believe that tons of people bought guns prior to oct 1 bc they have been voluntarily committed for 31 days and oct 1 set that number to 30 days so they rushed to beat it. Yeah that bull shit but I'm sure that part of the thinking.

 

[The sphinx]

Well, since you quoted him...

There is more than just this one bill that has a "lookback" provision, so yeah... I'm looking at the bigger effect. Also, anything that looks to enhance the effects of what the state has tried to accomplish this past year is, IMO, a potential problem.

You're wasting your time responding to me, BTW. And looking into other threads it seems I'm not the only one who cares little for what you say.

I agree 100%

 

[fabsroman]

Well, since you quoted him, l'll answer him...

There is more than just this one bill that has a "lookback" provision, so yeah... I'm looking at the bigger effect. Also, anything that looks to enhance the effects of what the state has tried to accomplish this past year is, IMO, a potential problem.

You're wasting your time responding to me, Fabs. And looking into other threads it seems I'm not the only one who cares little for what you say.

Yeah, but there are others that do care about what I have to say, and those that don't care one bit about what you have to say. So, I'll keep responding to what you have to say. If you don't like it, please put me on ignore for your own sanity and so you can feel like you one upped me and shout to the mountains "I HAVE FABS ON IGNORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as you have done so many other times. Oh yeah, and don't "peak behind the curtains" after you do so.

I don't put anybody on ignore. If their response is worthless and/or it is not such that somebody not knowing any better would be hurt by it, I just don't respond.

 

[fabsroman]

Agreed.

Not necessarily a bad thing.... Get convicted of a disqualifying crime and you lose your firearms.

But.... That statute of limitations...

Do you know what the penalties are for not complying with psa 5-117.1? I can't discern that answer from the FSA 2013 language.

That Statute of Limitations would never come into play. For you to be guilty of possessing a firearm when you are prohibited, they would have to find you in possession of one after you become prohibited. They couldn't use the database as evidence that you are in possession of a firearm when you become prohibited in the future, but they might be able to use it as probable cause to search your house. If they find you in possession of a firearm during that search, then you are in trouble.

A Statute of Limitations starts to run upon the commission of the crime. However, if you continue to possess a firearm while prohibited, the Statute of Limitations would never start to run because you are continuously breaking the law.

You might also note that there is no statute of limitations for misdemeanors that are jailable offenses in Maryland.

Quick google search:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...e-of-limitations/MD-felonies-misdemeanors.htm

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

That Statute of Limitations would never come into play. For you to be guilty of possessing a firearm when you are prohibited, they would have to find you in possession of one after you become prohibited. They couldn't use the database as evidence that you are in possession of a firearm when you become prohibited in the future, but they might be able to use it as probable cause to search your house. If they find you in possession of a firearm during that search, then you are in trouble.

A Statute of Limitations starts to run upon the commission of the crime. However, if you continue to possess a firearm while prohibited, the Statute of Limitations would never start to run because you are continuously breaking the law.

You might also note that there is no statute of limitations for misdemeanors that are jailable offenses in Maryland.

Quick google search:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/criminal-case-statute-of-limitations/MD-felonies-misdemeanors.htm

Thank you.

My question stems from the span purchase situation... So if someone received a firearm after 10/1 that required a HQL per the law, and followed the MSP advisory that they did not plan to enforce it, could the state come back later and prosecute that person if they chose to?

 

[fabsroman]

Thank you.

My question stems from the span purchase situation... So if someone received a firearm after 10/1 that required a HQL per the law, and followed the MSP advisory that they did not plan to enforce it, could the state come back later and prosecute that person if they chose to?

The answer to that question is that the statute of limitations NEVER runs because the crime, even though a misdemeanor, carries a 5 year prison sentence.

MD Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-106 Prosecution for misdemeanors; manslaughter by automobile, motorboat, etc.; homicide by motor vehicle (Maryland Code (2013 Edition))

(a) In general. -- Except as provided by this section and § 1-303 of the Environment Article , a prosecution for a misdemeanor shall be instituted within 1 year after the offense was committed.

(b) Misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in penitentiary. -- Notwithstanding § 9-103(a)(3) of the Correctional Services Article or any other provision of the Code, if a statute provides that a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary or that a person is subject to this subsection:

(1) The State may institute a prosecution for the misdemeanor at any time; and

(2) For purposes of the Maryland Constitution, the person:

(i) Shall be deemed to have committed a misdemeanor whose punishment is confinement in the penitentiary; and

(ii) May reserve a point or question for in banc review as provided under Article IV, § 22 of the Maryland Constitution.

The thing is, the bill in question is not dealing with that. It is looking for people that own assault weapons or handguns prior to October 1, 2013 that become prohibited at some later date. Once those firearms are removed from their possession, it becomes almost impossible for them to get them back.

I am not saying that the HQL issue isn't a valid one, but at least a person can refer to reliance on the MSP advisory to mitigate the outcome, maybe even say that they did not "knowingly violate the law because the MSP said it was alright.