No good deed goes unpunished in MD?

[esqappellate]

Is that crap state specific or is it just MD is too strict? I thought that the federal government decides who is and is not prohibited?

The feds do, but the States are free to enact their own list of prohibited offenses, 18 U.S.C. 927, and virtually all states do exactly that.

 

[TangoSierra27]

You can file for expungment of your record. It is quite easily done. Contact attorney.

 

[fabsroman]

You can file for expungment of your record. It is quite easily done. Contact attorney.

Yeah, in Maryland IF it is a PBJ, nolle, or Not Guilty. Otherwise, pretty much impossible.

This matter happened in California and it has already been "expunged" according to California law. However, that expungement is not the same thing as an expungement in Maryland of a PBJ, nolle, or Not Guilty. Oh yeah, the "expungement" in California was on a Guilty, which cannot be expunged in Maryland.

Expungement is either easy or impossible.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

The feds do, but the States are free to enact their own list of prohibited offenses, 18 U.S.C. 927, and virtually all states do exactly that.

My question would be to examine the elements of the crime to see if they are actually the same crime. California and Maryland may have crimes that in their description or title seem almost identical, however, the elements of the crime may be entirely different. Or they could be the same with a different body of law surrounding them. For example, the element in one state may be more of less broad as compared to the other state.

Lets say I make something up here for an example.

California Law - Public urination near a school is a misdemeanor punishable with up to three years in jail.
Maryland Law - Public urination near a school is a misdemeanor punishable with up to three years in jail.

Element for the crime in CA - Must be within 1,000 feet for school property
Element for the crime in Maryland - Must be within 500 feet of school property

Fact - Defendant was 900 feet from a school in California

In this case, it's a crime in California, but not in Maryland.

Would this make a difference - its not even a crime in Maryland?

 

[esqappellate]

My question would be to examine the elements of the crime to see if they are actually the same crime. California and Maryland may have crimes that in their description or title seem almost identical, however, the elements of the crime may be entirely different. Or they could be the same with a different body of law surrounding them. For example, the element in one state may be more of less broad as compared to the other state.

Lets say I make something up here for an example.

California Law - Public urination near a school is a misdemeanor punishable with up to three years in jail.
Maryland Law - Public urination near a school is a misdemeanor punishable with up to three years in jail.

Element for the crime in CA - Must be within 1,000 feet for school property
Element for the crime in Maryland - Must be within 500 feet of school property

Fact - Defendant was 900 feet from a school in California

In this case, it's a crime in California, but not in Maryland.

Would this make a difference - its not even a crime in Maryland?

That’s one of the problems with the Brown ruling that they expressly punted on — picking a comparator crime. Short answer. No case law on it.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

That’s one of the problems with the Brown ruling that they expressly punted on — picking a comparator crime. Short answer. No case law on it.

Thanks. Maybe in 8-10 years, Ed Hershon will have an answer.

 

[Ciditad]

In Maryland, it doesn't matter what the sentence was or could be in the other state. What matters is whether the disqualifying conviction from another state is a violation that would be classified in Maryland
as misdemeanor that carried statutory penalty of more than two years. The case is Brown v. HPRB, 188 Md.App. 455, 982 A.2d 830 (2009). Attached.

Without know what you were convicted of in California, I can only imagine that the MD counterpart might be MD Code, Criminal Law, § 7-302, pertaining to unauthorized access to computers and related material. It has a 3 year imprisonment penalty. Also attached.

A Court of Appeals decision interpreting a prior version of this section is Briggs v. State, 348 Md. 470 (1998). The statute was amended in 1998 after Briggs to prohibit access that exceeds that authorized and thus overrule Briggs.

CA PC 502(c)(3)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=502.&lawCode=PEN

It may be a long shot for me, but we'll see what comes out of the case. At least there will be one more data point for those considering moving to MD with their legally acquired collection from another state. I think the angle would be similar to CA's CARB where they have stricter emissions rules over federal regulations, I just didn't know browsing the internet while at work can get you 3 years in MD. Can't say the lawmakers aren't tough on crime LOL.

 

[Kicken Wing]

CA PC 502(c)(3)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=502.&lawCode=PEN

It may be a long shot for me, but we'll see what comes out of the case. At least there will be one more data point for those considering moving to MD with their legally acquired collection from another state. I think the angle would be similar to CA's CARB where they have stricter emissions rules over federal regulations, I just didn't know browsing the internet while at work can get you 3 years in MD. Can't say the lawmakers aren't tough on crime LOL.

MD is tough on the WRONG crimes and let the harsh crimes slide. Good luck to you, man!

 

[lemmdus]

My advice, call dealer and have them hold your guns for you, move to PA, change your drivers license to PA, pick up your guns. I know you were trying to do the right thing, but the laws here in Maryland basically force you to break the law.

 

[Speed3]

Quick update: I've spoken with Ed Hershon and he is taking on my case. Hopefully the sale of the P7 will pay for this (I'm told it's not sold yet).

Its sold now

Good luck with everything, bad circumstances. I wish you the best of luck getting this resolved.

 

[putneyswope]

This is a terrible situation. We feel for you, OP.

 

[Boats]

After reading the law, I think you have a case against the MSP for how they handle this: (IANAL, but I can read):

definitions:
section 5-101 defines:
a "regulated firearm" is a handgun or assault style rifle or shotgun (with a list included)
a "disqualifying crime" includes a misdemeanor with a penalty of more than 2 years

the law:
section 5-133(b)2 states:
Subject to § 5-133.3 of this subtitle, a person may not possess a regulated
firearm if the person:
(1) has been convicted of a disqualifying crime

For starters, the law ONLY restricts the possession of handguns and assault style long guns for people with a misdemeanor conviction.

AND

In CA, a 1203.4 relief re-opens the case and changes the verdict of a case from guilty (or no contest) to not guilty and closes the case.


so, there is no conviction, so the OP should be good to go.(he will simply have to argue that point, most likely as a full faith and credit argument)

barring that, according to the law, he should still be able to own long guns including HBAR AR15s.

IF the MSP compelled him to give up unregulated long guns as well as pistols then, as I read it, they are operating outside the scope of the law

 

[Boats]

My advice, call dealer and have them hold your guns for you, move to PA, change your drivers license to PA, pick up your guns. I know you were trying to do the right thing, but the laws here in Maryland basically force you to break the law.

there is a slight problem with that, unless the dealer is in PA, they wouldn't be able to transfer them back to a PA resident, most likely.

 

[Boats]

Counselors,
In post #8, the OP mentioned he has CA's PC1203.4 relief, which I then read into and appears to be an overturn of a guilty verdict upon completion of probation; not unlike PBJ in Maryland.
I think his guilty plea being overturned by CA would mean he is not prohibited, yet the guilty verdict is still showing up in some database.
Thoughts?

basically, yes. when a CA state resident receives a CPC 1203.4 relief, with right restoration, the state of CA does NOT update the FBIs federal database, per the office of the CA AG.

To my knowledge, that database is the one that the MSP checks, NOT the individual state databases. So basically what happens is that, even though the CA resident has had their legal rights restored in CA, the fact that CA does not update the federal database is the problem. Furthermore, the FBI will not update their records based on submissions from an individual, the request for database update MUST come from a prosecutors or law enforcement organization, per the FBI

 

[welder516]

Once you are in the system it is hard to get out of the system . Cost of professional help to even correct someone else's mistake is ridiculous . I hope the OP has the finances and the collection worth fighting for , to me it would be important to save my reputation then the firearms themselves . (Unless they are family heirlooms)

 

[BlueMule]

Sorry for your pain OP. I despise this state's left wing politics and laws.

 

[Ciditad]

No updates from Ed Hershon yet.

Cooter's has sold my P7 (to a fellow board member here and I'm glad she went to a loving home), and to my surprise the tiny Beretta 25ACP that I shot maybe twice and said that's not for me. I'm encouraged by some postings here and the P7's sale will cover my initial retainer fees for Ed and hopefully that will be sufficient.

Looking at crossbows for home protection in the mean time. Going up to Cabelas this weekend to see if I can pick one up.

 

[Speed3]

No updates from Ed Hershon yet.

Cooter's has sold my P7 (to a fellow board member here and I'm glad she went to a loving home), and to my surprise the tiny Beretta 25ACP that I shot maybe twice and said that's not for me. I'm encouraged by some postings here and the P7's sale will cover my initial retainer fees for Ed and hopefully that will be sufficient.

Looking at crossbows for home protection in the mean time. Going up to Cabelas this weekend to see if I can pick one up.

Check out wicked ridge crossbows. They are nice and relatively inexpensive.

 

[Boats]

No updates from Ed Hershon yet.

Cooter's has sold my P7 (to a fellow board member here and I'm glad she went to a loving home), and to my surprise the tiny Beretta 25ACP that I shot maybe twice and said that's not for me. I'm encouraged by some postings here and the P7's sale will cover my initial retainer fees for Ed and hopefully that will be sufficient.

Looking at crossbows for home protection in the mean time. Going up to Cabelas this weekend to see if I can pick one up.

A black powder pistol should still be ok until this gets worked out.

 

[esqappellate]

After reading the law, I think you have a case against the MSP for how they handle this: (IANAL, but I can read):

definitions:
section 5-101 defines:
a "regulated firearm" is a handgun or assault style rifle or shotgun (with a list included)
a "disqualifying crime" includes a misdemeanor with a penalty of more than 2 years

the law:
section 5-133(b)2 states:
Subject to § 5-133.3 of this subtitle, a person may not possess a regulated
firearm if the person:
(1) has been convicted of a disqualifying crime

For starters, the law ONLY restricts the possession of handguns and assault style long guns for people with a misdemeanor conviction.

AND

In CA, a 1203.4 relief re-opens the case and changes the verdict of a case from guilty (or no contest) to not guilty and closes the case.


so, there is no conviction, so the OP should be good to go.(he will simply have to argue that point, most likely as a full faith and credit argument)

barring that, according to the law, he should still be able to own long guns including HBAR AR15s.

IF the MSP compelled him to give up unregulated long guns as well as pistols then, as I read it, they are operating outside the scope of the law

You are missing other statutory provisions that impose the same disqualification for long gun possession. See MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-205(b)(1)