This happened today, 03/27/2014....CONFISCATION

[Ab_Normal]

So, your 22 years old and charged with a crime you did not commit. You scrape together $6,000 for the best attorney you can afford. Go to trial and get railroaded. The state does not have any real proof of you committing the crime but the judge feels someone must pay and you were the best choice. The judge commends you for maintaining your innocence and fighting the good fight, but someone still has to pay. He offers you PBJ . Your initial thought is " I'm innocent" and I'm still going to fight this. Your lawyer advises you that an appeal is going to cost you another $15,000. You have no means to pay the attorney for the appeal and the judge is waiting for an answer. What would you do?

Pay the $.

 

[protegeV]

A warrant would be required for them to enter your home and take the weapons. My guess is they are betting you would rather voluntarily hand them over rather than make them come back with a warrant which allows them to stomp around your house rummaging through your shit.

Maybe they are betting that. They are rolling the dice. If you tell them to gtfo abd they have to come back with a warrantim gonna say theres a .0000000001% chance that whatever they were looking for would still be in the house when they came back

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

It doesn't sound like Jr. ever legally possessed either firearm. One was picked up in December, after the law took effect on 10/1, and the other was picked up a few days ago. He was never legally allowed to take possession of either firearm.

He was not disapproved from receiving his purchases. Twice. Then he was. Once.

They had 7 days to disapprove the purchases, they did not adhere to their own law in the timeframe they are given. Not just once either, twice.

Interesting how that just occurred to me... Now I have to go back and re-read the lawsuit from last June, because they had some mumbojumbo about why the state didn't have to comply with the law on the disapprove side along with stating they had no constraint on the not disapproved side...

 

[Alutacon]

The simple solution....get rid of this PBJ non sense.

The state can either find your guilty, not guilty, or STET the case...well maybe not STET because that brings up even more complicated issues.

I get the idea that a constitutional right shouldn't be infringed upon based off of finding of anything other then GUILTY. That's a fundamental and literally finding of the law.

I'd argue that based on fundamental interpretations of the law that PBJ's have no business in the court setting. The basic principle of our legal system is to punish those who are found guilty of a crime and to FREE those who can not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime. To tell someone "if you don't mess up again we'll brush this under the rug" doesn't really flow with me. It's abused by the judges, states attorneys, and defense attorneys and I'm assuming whoever wrote it into law didn't really intend for it to be employed the way it currently is.

Why or how we got away from it is beyond me.

The actual purpose of the PBJ is geared more toward helping the government than the criminal defendant. Virtually all PBJs that are granted are granted in the District Courts of Maryland. Early in my career I did some criminal work and I can tell you if you go to a District Court courtroom in the morning as they are having roll call for the criminal cases for the morning session it will become very apparent that it would be absolutely impossible for the Court system to try all of the cases. Not enough court rooms, not enough judges, not enough prosecutors, not enough public defenders, not enough bailiffs or sheriffs or court clerks. I am very serious.

So the PBJ is the government's way out. In the time and with the same resources that it takes to try a single case, they can send 15 or 20 defendants on their way with a PBJ.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

So let me get this all straight. This is for any PBJ, no matter how long ago, or even if the case was put on stet, yet after the 1 year of unsupervised probation and the PBJ goes away, you are still unable to purchase a regulated firearm in MD?

For example:
A kid made a dumb decision to swipe an item at a store and it is his first time ever doing that. He gets caught, and released by store LP. He gets a letter in the mail demanding restitution and he pays it, yet then he gets a summons for a trial date almost 1 year after the incident occurred. He lawyers up, because he has cleaned his act up and is now a upstanding member of the community and society in general. At the trial, his attorney works a deal with the SA, and the judge grants the kid PBJ, 1 year unsupervised probation, 40 hours of community service, and stet. The kid completes the 40 hours of community service in less than an month and stays clean throughout the probation period and never offends again, with the exception of a speeding ticket here and there. Because it was placed on stet and he never caused a ripple in the court system it disappears forever, like it was never there, right? Keep in mind that this incident would take place back in say 2000, for the sake of argument.

With the example above, is the kid now prohibited from buying a handgun in MD, even though the criminal case does not show on MD case search?

 

[Alutacon]

PBJ Simplified:

Probation is not given to nor is it accepted by an innocent party.
IF you agree to probation... You ARE pleading guilty with the understanding that no "Judgement" (read "Penalty") will be leveed against you, as long as you complete the probation period without another offense for which you are found guilty.


PBJ IS a self entered GUILTY finding in the eyes of Maryland Courts. The only advantage to the defendant is that they don't get jail time IF they complete the terms of the probation.

This is why the MSP can come get the guns.

That is incorrect information. A PBJ is not a guilty plea, a guilty plea is a plea and a PBJ is a disposition resulting from a plea. The difference is more than semantics and more than the absence of a penalty. In fact, many PBJs come with a penalty as part of the probationary aspect. The penalty could be a fine, community service, etc. The "before Judgment" means just that, probation is levied before judgment, if probation is satisfied judgment is never entered, i.e., you never have a criminal conviction on your record for that particular offense. What you do have, obviously, is a notation that you accepted a PBJ.

 

[Lou45]

SB281 was never the law of the land according to the Constitution.

According to MOM and his ******** buddies it is. WTF do you think SB281 is being challenged in the courts???

 

[Alutacon]

He was not disapproved from receiving his purchases. Twice. Then he was. Once.

They had 7 days to disapprove the purchases, they did not adhere to their own law in the timeframe they are given. Not just once either, twice.

Interesting how that just occurred to me... Now I have to go back and re-read the lawsuit from last June, because they had some mumbojumbo about why the state didn't have to comply with the law on the disapprove side along with stating they had no constraint on the not disapproved side...

Well remember, the 7 days only allows a dealer to release to you if they haven't heard from MSP. The failure of MSP to issue a not dissaproved in 7 days doesn't make you approved. The simple fact is as, unfortunately, as of 10/1/13 Jr. was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm in this state. That is the case whether MSP issued disapproval prior to his pickup or not. He knew he had a PBJ and he knew what the law was, or in any case he should have known what the law was. Further, even if he didn't know what the law was that is generally not a defense to breaking the law and certainly not a defense to violating SB281.

I think it is all BS and I think he is getting railroaded bad. But, with that said, he never had the right to pick up either of those firearms and he should have known this was coming.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

There it is...

The requirement is that if the MSP disapproves of an application, it issues notice of that disapproval within seven days. Thus, the only applications as to which P[ublic]S[afety] 122(b) speaks are to those that will ultimately be disapproved. By definition, an individual who submits such an application has no right to purchase a firearm, and this cannot suffer any injury, irreparable or otherwise, to a non-existent right

So, there you are nestled in your bed thinking all is well with the world 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years later, you have paperowk showing they did not disapprove of the purchase after their 20 database checks....and suddenly a knock at 6 am by msp coming to collect your firearms....

There is no injury due to the States neglect, because you were prohibited and have no right to make a claim. Riiiight.

 

[yournamehere]

Maybe I'm being naive, but if you did absolutely nothing wrong and there's no clandestine conspiracy against you then shouldn't even a public defender be able to prove your innocence?

I figure the high price lawyers are the ones you need when you did somethibg wrong and you need the charges mitigated

It was a serious charge with 3-5 years jail time. It was recomended to get a good lawyer and not use a public defender.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Well remember, the 7 days only allows a dealer to release to you if they haven't heard from MSP. The failure of MSP to issue a not dissaproved in 7 days doesn't make you approved. The simple fact is as, unfortunately, as of 10/1/13 Jr. was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm in this state. That is the case whether MSP issued disapproval prior to his pickup or not. He knew he had a PBJ and he knew what the law was, or in any case he should have known what the law was. Further, even if he didn't know what the law was that is generally not a defense to breaking the law and certainly not a defense to violating SB281.

I think it is all BS and I think he is getting railroaded bad. But, with that said, he never had the right to pick up either of those firearms and he should have known this was coming.

Every application submitted post 10/1 has been turned around in the allotted 7 days (or less, many cases 2-3 days). There is 0 backlog for post-10/1 applications. 0. The FFL received a not disapproved based on the OP's information that these were post 10/1 applications, AND the young man got a HQL.

 

[yournamehere]

Pay the $.

You have no means to pay. You exhausted all of your options on the first trial.
How do you pay the $ ?

 

[Alutacon]

Every application submitted post 10/1 has been turned around in the allotted 7 days (or less, many cases 2-3 days). There is 0 backlog for post-10/1 applications. 0. The FFL received a not disapproved based on the OP's information that these were post 10/1 applications, AND the young man got a HQL.

I hear you, but that isn't really the issue. The issue is whether he is statutorily prohibited from owning a regulated firearm, and apparently he was. The OP didn't state this (the OP said he waited for a not dissaproved, he never said Jr. received it and I thought that wording was interesting, don't know if it was intentional or not) but let's say he actually got a "not dissaproved". Wouldn't change the fact that he legally cannot own the guns. It just means MSP effed up on his background check--surprise, surprise!

That failure on MSP's part, however, would not negate the fact that he is not legally entitled to own the guns. Moreover, that failure by MSP--in light of the fact that their failure didn't occur until after he made the purchases--wouldn't explain why he purchased the guns in the first place when he was legally prohibited from owning them. I haven't purchased a regulated firearm since 10/1, but I would imagine the new forms even have somewhere where you have to indicate that you don't have PBJ for the enumerated disqualifying crimes. If that is in fact the case, it would mean that Jr. may have failed to correctly fill out the form when he made the purchases, or otherwise you would have expected the FFL to catch it before the form was even submitted.

Unfortunately, I think Jr. comes up with the short end of the stick all the way around on this one.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I hear you, but that isn't really the issue. The issue is whether he is statutorily prohibited from owning a regulated firearm, and apparently he was. The OP didn't state this (the OP said he waited for a not dissaproved, he never said Jr. received it and I thought that wording was interesting, don't know if it was intentional or not) but let's say he actually got a "not dissaproved". Wouldn't change the fact that he legally cannot own the guns. It just means MSP effed up on his background check--surprise, surprise!

That failure on MSP's part, however, would not negate the fact that he is not legally entitled to own the guns. Moreover, that failure by MSP--in light of the fact that their failure didn't occur until after he made the purchases--wouldn't explain why he purchased the guns in the first place when he was legally prohibited from owning them. I haven't purchased a regulated firearm since 10/1, but I would imagine the new forms even have somewhere where you have to indicate that you don't have PBJ for the enumerated disqualifying crimes. If that is in fact the case, it would mean that Jr. may have failed to correctly fill out the form when he made the purchases, or otherwise you would have expected the FFL to catch it before the form was even submitted.

Unfortunately, I think Jr. comes up with the short end of the stick all the way around on this one.

And I hear you. The MSP has made the statement too many times to count to the public that their checks ensure the firearms don't go to prohibited people and urged FFL's to wait for their disposition when they fell behind. Guess that isn't the case. 20 databases and they couldn't find a PBJ after 3 BG checks?

I don't know about you, but a 6 o'clock in the morning knock at the door weeks/months later is a lot more disturbing than issuing a disapproval to the FFL per the law within 7 days.

Not sure about FFL policy on this, but wouldn't the person get a refund on the purchase if the transfer didn't occur (minus a restocking fee)?

 

[Lou45]

I hear you, but that isn't really the issue. The issue is whether he is statutorily prohibited from owning a regulated firearm, and apparently he was. The OP didn't state this (the OP said he waited for a not dissaproved, he never said Jr. received it and I thought that wording was interesting, don't know if it was intentional or not) but let's say he actually got a "not dissaproved". Wouldn't change the fact that he legally cannot own the guns. It just means MSP effed up on his background check--surprise, surprise!

That failure on MSP's part, however, would not negate the fact that he is not legally entitled to own the guns. Moreover, that failure by MSP--in light of the fact that their failure didn't occur until after he made the purchases--wouldn't explain why he purchased the guns in the first place when he was legally prohibited from owning them. I haven't purchased a regulated firearm since 10/1, but I would imagine the new forms even have somewhere where you have to indicate that you don't have PBJ for the enumerated disqualifying crimes. If that is in fact the case, it would mean that Jr. may have failed to correctly fill out the form when he made the purchases, or otherwise you would have expected the FFL to catch it before the form was even submitted.

Unfortunately, I think Jr. comes up with the short end of the stick all the way around on this one.

If Jr filled out the post 09/30 77R (current edition) and responded "NO" to the question pertaining to having received a PBJ for the disqualifying crime and indeed DID receive a PBJ for the disqualifying crime, Jr lied on the form.

 

[Alutacon]

I don't know about you, but a 6 o'clock in the morning knock at the door weeks/months later is a lot more disturbing than issuing a disapproval to the FFL per the law within 7 days.

You'll get no argument from me on this.

Not sure about FFL policy on this, but wouldn't the person get a refund on the purchase if the transfer didn't occur (minus a restocking fee)?

My reading of the OP's post was that the transfer did occur. Jr. has possession of both firearms (or had). I'm not sure about the 3rd firearm you are referring to. I missed that one.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

You'll get no argument from me on this.

My reading of the OP's post was that the transfer did occur. Jr. has possession of both firearms (or had). I'm not sure about the 3rd firearm you are referring to. I missed that one.

The 3rd BG check was for the HQL.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

If Jr filled out the post 09/30 77R (current edition) and responded "NO" to the question pertaining to having received a PBJ for the disqualifying crime and indeed DID receive a PBJ for the disqualifying crime, Jr lied on the form.

We have established he must have, because no MD FFL would send in an application with any boxes checked yes, except the one about whether this purchase is for yourself on the 4473. (the fugitive one gets me everytime, who the heck in their right mind would check that box and hand it in????)

The secretary of police is supposed to conduct an investigation to substantiate the claims of the applicant by looking in 20 databases. Their database process is broken if they conducted an investigation 3(!) times and failed to find the PBJ, since it is clearly a criteria, they must have a corresponding database to look in.

The next question is who is doing another investigation? They finish the application, put the information in and move on to the next app...

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Well remember, the 7 days only allows a dealer to release to you if they haven't heard from MSP. The failure of MSP to issue a not dissaproved in 7 days doesn't make you approved. The simple fact is as, unfortunately, as of 10/1/13 Jr. was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm in this state. That is the case whether MSP issued disapproval prior to his pickup or not. He knew he had a PBJ and he knew what the law was, or in any case he should have known what the law was. Further, even if he didn't know what the law was that is generally not a defense to breaking the law and certainly not a defense to violating SB281.

I think it is all BS and I think he is getting railroaded bad. But, with that said, he never had the right to pick up either of those firearms and he should have known this was coming.

Not so sure I agree. At 17, you are a minor and a different set of rules apply in court. The "formalities" are less. The burden of proof is "looser." I'm thinking a juvenile, just to get this over with, would accept a PBJ thinking after he is an adult, it would not be on his record. I have always understood that juvenile records are sealed and won't affect you in the future. That assumption seems to be incorrect.

 

[Blackstar65]

Just enough info to stir up the hornets nest. No enough to determine why...