Here's their playbook - straight from Alinsky. Study it and fight back using it against them.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Yes, that is what I was saying. He purchased a handgun about two weeks ago which means he had the HQL. It apparently took less than two weeks for the 'not disapproved' paperwork to come back, unless the dealer delivered w/o it. This I do not know, and I did not consider that possibility. I did not ask his Dad about that.If I understand what the OP is saying here, the young person picked up a regulated firearm in the last few days...did he have a HQL? If so, the MSP overlooked his PBJ something like at least 3 times. Haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I missed something.
If the son hasn't been in any trouble since the PBJ, have him apply for an expungement. Problem solved in about 30 to 60 days. Only problem is whether the MSP is willing to hold the guns for the amount of time it takes for the expungement to go through so they can be returned to the son. If they are handguns, they can be transferred to his dad right now until the expungement goes through. If they are banned assault weapons, then he needs to get on the expungement route IMMEDIATELY and see if he can get it done in time for those banned firearms to be returned to him.
You could also look at it from the perspective of a major win (most likely in a court of law) regarding right to carry would crush the incrementalism war as a whole. Incrementalism is in its essence a long drawn out infringement process.
This can be taken two ways:
Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.
Or
The right for a person to carry a firearm automatically infers the right to own a firearm.
The courts really need to step up.
Yes, that is what I was saying. He purchased a handgun about two weeks ago which means he had the HQL. It apparently took less than two weeks for the 'not disapproved' paperwork to come back, unless the dealer delivered w/o it. This I do not know, and I did not consider that possibility. I did not ask his Dad about that.
The other pick up was in December, but I do not know if that was a pre Oct 1 purchase or not.
Perhaps the state just wants to see people spend their money on the HQL, gun sale, restocking fee, attorney and have nothing to show for it in the end.
I have known this kid since he was 6 years old. I know he has not messed up since the PBJ, 'cause his father would have kicked the shite out of him.
From what my buddy told me, he now has possession of his son's long guns but the regulated items were moved somewhere else. They are not in the possession of the MSP according to my buddy. I would not be appropriate for me to say where (my buddy told me) the guns are.
This can be taken two ways:
Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.
Or
The right for a person to carry a firearm automatically infers the right to own a firearm.
The courts really need to step up.
Question 4 on the new 77R is clear. "Have you ever received a probation before judgement (PBJ) for a crime of violence? (refer to question 3 for the definition of a crime of violence...)"
Interesting that the MSP Not Disapproval process and the HQL issuance didn't catch this.
Don't you mean this?
"Without the right to own a firearm, a person will not have the right to carry a firearm.
Or
The right for a person to own a firearm automatically infers the right to carry a firearm.
Heck, that's what the 2nd amendment says, huh?
Question 4 on the new 77R is clear. "Have you ever received a probation before judgement (PBJ) for a crime of violence? (refer to question 3 for the definition of a crime of violence...)"
Interesting that the MSP Not Disapproval process and the HQL issuance didn't catch this.
This was my first thought too.
But not "catching" it, it may allow the State to recover more than just the one firearm when they go to get the one firearm.
It might be interesting, but it is not surprising. It all looks like an enormous CF and "making it up as they go" operation, to me.
Maybe you missed the part about him being 17 when the alleged crime occurred. Is it possible that he didn't even commit a crime, maybe he was with a stupid friend who did. Maybe the judge wanted him to choose better friends so he sent his message through a PBJ. Have you ever spent anytime in a MD courtroom? Prior to 10/1/13 judges gave out PBJ's to damn near anyone for a first offense without even considering whether they were innocent or not. Walk into a PG or Baltimore City courtroom even today and you will see every first time arrestee that can't afford an attorney will be lined up gladly accepting a PBJ without understanding the consequences. PBJ's are and will continue to be given out to innocent people who don't understand the consequences. Not to mention the fact that when the alleged crime occur this law (SB281) wasn't even in place to begin with.
You just go right ahead and keep on judging someone you don't know and a story you only have pieces of. Must be nice to live life in the mistake free zone.
I think you are mistaken. A PBJ is not a guilty plea nor finding. The Defendant is simply agreeing to abide by terms of probation - before a judgement is made.
You apparently have some reading issues....in order to get PBJ the judge has to find them GUILTY. They then STRIKE the finding PENDING them not screwing up (or at least getting caught) before the probation is up.
The reality is you can continue to screw up often even while on a PBJ and STILL not get the original charge brought back up.
This was covered a few pages back though...might have missed it.
Buddy of mine is being told by the MSP (and his lawyer) they're unsure if he'll even be able to legally HUNT within MD, this is over a very similar situation I've mentioned in the other thread (old charge in DE, married the woman he had supposed domestic with ~8 years ago, still with her)
Nope didn't miss anything. Actually complimented you on some of your later posts. A Judge making a finding of guilty is BS in many of these instances (I am speaking of young first time offenders). Many young people who find themselves before a judge for the first time are scared and often not too bright. They don't know their rights, they don't understand "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". They think oh sh1t I've been arrested so I am f_cked. They don't hear anything but the part about no trial/no punishment from the Public Defender and will take the PBJ offer in a heartbeat. Many will do this even when innocent. If they knew the consequences they may not accept the PBJ. Public Defenders don't explain much to clients in my experience. Let's face it Public Defenders are part of the system that needs the cycle to continue to justify their existence. PBJ's get the case turned over quickly which is what the Public Defender, Assistant State's Attorney, and Judge all want.