Maryland gun owners beware!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • JettaRed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 13, 2013
    1,138
    Middletown
    This isn't just limited to 2a issues. I fighting with a friend who can't get his drivers license renewed in Maryland because the state treasury has declared because the IRS has made a claim (unsubstantiated) that he owes back taxes, that there fore he must also therefore owe state taxes. This friend has a common last name and it seems they have him confused with someone else. Of course their action (denial of license renewal) is unlawful because it has been denied without due process of law (no meaningful hearing etc).

    Due Process, as required by the 14th Amendment, applies to life, liberty, and property--I don't think a driver license fits any of those categories.
     

    Elgan

    NRA Endowment Member
    Sep 4, 2012
    383
    Harford County
    Hopefully everyone is bright enough to know that this thread is bs, even if not intended by the OP. If you've never heard of Downtrend, and I certainly hadn't before the OP posted the link to that bogus story, you know all you need to know just by looking at the links to the articles on the right side of their page. Don't bother to read the articles, just look at the titles. Tells you all you need to know.

    Ok, listen. I know everyone loves getting on their own personal high horse and espousing their particular brand of rhetoric. It's human nature - we succumb to certain bias. This includes news agencies, some of which are more reputable than others.

    So, in the spirit of getting all of that crap out of the way of some critical thinking, let's do some proper research and look at the FACTS.

    Let's start straight from the horse's mouth:

    Official California Legislature link on California Senate Bill No. 140 (Originally introduced to the CA legislature February 18, 2011, this has been brewing for a while)

    Fact Sheet on the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) (The conduit by which CA SB-140 intends to work)

    Technical details on APPS

    California Senate Bill No. 755 (The bill which expands the list of offenses for which one can be added to the list of prohibited persons, as administrated by APPS)

    NPR link on the situation (I consider NPR to be a relatively ********-free, moderate news source)

    TLDR; Shit's real (and scary) enough.
     

    240 towles

    master of puppets
    Mar 31, 2009
    4,251
    ?
    without a search/ arrest warrant signed by a judge, can't the homeowner stop the search and refuse to allow the police officers to continue? The 4th amendment is pretty clear on unlawful search and seizure. They need probable cause that a serious crime is currently being committed to enter your home without your consent. Such probable cause is an on the spot assumption designed to put lives before due process and is not to be taken lightly. [Probable cause on a vehicle stop is different from a stationary home.]

    If they have a lawful search warrant, then why the games? Knock on the door and announce yourselves as police.
     

    Elgan

    NRA Endowment Member
    Sep 4, 2012
    383
    Harford County
    without a search/ arrest warrant signed by a judge, can't the homeowner stop the search and refuse to allow the police officers to continue? The 4th amendment is pretty clear on unlawful search and seizure. They need probable cause that a serious crime is currently being committed to enter your home without your consent. Such probable cause is an on the spot assumption designed to put lives before due process and is not to be taken lightly. [Probable cause on a vehicle stop is different from a stationary home.]

    If they have a lawful search warrant, then why the games? Knock on the door and announce yourselves as police.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in CA:

    People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 127. ("Here, of course, the search was without a warrant. Defendant notes that the prosecution has the burden of proving, if it can, some justification for a warrantless search or seizure ( Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [294 P.2d 23] ( Badillo); see also People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1300 [248 Cal.Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221]; Guided v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 1, 15, fn. 15 [109 Cal.Rptr. 684, 513 P.2d 908]), and therefore a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable.[and at 130]. In sum, we conclude that under section 1538.5, as in the case of any other motion, defendants must specify the precise grounds for suppression of the evidence in question, and, where a warrantless search or seizure is the basis for the motion, this burden includes specifying the inadequacy of any justifications for the search or seizure. In the interest of efficiency, however, defendants need not guess what justifications the prosecution will argue. Instead, they can wait for the prosecution to present a justification.")

    Context can be found in the section entitled "Searches without a warrant" after the following text on http://www.shouselaw.com/search-seizure.html:

    "When a search is conducted without a warrant, it is, for the most part, presumed to be unreasonable. Similarly, if the seized evidence was obtained without a warrant, was not listed in the warrant, or was obtained during a search that exceeded the scope (that is, limits) of the warrant, it too, will be presumed to be an unreasonable and illegal seizure.

    In order to rebut these presumptions, the prosecution must prove that the warrantless intrusion and subsequent seizure were nonetheless lawful and justified."

    Not hard to do when your state senate approved a bill collecting a database of prohibited persons and allowing specifically designated personnel to round up those persons' now-illegally owned firearms (in addition to any incidental arrests that might take place as a result).
     

    JettaRed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 13, 2013
    1,138
    Middletown
    If they have a lawful search warrant, then why the games? Knock on the door and announce yourselves as police.

    Agreed! It's not like you're going to flush your AR down the toilet or something. Warrantless searches for firearms are frightening. I cannot see how it doesn't violate both the letter and intent of the US 4th Amendment.
     

    Alutacon

    Desert Storm
    May 22, 2013
    1,120
    Bowie
    Ok, listen. I know everyone loves getting on their own personal high horse and espousing their particular brand of rhetoric. It's human nature - we succumb to certain bias. This includes news agencies, some of which are more reputable than others.

    So, in the spirit of getting all of that crap out of the way of some critical thinking, let's do some proper research and look at the FACTS.

    Let's start straight from the horse's mouth:

    Official California Legislature link on California Senate Bill No. 140 (Originally introduced to the CA legislature February 18, 2011, this has been brewing for a while)

    Fact Sheet on the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) (The conduit by which CA SB-140 intends to work)

    Technical details on APPS

    California Senate Bill No. 755 (The bill which expands the list of offenses for which one can be added to the list of prohibited persons, as administrated by APPS)

    NPR link on the situation (I consider NPR to be a relatively ********-free, moderate news source)

    TLDR; Shit's real (and scary) enough.

    Interesting, and I'll admit I am watching football so I just skimmed through those links, but I didn't see anything indicating that could take your guns for not paying your toll fees on time. There was reference to three motor vehicle code violations and I did not pull the code, so maybe that's where it is. My apologies if I am wrong, but that just seems amazing to me. Take your guns because you didn't pay your toll fees. I can't imagine how any fool could pass such a law or how any court would ever let it stand.
     

    Elgan

    NRA Endowment Member
    Sep 4, 2012
    383
    Harford County
    Alutacon,

    I just pored over the bill again and tried to hunt down any reference of failure to pay a toll becoming a misdemeanor, particularly one that was added to the recently expanded list that would land someone on APPS. I was unsuccessful. CA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 23300-23303 goes over tolls, and surprisingly enough, failing to pay, or effort at actively evading a toll is explicitly NOT considered a criminal offense, per:

    "23302.5. (a) No person shall evade or attempt to evade the payment
    of tolls or other charges on any vehicular crossing or toll highway.
    (b) A violation of subdivision (a) is subject to civil penalties
    and is neither an infraction nor a public offense, as defined in
    Section 15 of the Penal Code."


    The three vehicle codes you didn't pull relate to various stages of impaired driving (specifically 0.01, 0.04, and 0.08+ BAC rates). Get a DUI or DWI and forget about guns for 10 years, essentially. Nothing to do with tolls. I haven't been assed to dig too much deeper into it, but it seems that that particular portion of the article was sensationalized.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,899
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom