Questions concerning appeal of denial of firearm application.

[Brooklyn]

More chance than having MD rule you can have a firearm in violation of Federal law. Sorry, but it's true.

If his story is true and he can get competent council the conviction may be overturned.. Lots of issues at first blush

But as far as the Firearms thing goes --if the conviction stands you are correct.

 

[fabsroman]

To both you and Brookin,Thanks but:
I've been thru the MD court meatgrinder. I know what to expect, and how far I can go without getting jailed on contemp- If this hearing has that much "juice".

The hearing is pretty much like a court trial. Some leniency is allowed, but not much.

You should spend some time reading the rules of procedure for Administrative Hearings.

Why even spend the time and effort to do this unless you are going to do it right? I am not saying that you cannot handle this yourself, but I am saying that it is going to take a lot of time and effort to handle it yourself.

This is like me handling auto repairs, home repairs, etc. While I am pretty handy, some of them require a lot of research and learning on my part (e.g., A/C clutch replacement, replacement of hard brake lines, installation of hardwood flooring). After I do it the first time though, it is way easier the second time.

So, invest what you think is an appropriate amount of time.

Based upon what you wrote in the other thread, only way I could possibly see you winning this is on a Constitutional challenge, and even then you stand a snowball's chance.

 

[fabsroman]

If his story is true and he can get competent council the conviction may be overturned.. Lots of issues at first blush

But as far as the Firearms thing goes --if the conviction stands you are correct.

The administrative hearing will NOT touch on overturning his prior conviction. Only thing it will deal with is whether the MSP was incorrect in applying the current facts to his denial.

Getting a prior conviction overturned requires a lot. There really needs to be new evidence showing that he is not guilty. Exactly how he will come about that evidence, short of his ex confessing to what she did, I have no idea. Showing that prior counsel was incompetent might help to get a new trial, but it will not overturn the verdict.

This is why I think he is going to lose his administrative appeal. It appears that MSP got it right with the denial based upon what he has told us. So, he needs to go back to the drawing board on the initial charges and have them reversed somehow or pardoned.

 

[Brooklyn]

The administrative hearing will NOT touch on overturning his prior conviction. Only thing it will deal with is whether the MSP was incorrect in applying the current facts to his denial.

Getting a prior conviction overturned requires a lot. There really needs to be new evidence showing that he is not guilty. Exactly how he will come about that evidence, short of his ex confessing to what she did, I have no idea. Showing that prior counsel was incompetent might help to get a new trial, but it will not overturn the verdict.

This is why I think he is going to lose his administrative appeal. It appears that MSP got it right with the denial based upon what he has told us. So, he needs to go back to the drawing board on the initial charges and have them reversed somehow or pardoned.

He will lose administrative appeal. I am thinking he must do it anyway.

I know it will not over turn the conviction. But it may still be necessary before appealing the conviction..

He has already served his time.. so that's moot. The ongoing injury cased by the denial of a fundament right may be needed to establish standing. Ineffective council is but one issue that may be raised..

But of course we agree it is a uphill battle... of course giving up is always an option....


There is a reason I am still single

But whatever he decides I wish him good luck...

 

[Biggfoot44]

*IF* I am remembering the account of the OP's situation correctly :

1. At the time of the conviction , it was NOT disqualifing offense by reason of potential sentance.

2. The current Jam Up is due to Md retroactivly appling the current sentencing to the old conviction. Leading to ;

3. Possable new ( disqualifing in themselves) charges for attempting to purchase/ prejury.

Not every State applies revised penalties retroactivly. In this regards , you would not be disqualified in most states ( on origional conviction ).

In which case don't do a Bernard Getz to yourself. Keep quiet , and don't poke the State with a stick until after the statute of limitations runs out for fresh charges regarding the attempted purchase. At that point proceede to exercise your Rights in your NEW state of residence.

 

[yellowsled]

Try using the "quote" button so people know who you are responding to.

Next become a member of SAF or the NRA. They can/will point you towards a good lawyer to help you in your fight.

Huh?

 

[johnnyb2]

2dogsbarking

Your missing the boat about the quote...:-)

When someone on here asks you a question.....go back to that response, hit the QUOTE button at the bottom of their page, and then write your response...so it shows that you are responding to THAT statement/question....that is what everyone means about the quote button.

 

[Haides]

2dogsbarking

Your missing the boat about the quote...:-)

When someone on here asks you a question.....go back to that response, hit the QUOTE button at the bottom of their page, and then write your response...so it shows that you are responding to THAT statement/question....that is what everyone means about the quote button.

 

[KIBarrister]

*IF* I am remembering the account of the OP's situation correctly :

1. At the time of the conviction , it was NOT disqualifing offense by reason of potential sentance.

2. The current Jam Up is due to Md retroactivly appling the current sentencing to the old conviction. Leading to ;

3. Possable new ( disqualifing in themselves) charges for attempting to purchase/ prejury.

Not every State applies revised penalties retroactivly. In this regards , you would not be disqualified in most states ( on origional conviction ).

In which case don't do a Bernard Getz to yourself. Keep quiet , and don't poke the State with a stick until after the statute of limitations runs out for fresh charges regarding the attempted purchase. At that point proceede to exercise your Rights in your NEW state of residence.

There are a couple issues going on apparently - and while I was on the 'no way, waste of time' side of the fence when I read the disqualifying conviction I didn't realize OP was discussing a retroactive revision. It is true that the AG has said that MSP is to look at the potential sentence presently (and the AG opinion, from 2006 if I recall, cited to some bogus legislative history and essentially contradicted itself) - but this issue does never quite seem to reach the appellate courts (closest is a 2012 case that never made it to the Court of Appeals and was decided on the basis of CCW permit request, rendering the rest dicta). The really interesting part is that if you follow the AG's opinion to its logical conclusion you get into some huge loopholes (e.g., in 1991 theft over $300 was a felony, now it is a misdemeanor that carries less than two years - does that mean convicted felons would have their rights reinstated?). Looking to the recent sex-offender retroactive reclassification being struck down by the appellate courts it is in the realm of reason that the OP could find himself vindicated.... but:

OP, it was said many times over to find competent counsel, and that advice could not be more appropriate. I don't the OP from Adam, and he may be a right genius, but unless he spent a mortgage obtaining a legal education and knows the APA and the rules of evidence, he will be up a creek the second the hearing starts. More importantly, if the entire idea is to preserve the disagreement for review on appeal, than the record needs to be properly before the appellate courts (again, not something a shade tree lawyer is going to know how to do, no matter how much Matlock they watch). As for the underlying conviction, based on what I heard I just hope someone somewhere remembered to preserve the OP's post-conviction rights....

 

[2dogsbarking]

2dogsbarking

Your missing the boat about the quote...:-)

When someone on here asks you a question.....go back to that response, hit the QUOTE button at the bottom of their page, and then write your response...so it shows that you are responding to THAT statement/question....that is what everyone means about the quote button.

Sorry about that. New to the whole format.
2dogs

 

[2dogsbarking]

*IF* I am remembering the account of the OP's situation correctly :

1. At the time of the conviction , it was NOT disqualifing offense by reason of potential sentance.

2. The current Jam Up is due to Md retroactivly appling the current sentencing to the old conviction. Leading to ;

3. Possable new ( disqualifing in themselves) charges for attempting to purchase/ prejury.

Not every State applies revised penalties retroactivly. In this regards , you would not be disqualified in most states ( on origional conviction ).

In which case don't do a Bernard Getz to yourself. Keep quiet , and don't poke the State with a stick until after the statute of limitations runs out for fresh charges regarding the attempted purchase. At that point proceede to exercise your Rights in your NEW state of residence.

You are totally correct on points 1 & 2, and ref. #3 I think / hope it's a knowingly commit perjury thing.Regardless it will be a jury trial if it comes to that.

However, I beleive that once your banned in one state your banned in all states. Again the info provided by the NCIC.
2dogs

 

[2dogsbarking]

There are a couple issues going on apparently - and while I was on the 'no way, waste of time' side of the fence when I read the disqualifying conviction I didn't realize OP was discussing a retroactive revision. It is true that the AG has said that MSP is to look at the potential sentence presently (and the AG opinion, from 2006 if I recall, cited to some bogus legislative history and essentially contradicted itself) - but this issue does never quite seem to reach the appellate courts (closest is a 2012 case that never made it to the Court of Appeals and was decided on the basis of CCW permit request, rendering the rest dicta). The really interesting part is that if you follow the AG's opinion to its logical conclusion you get into some huge loopholes (e.g., in 1991 theft over $300 was a felony, now it is a misdemeanor that carries less than two years - does that mean convicted felons would have their rights reinstated?). Looking to the recent sex-offender retroactive reclassification being struck down by the appellate courts it is in the realm of reason that the OP could find himself vindicated.... but:

OP, it was said many times over to find competent counsel, and that advice could not be more appropriate. I don't the OP from Adam, and he may be a right genius, but unless he spent a mortgage obtaining a legal education and knows the APA and the rules of evidence, he will be up a creek the second the hearing starts. More importantly, if the entire idea is to preserve the disagreement for review on appeal, than the record needs to be properly before the appellate courts (again, not something a shade tree lawyer is going to know how to do, no matter how much Matlock they watch). As for the underlying conviction, based on what I heard I just hope someone somewhere remembered to preserve the OP's post-conviction rights....

I know I’ll have to pick up a lawyer somewhere down this road but I have one small thing going for me. After 3 years’ probation I tried to get my confiscated firearms back (taken when my X swore she was scared of me) in a replevin action against Baltimore county. But, even though the Baltimore county attorney admitted it was legal for me to own firearms,.but the statute of limitation had run out. This was due to 3 different probation offices telling me I had to wait until my probation was over. They were wrong about that and if I’d applied to get them back earlier, I wouldn’t have lost 5 handguns and 4 long guns:. You’ve got to read the small print. I argued that while on supervised probation that many of my constitutional rights were suspended (Search my home without warrant / refuse to allow me to move, no alcohol for 3 years, piss in a cup once a week, have me jailed with just a phone call, ect) and the statute of limitations “clock” rule should not apply. Go figure, I lost.
BTW, I am not listed as a sex offender

 

[2dogsbarking]

You may be asking yourself how I had handguns and it didn't cause any problems/ charges at any time. The reason was they where aquired in personal transactions and or passed down over the last 50 years, before the politicians found they had to kiss the anti gun peoples collective ass to get re-election money.

 

[A1Uni]

Omalley wants to be VP and our AG wants to be Govenor. A pardon?
Anyway at least I thouht of a quote. I'll put it up tomorrow. (If I can figure out how)

It's getting dark and I have to go recon yard sale signs. But, again if anyone has attended one of these appeals, please, how does it work? I'll be back (that is not my quote!) tomorrow - thanks to all. 2dogs

The Pardon may not be as impossible as you think.

I have had two customers this year who have done exactly that. It took some time and a lot of jumping through hoops, but they got their Pardons, even inder the MOM administration.

 

[2dogsbarking]

The Pardon may not be as impossible as you think.

I have had two customers this year who have done exactly that. It took some time and a lot of jumping through hoops, but they got their Pardons, even inder the MOM administration.

Please,tell me more
BTW I grew up on the corner of Volta and a # street in Brentwood. Near that crappy little park. if you were born, raised and lived there around the 60s Im sure we know some of the same people, unless it was North Brentwood.