Will I be approved to purchase a handgun?

[Rack&Roll]

Actually we looked it up and you are disqualified because you appear to be a pre-teen girl trapped in the body of a grown man. Anyone who writes the phrase "Ha Ha" TWICE when addressing other adults about drug issues, and "woot woot" when celebrating how to get a drive-by medical disability (to gain extra time to complete class exams) is too immature to take on firearm responsibility.

How about a Nurf Gun for now?

Moderators, do what you must...but he'll have to let go of momma's apron sometime. If he's old enough to purchase a firearm he's old enough to endure some criticism for his presentation on a public forum.

 

[Crab Bait]

Wow, Sam, you have some more deleting to do. Seems like people agree with me.

 

[fabsroman]

I tend to agree with Gryph here. He has already had 2 arrests for pot, which , after getting busted for the first one, I would also question the .....ahhhh. intelligence of then getting busted AGAIN...but..more to the point

He has found a loop hole in the system for the arrests, now...he has lied about the mental health issue, AND received CONTROLLED DRUGS for the non-issue. Then asking us about getting around the laws? .... just cause he asked a question... and we are a bunch of good guys on here....most anyways :-) he could be a lurker...an anti-gunner, a reporter, a continuing criminal, who knows. One thing is clear, he is continuing to exhibit drug behavior...dishonesty, scamming, lying, ....all this behaviors are what needs to change once someone becomes sober...or clean....not just stop using....most people can do that for a short period of time anyways. But, the continuing behavior is a strong indicator as to the success of someone's recovery.....or lack of.

Last I checked, being a liar did not make a person prohibited from owning firearms. Last I checked, Maryland law did not define a habitual user as somebody that got arrested for pot and NOT convicted for it. I believe two convictions are needed, one being within the last year, for a person to fall under the habitual user. Both of the OP's matters were placed on the stet docket. Exactly why, who knows.

End of the day, if the guy is NOT prohibited by Maryland law, who is everybody here to really judge him in that regard? Now, as far as the lying/deception for the extra time for exams, that is a different matter altogether. However, that is not gun related. I'm pretty sure that if we all knew everything about one another, we could find something in each other's lives that we do not approve of.

Do I endorse lying? NO. Have I lied at one point or another in my life? I am sure I have. Show me somebody that says he/she has NEVER lied, and I will show you a liar.

End of the day, if our laws do not say the OP is prohibited, so be it. If it were up to me, the only people that would be allowed to possess firearms are those with a certain IQ. (joke) Bet most people wouldn't like that either.

 

[Gryphon]

Last I checked, being a liar did not make a person prohibited from owning firearms. Last I checked, Maryland law did not define a habitual user as somebody that got arrested for pot and NOT convicted for it. I believe two convictions are needed, one being within the last year, for a person to fall under the habitual user. Both of the OP's matters were placed on the stet docket. Exactly why, who knows.

End of the day, if the guy is NOT prohibited by Maryland law, who is everybody here to really judge him in that regard? Now, as far as the lying/deception for the extra time for exams, that is a different matter altogether. However, that is not gun related. I'm pretty sure that if we all knew everything about one another, we could find something in each other's lives that we do not approve of.

Do I endorse lying? NO. Have I lied at one point or another in my life? I am sure I have. Show me somebody that says he/she has NEVER lied, and I will show you a liar.

End of the day, if our laws do not say the OP is prohibited, so be it. If it were up to me, the only people that would be allowed to possess firearms are those with a certain IQ. (joke) Bet most people wouldn't like that either.

You have raised some good technical points Fabsro, but if he lies on a firearms application it is a crime. So he wasn't convicted, maybe that won't count against him as far as the ND from MSP, but his smugness counts against him when soliciting advice from other responsible gun owners on this forum. And while I really do appreciate and respect your input, would you be comfortable loaning this guy one of your handguns if he is not precluded by law from obtaining one through the statutory process? I agree, who are each of us to judge, but he was asking us, and he got our response. If he wanted pure legal advise he could have hired a 2A lawyer, but he opened the door with all of his issues and the rest of us stepped in.

 

[fabsroman]

You have raised some good technical points Fabsro, but if he lies on a firearms application it is a crime. So he wasn't convicted, maybe that won't count against him as far as the ND from MSP, but his smugness counts against him when soliciting advice from other responsible gun owners on this forum. And while I really do appreciate and respect your input, would you be comfortable loaning this guy one of your handguns if he is not precluded by law from obtaining one through the statutory process? I agree, who are each of us to judge, but he was asking us, and he got our response. If he wanted pure legal advise he could have hired a 2A lawyer, but he opened the door with all of he issues and the rest of us stepped in.

I don't know the OP from Adam, so no I would not loan him any gun of mine whatsoever.

To judge the OP simply based upon what he has written would be judging a book by its cover. For all I know, he might be the best guy in the world other than what he just posted. If that those are the only things he has done wrong in his life, he isn't too bad of a guy in my book. However, I would need to know somebody for a damn long time before I felt comfortable loaning them a gun of mine, my car, a tool, etc. Forget asking to borrow my Mustang, my F350, or any of my bikes. For that matter, forget about asking to borrow most of my guns without me being present.

I also have some issues with the set of laws that determine whether a person is prohibited or not. As far as I am concerned, they should be based upon whether the person has committed violent crimes for the most part. Yes, habitual drunkards and drug users should also be prohibited, but the company treasurer that steals $50,000 from his/her employer isn't really likely to use a gun in a crime.

I have one example in particular. A high school friend of mine that is an avid hunter is prohibited. He was 19 years old and driving a car at 100 mph. An elderly lady pulled out in front of him and he could not stop. He ended up killing her. He served his time for vehicular manslaughter and is pretty much prohibited for life. Thing is, he really isn't any more likely to use a gun in a crime than I am. Heck, I was dumb and stupid back then too with my Mustang. Back then, hitting 120 mph wasn't uncommon on the street. Only difference is that I was not unlucky enough to have an elderly lady pull in front of me.

I know other people that have intentionally kicked the crap out of people, sometimes sending them to the hospital, been charged with 1st degree assault, and the charges were dropped or they were given PBJ. Now, those are the people that should be prohibited. Then again, as they grew older they also matured and are now fine upstanding citizens and contributors to society.

At the end of the day, I have to get to know somebody before I decide whether to loan them anything and/or before I decide to actually allow them into my "friendship club".

 

[pleasant1911]

What?? I hope you are not excusing your friend killing somebody. Thats crazy. to be off topic, your friend not being able to gun hunt is not harsh. tell him to go bow hunting, its better, and takes skills. If somebody killed your mother or wife, and served his time, would you be cool to give him a gun, knowing felons cannot have guns, and that he has served his time....??? I dont think accidents happen at 100mph, what happens is negligent occurs, and everything afterwards is the aftermeth, of the havac you caused. Kill my mother like that, It would have to be eye for an eye for me...anyways.

If OP is honest and is a not druggie, then why not. Hopefully, he knows guns are serious stuff. I drink at my house and I have guns in there. I guess smoking marijuana is no real difference, except for the legality of possession. OP probably smoked everyday, doing it twice and getting caught both times, type of scenerio is not real. I do hope you get it. I came out of UMDtoo , anyways I would personally get a xdm, or a 1911. RIA tactical is better than a glock. but if you have to have a high cap. xdm, or sigs

I have friends, who are 15% immature, and 85% serious. and they are good people, just like me. I am immature too, and messed up few times, but I have my basic foundation and values, that I stick by everyday of my life, and i am sure OP is the same, but just younger...

Hope we are not becoming the gun liberals.....

 

[Gryphon]

I don't know the OP from Adam, so no I would not loan him any gun of mine whatsoever.

To judge the OP simply based upon what he has written would be judging a book by its cover. For all I know, he might be the best guy in the world other than what he just posted. If that those are the only things he has done wrong in his life, he isn't too bad of a guy in my book. However, I would need to know somebody for a damn long time before I felt comfortable loaning them a gun of mine, my car, a tool, etc. Forget asking to borrow my Mustang, my F350, or any of my bikes. For that matter, forget about asking to borrow most of my guns without me being present.

I also have some issues with the set of laws that determine whether a person is prohibited or not. As far as I am concerned, they should be based upon whether the person has committed violent crimes for the most part. Yes, habitual drunkards and drug users should also be prohibited, but the company treasurer that steals $50,000 from his/her employer isn't really likely to use a gun in a crime.

I have one example in particular. A high school friend of mine that is an avid hunter is prohibited. He was 19 years old and driving a car at 100 mph. An elderly lady pulled out in front of him and he could not stop. He ended up killing her. He served his time for vehicular manslaughter and is pretty much prohibited for life. Thing is, he really isn't any more likely to use a gun in a crime than I am. Heck, I was dumb and stupid back then too with my Mustang. Back then, hitting 120 mph wasn't uncommon on the street. Only difference is that I was not unlucky enough to have an elderly lady pull in front of me.

I know other people that have intentionally kicked the crap out of people, sometimes sending them to the hospital, been charged with 1st degree assault, and the charges were dropped or they were given PBJ. Now, those are the people that should be prohibited. Then again, as they grew older they also matured and are now fine upstanding citizens and contributors to society.

At the end of the day, I have to get to know somebody before I decide whether to loan them anything and/or before I decide to actually allow them into my "friendship club".

Excellent points Fabsro I suppose it was the smugness in the OP's request that rubbed many of us the wrong way! If he is entitled under the law so be it, but it doesn't hurt for him to get some "chit" from people he apparently expected would blindly support him. I hope he has read the follow up posts, learned that scamming the system isn't so "cool" (haha/woot woot), and that if he is eligible he gets a ND, and that he becomes a responsible gun owner.

 

[fabsroman]

What?? I hope you are not excusing your friend killing somebody. Thats crazy. to be off topic, your friend not being able to gun hunt is not harsh. tell him to go bow hunting, its better, and takes skills. If somebody killed your mother or wife, and served his time, would you be cool to give him a gun, knowing felons cannot have guns, and that he has served his time....??? I dont think accidents happen at 100mph, what happens is negligent occurs, and everything afterwards is the aftermeth, of the havac you caused. Kill my mother like that, It would have to be eye for an eye for me...anyways.

If OP is honest and is a not druggie, then why not. Hopefully, he knows guns are serious stuff. I drink at my house and I have guns in there. I guess smoking marijuana is no real difference, except for the legality of possession. OP probably smoked everyday, doing it twice and getting caught both times, type of scenerio is not real. I do hope you get it. I came out of UMDtoo , anyways I would personally get a xdm, or a 1911. RIA tactical is better than a glock. but if you have to have a high cap. xdm, or sigs

I have friends, who are 15% immature, and 85% serious. and they are good people, just like me. I am immature too, and messed up few times, but I have my basic foundation and values, that I stick by everyday of my life, and i am sure OP is the same, but just younger...

Hope we are not becoming the gun liberals.....

What happens if somebody was just merely negligent and killed your mother? Not really doing 100 mph, but made a negligent lane change, ran your mother off the road, and she hit a tree and died? What if your mother was walking on the sidewalk, a driver fell asleep at the wheel, and the driver ran over your mother?

These are all hard cases. In none of them was their an actual mens rea to do any harm to anybody. Mere negligence resulted in the death of somebody. Granted, it was not gross negligence like doing 100 mph, but it still resulted in the death of somebody.

My entire point is that the bright line "felon" and "greater than 2 year sentence" rule is BS. There are so many non-violent crimes that fall into this category that do not show whether a person would be violent with a firearm.

I am willing to bet that the vast majority of firearm related homicides are committed by the poor. So, a better metric might be requiring a person to have assets before allowing them to have a firearm. Just look at where the majority of firearm homicides happen. Poor inner city areas.

My point is that just because somebody is dumb enough to do 100 mph on the street, which results in the death of somebody else by sheer bad luck, does not mean that person is any more likely to do something bad with a firearm than the person that did 100 mph on the road and did not have grandma pull out in front of them. If you think that both people are equivalently depraved at heart and mind, then we really should be making a speeding ticket a prohibiting offense.

As far as I am concerned, a person that commits a crime of violence should be prohibited, no doubt about it. However, what makes somebody conclude that just because a person steals $50,000 or whatever amount, that they would be more likely to commit a crime with a firearm.

Heck, most of the provisions in SB281 would make a person prohibited if they were found guilty. Some of them the Attorney General and MSP don't even know how to interpret them. It would really suck to be found guilty of one of these provisions as the test case and then find out you are prohibited for life.

Can you believe that if you hand me a 30 round mag, that is enough to make you prohibited for life if found guilty because it carries a maximum sentence of 3 years? That is the screwed up stuff I am talking about. Something as simple as that.

Am I excusing my friend for killing the old lady? NO However, he did his time for it. FYI - he is now an avid bow hunter, but was not able to waterfowl hunt with me because he could not use a shotgun. He is now in Florida and I have not seen him for a decade.

The gist of it is I do not think all felonies and all crimes that carry a sentence of more than 2 years should result in a person losing his/her 2nd Amendment RIGHT. I am pretty sure that was not the case when the Amendment was drafted, but that we got to this point over time.

 

[54rndball]

The gist of it is I do not think all felonies and all crimes that carry a sentence of more than 2 years should result in a person losing his/her 2nd Amendment RIGHT. I am pretty sure that was not the case when the Amendment was drafted, but that we got to this point over time.

Convicted felons have demonstrated a serious lack of judgement/responsibility and it is a good thing that they cannot possess firearms.

 

[fabsroman]

Convicted felons have demonstrated a serious lack of judgement/responsibility and it is a good thing that they cannot possess firearms.

We can agree to disagree on including ALL felonies. No problem there.

How do you feel about every crime that carries a sentence of more than 2 years?

Edit to add: I believe ALL Maryland felonies are the ones listed in the definition of "Disqualifying Crimes", but I am not 100% sure. Think my only issue there might be 2nd degree assault.

 

[johnnyb2]

Originally Posted by fabsroman View Post
The gist of it is I do not think all felonies and all crimes that carry a sentence of more than 2 years should result in a person losing his/her 2nd Amendment RIGHT. I am pretty sure that was not the case when the Amendment was drafted, but that we got to this point over time.


WOW...it is amazing the emotions or opinions the OP has been able to extract from some of us on here.
FABRO I agree with your statement above, and I am not one to go judging people just to throw in my 2 cents. I am a pretty much a live and let live kind of guy at my age now. BUT...I do have some background experience that most people on here DO NOT have and that allows me to use that perspective to form some thoughts of my own.

I am NOT going to get in an argument over this guy with anyone on here that other wise, could end up being a shooting buddy one day or a friend. And I also do not think that pot smokers per se are dangerous people......The thing that bothers me, that I weighed in on, since he asked OUR opinions, is his consistent attitude of dishonesty. And while there may not be a LAW against it, it is quite telling in many ways.

Without going into a big psychological digestion, which would probably get ALL KINDS of response's and dialogue and keep this thing going, but because someone is not convicted, in a legal sense, does not always make them innocent. There have been murderer's that have been let off due to a technicality, and robbers, rapist's and many others. Would you have them over for dinner if you met them, seemed friendly and were not convicted?

Continuing dishonesty with someone who claims to be clean and sober is a recipe for disaster, especially with guns/weapon's being involved.

If the OP is showing consistent dishonesty here...in the open....who knows what he is telling us has anything resembling the whole truth in it. But taking up for someone who is being that dishonest has it's consequences also. I will give you an example.

There was this young man, maybe a couple years younger than the OP here, back in...1996..97..in Northern Virginia. He had been in trouble and thought he had shot someone at a party one night. Well, without going into to much detail ( because I cannot ) people discussed sending him straight back to jail/detention. It was decided that he would not be reported and given another chance, since...he wasn't sure he shot the guy. I was vehemently against this, and was about the only one who consistently voiced this opinion. Well...several months later, he hooks up with Bobby Lee Ramdass..( you can google him ) who was a pure sociopath. The 2 of them decide to rob a 7/11 and Bobby Lee decides he wants to Kill the guy, so....he does!! Now, this other guy, who constantly lied and deceived everyone, is doing life. And the poor guy from 7/11 is DEAD... Ole Bobby Lee...well ...he was EXECUTED by the state of Virginia.

But soooo many people wanted to give this other guy a chance, and make excuses for him, just because...........this and many other cases have taught me some lesson's about behavior and patterns in people. And while this may seem extreme, there are hundreds and thousands of cases like this every day/week.

 

[johnnyb2]

TO: Fabrosman

Now, as far as stupid laws, well, yes, I think that there are many that are dumb, need to be changed and are far too severe for the circumstance involved. And actually, pot lately has become a very interesting one.

There was a report, a few weeks ago, on CNN,I believe, about many states in the mid-US that have attempted to decriminalize/legalize pot. And the politicians all received money and funding to go against allowing this to happen. Who were the donations coming from....the private companies that OWN THE PRISONS!!! They WANT people locked up, so, they can make money!!! Having complete disregard that these laws are ruining or have ruined thousands and thousands of lives, and billions in wasted money to keep these people incarcerated unnecessarily.

How about that.....private industry wants citizens locked up....to make money...which, really doesn't surprise me, I had just never thought about that being a possibility.

 

[fabsroman]

Originally Posted by fabsroman View Post
The gist of it is I do not think all felonies and all crimes that carry a sentence of more than 2 years should result in a person losing his/her 2nd Amendment RIGHT. I am pretty sure that was not the case when the Amendment was drafted, but that we got to this point over time.


WOW...it is amazing the emotions or opinions the OP has been able to extract from some of us on here.
FABRO I agree with your statement above, and I am not one to go judging people just to throw in my 2 cents. I am a pretty much a live and let live kind of guy at my age now. BUT...I do have some background experience that most people on here DO NOT have and that allows me to use that perspective to form some thoughts of my own.

I am NOT going to get in an argument over this guy with anyone on here that other wise, could end up being a shooting buddy one day or a friend. And I also do not think that pot smokers per se are dangerous people......The thing that bothers me, that I weighed in on, since he asked OUR opinions, is his consistent attitude of dishonesty. And while there may not be a LAW against it, it is quite telling in many ways.

Without going into a big psychological digestion, which would probably get ALL KINDS of response's and dialogue and keep this thing going, but because someone is not convicted, in a legal sense, does not always make them innocent. There have been murderer's that have been let off due to a technicality, and robbers, rapist's and many others. Would you have them over for dinner if you met them, seemed friendly and were not convicted?

Continuing dishonesty with someone who claims to be clean and sober is a recipe for disaster, especially with guns/weapon's being involved.

If the OP is showing consistent dishonesty here...in the open....who knows what he is telling us has anything resembling the whole truth in it. But taking up for someone who is being that dishonest has it's consequences also. I will give you an example.

There was this young man, maybe a couple years younger than the OP here, back in...1996..97..in Northern Virginia. He had been in trouble and thought he had shot someone at a party one night. Well, without going into to much detail ( because I cannot ) people discussed sending him straight back to jail/detention. It was decided that he would not be reported and given another chance, since...he wasn't sure he shot the guy. I was vehemently against this, and was about the only one who consistently voiced this opinion. Well...several months later, he hooks up with Bobby Lee Ramdass..( you can google him ) who was a pure sociopath. The 2 of them decide to rob a 7/11 and Bobby Lee decides he wants to Kill the guy, so....he does!! Now, this other guy, who constantly lied and deceived everyone, is doing life. And the poor guy from 7/11 is DEAD... Ole Bobby Lee...well ...he was EXECUTED by the state of Virginia.

But soooo many people wanted to give this other guy a chance, and make excuses for him, just because...........this and many other cases have taught me some lesson's about behavior and patterns in people. And while this may seem extreme, there are hundreds and thousands of cases like this every day/week.

No problem disagreeing with me about anything. I think it is healthy for people to talk about stuff they have different opinions on and/or different life experiences. I have plenty of friends I go hunting, fishing, shooting, and cycling with and we certainly do not agree on everything. One of my best friends is a "moderate liberal" and we surely do not agree on everything. In fact, his brother figured out who I am based upon some of my posts and he told me he and his dad have been buying stuff life crazy since this SB281 stuff. I NEVER would have thought my buddy's parents and brother were into firearms the way he was talking.

As I have said in another post, I do not know enough about the OP to actually form an opinion. From what I have read, he was arrested twice for possession and he lied about having ADD or ADHD problems so he could get additional time on exams. Now, lying about ADD, etc. and not fessing up to possibly having shot somebody is two different extremes. My point is, without actually knowing the OP, it really is tough to figure out how to approach this entire situation.

As far as pot and prisons are concerned, I am all for legalizing some of the softer drugs. Alcohol is legal and causes about just as much trouble. Might as well legalize some of the other stuff and free up the Court system and the prisons. Am I surprised that private corps that make money off of running the prisons do not want the drug laws changed? NOPE. Pretty sure Lockheed, Boenig, etc. do not want us to end the war in Afghanistan. My position on that, the children of the CEO's of each of those companies and the POTUS shall serve on the front line. Pretty sure drug manufacturers and health care providers do not want Medicare/Medicaid cuts made. The list goes on and on. Politics is controlled WAY TOO MUCH by big dollar corporations and the rest of us morons are kepy uneducated and easily influenced by simple advertising and misinformation from these companies. I'm going to become a liberal pretty soon when it comes to big business. Can't completely convert because I don't believe in 'handouts forever" for the poor and downtrodden. Equal education for all, now that is something I can get behind.