MARYLAND GUN OWNERS ARE BEING COERCED BY FEDS TO TURN IN THEIR GUNS FOR 'BALLISTIC TESTING' !!!

TheFiringLine.com ^ | 17 October 2002 | Vigilant1

[Vigilant1]

Over at TheFiringLine.com, there are many reports from credible long-time posters that the feds are intimidating Maryland gun owners into 'voluntarily' turning over their guns for 'ballistic testing'. Please check out the following discussion threads:

5000 rifles turned-in, in Maryland?

A Special Note To Maryland Gun Owners

Goodbye TFL- for now

This is a realization of the worst fears of gunowners. Feds showing up at your door, demanding you turn over your guns. Threats and intimidation. Absolute proof that the fedgov keeps lists of who owns what guns. This is our Orwellian nightmare come true. If you turn over your guns to the feds, good luck getting them back! Perhaps Maryland is just a test case for federal gun confiscation techniques? We'll see....

[Vigilant1]

V1:
"If you have a trusted friend or relative that lives very close by, have them keep a camcorder or camera handy and remain vigilant. If the fedgovthugs show up, have them videotape the entire event (without sound) from concealment. "

CF:
Get it straight guy. In Maryland, it is illegal to tape a telephone conversation. NOT to tape the voices in your office!!!!! Why do you think that people put you on the speaker BOX!!! My recorder picks up the voices in my office. LET'S GET THE INFORMATION STRAIGHT AND REALLY HELP THESE FOLKS. Cops record you when they pull you over."

"Are you dense!! I [sic] a public place you can tape and record. Let's get straight information out!!!"
----------

Yes, let's not be 'dense', and let's give out correct info.... unlike the false and dangerous advise you have given here.

In the state of Maryland, the thin line between legal recording and felony illegal recording is 'a resonable expectation of privacy'. If that reasonable expectation of privacy does not exist, then you must have prior consent of all parties involved, and you (the person making the recording) must be a party to that conversation. If the conversations you record in your office are done without the prior knowlege and consent of everyone involved, including those on the other end of the phone line; and your office is in Maryland; then you have just admitted commiting a felony on a public internet forum, which can get you up to five years and a $10,000 fine. That's not too bright, Sparky. So are you the one to be dispensing legal advise here ??? Perhaps not.

If you are a Maryland resident, your neighbor is filming the cops serving a warrant, and they run to a side window of their house, videotaping the cops in your house through an open window, and their camcorder mike picks up some of the conversation, your neighbor has just committed a felony. Your home is a private residence, thus a reasonable expectation of privacy exists there. Your neighbor is taping conversations he's not a party to, that he lacks prior permission of all participants to record, thus the recording is felonious. This is why I recommended that people forego the audio; the line demarking a felony crime is so easy to accidentally cross when your mike is open and recording everything that it's better to play it safe.

As for recording from concealment, yes, it may be prefectly legal to stand in your front yard and tape the cops serving a warrant on your neighbors. But in many such cases, the cops have walked over to the person taping and seized the tape, or prevented further taping. Yes, it's illegal for cops to do that, but cops know they will personally suffer little or no consequences for that act, and don't much care about the law in that case. Never underestimate the arrogance of fedgovthugs; history clearly shows they feel they are above the law.

So in the future, perhaps you should be a little better informed before you run your mouth, hmmm ??? You might want to check out this link....

Hidden Cameras, Hidden Microphones

[CHICAGOFARMER]

You still don't get it dude.

In public you can record video and voice without violation of any recording law.

So are so wraped up in the telephone recording law you can't see the light.

[Vigilant1]

Well, you obviously didn't bother to read the page that I provided a link to in my last post. I guess I'll have to spell it out for you....

This is from that page:

*snip*
"It is a felony in Maryland to "wilfully" [sic] intercept, attempt to intercept, or have someone else intercept on one's behalf any wire, oral or electronic communication."

Note that it wire, oral OR electronic communication. It's you that "doesn't [or refuses to] see the light" here. The law is not restricted to telephone conversations; it includes face-to-face oral communications as well. Do you get it now ??? If it's not clear to you yet, here's more from the same source....

*snip*
""Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person "in private conversation." Maryland courts have read this definition to require a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances of an intercepted oral communication in order for the communication to be protected under the statute."

It can't be much plainer than that. You are wrong.

[Vigilant1]

I have to qualify the last post I made by saying that you are wrong about the part about me being "wrapped up in the telephone recording law", as it has a much wider scope than just telephone recordings. I won't repeat what I already posted about your illegal office recordings, or your neighbor pointing a camcorder into your open window and recording cops executing a search warrant; if you still don't get that, then your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to comprehend it with repetition.

And yes, I already said (if you had bothered to read my post, which you clearly didn't) that you can stand on your lawn and tape whatever you want (but the fedgovthugs will likely seize your camcorder and/or tapes).

So please try reading my posts first, and then respond.

[JimRed]

Terrible when you have to hire a lawyer to protect your Rights. But, "The State" has to do the same.

BUT, "the State" does it with MY money!

[Alas Babylon!]

Nope. I have enough land to pratice on it safely. I am retired military, and due to this the government has my number. I'd like to think they want me to keep up my small arms skills. Still, I'd never fill our a form for a weapon unless it was a government issue on hand receipt.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

You still don't get it!

This for hire type of recording. Did you notice that.

You can record your own voice any time you like on your property in your house.

Why don't you check current court cases that support your position that you can not record your own voice in your own home or on your own property. You will not find any as described above.

You are so paronoid about the hundreds of thosands of laws you can shit without asking for permission.

Does this make more sense??

[Vigilant1]

CF:

"You still don't get it!"

You're right; your responses are confusing and off-point.
----------

"This for hire type of recording. Did you notice that."

I assume you're talking about your office conversations here. I didn't "notice that" because you haven't said it up until now. Regardless, the point I made about the law requiring that you have the prior consent of all participants in a private conversation and yourself be a participant in that conversation before recording it stands. If you do not meet these conditions in Maryland, you are committing a felony by recording a private conversation in your office, whether you understand the law or not.
----------

"You can record your own voice any time you like on your property in your house."

Since no one has said otherwise, and this has no relevance to video & audiotaping a police encounter, what in the hell is your point here? Do you have one ???
----------

Why don't you check current court cases that support your position that you can not record your own voice in your own home or on your own property. You will not find any as described above.

I can see that what you need is a second grade-level remedial reading class. I NEVER said anywhere on this thread that you can't legally record your own voice. You can read simple English sentences, can't you ??? I wonder....
----------

"You are so paronoid about the hundreds of thosands of laws you can shit without asking for permission."

No, I am merely concerned that somebody here might take your dangerously wrong advise seriously, and go to jail as a result. Here is precisely what I mean:

---------

In post # 150, you wrote:

"In Maryland, it is illegal to tape a telephone conversation. NOT to tape the voices in your office!!!!! Why do you think that people put you on the speaker BOX!!! My recorder picks up the voices in my office."

This is WRONG! The law clearly says you MAY NOT tape a private conversation, "the voices in your office", unless you have the prior permission of all parties involved. To fail to meet these conditions is to commit a FELONY. Did you get it that time ???
----------

"Does this make more sense??"

No, all your posts on this thread are nonsensical. You asked me, "are you dense?" You should have been looking in the mirror when you asked that....

[Vigilant1]

The fact that the authorities have used the willing participation of the media to encourage people to rat out gun-owning neighbors is an outrage that should have us up in arms (no pun intended). Think about what the reaction would be among a minority group if the government asked citzens to rat them out. That all us gun owners sit by and passively take this kind of abuse speaks volumes about how American gun owners have lost their will to fight back. We just silently take it, and do nothing, say nothing. How sad. :^(

[Freedom2specul8]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/773484/posts?page=4
Maryland gunonwers - if you have been harrassed by the feds, PLEASE READ THIS!

[Feiny]

The rate of 500% was for Virginians applying for CCW's. Maryland remains a horrible home for gunowners.

[aeronca]

"The rate of 500% was for Virginians applying for CCW's. Maryland remains a horrible home for gunowners

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Feiny]

Thought you all may be interested....

[bvw]

Just how many convictions under that MD conversation recording law have there been? To what level of appeal have any been taken?

[Imal]

This is stunning. What legitimate purpose could these searches possibly serve?

Do they honestly think the Beltway Sniper would voluntarily turn over a weapon used in at least ten murders just because they asked for it?

Conversely, do they honestly think they can track down and test every .223 caliber firearm in the area except the Beltway Sniper's and thus isolate him that way? Will the Beltway Sniper be the only recorded owner of a .223 rifle that can't be located or questioned? Who's to say the "sniper" doesn't normally live somewhere else far, far away, and went to the D.C. area specifically to commit these crimes? In any of these cases, searches of local records are worthless, whether the gun was bought locally or not.

There is no logical case in which the random search scenario makes sense -- at least from a legitimate law enforcement standpoint.

The only conclusion I can come to about these questionable searches and seizures, having read about it from multiple sources, is that it is some strange reactionary combination of opportunistic power politics, morbid grandstanding, blind panic and unadulterated lunacy that is being undertaken without regard for legality, morality or reality.

Oh, and that this makes an airtight case against any form of gun registration at any level of government. Even without legitimate authority, massive abuses of this presumptuous power are already taking place.

I, for one, will never cooperate with any activity that violates constitutional law. I'm sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution, and will not renounce my oath for anyone or any reason. Those who would usurp powers that are not rightfully granted to them do so at their peril.

Molon labe.

[Palladin]

BUMP

[Vigilant1]

bvw:
"Just how many convictions under that MD conversation recording law have there been? To what level of appeal have any been taken?"

I remember seeing in the many articles about Linda Tripp violating the telephone clause of the Maryland wiretap statute when she taped Monica Lewinsky that there had been vigorous enforcement of that statute in the past, except where it was violated by law enforcement personnel (no surprise there). There is a similar statute here in Oregon, and a former prosecutor that I was hiring as an attorney told me that that law is strictly enforced in Oregon, and he had successfully prosecuted several such cases himself. We've had this law for quite a while, so I assume it's survived the appeal process in the state Appelate & Supreme Courts.

This makes perfect sense, because District Attorneys are elected officials. They will do whatever makes a good impression with the public. Posturing as protecting the privacy of citizens by going after those who make any sort of illegal recording is a good political tactic for a DA seeking reelection.

[PoorMuttly]

"I ain't him Officer. Hold muh' murder-weapon."

[bvw]

The answer is, "You don't know".

[bvw]

The Oregon wiretap statue is NOT similar to Maryland's, btw. Suggest you load and stablise cannon before firing. That is -- do some research.