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

TheFiringLine.com ^ | 17 October 2002 | Vigilant1

[copycat]

What will you do?

Produce sales receipts proving I sold my guns...;-)

[bvw]

"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. ... 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."

These are incorrect, half-baked interpretations of your own regarding Maryland wiretap law. You should really have done some research yourself before upbraiding someone else, for you have wrong in significant ways.

[bvw]

The wiretap case against Linda Tripp was a sham ... all politics and spite. And, according to LindaTripp.com the case was dismissed -- at the State's own request!

Ruling, Indictment Nolle Prosequi At Request Of The State, May 31, 2000

Seems its actually quite hard to prosecute sucessfully against a personal tapeing of one's own phone call in Maryland.

[bvw]

FYI, the sequence of relies above.

[Vigilant1]

bwv:
"These are incorrect, half-baked interpretations of your own regarding Maryland wiretap law. You should really have done some research yourself before upbraiding someone else, for you have wrong in significant ways."

I've provided substaniation for what I said; you've provided nothing more than your unsupported opinion, which you seem to expect us to accept as fact. So far, you're just wasting everyone's time here.

[Vigilant1]

bvw:
"The wiretap case against Linda Tripp was a sham ... all politics and spite."

"Seems its actually quite hard to prosecute sucessfully against a personal tapeing of one's own phone call in Maryland."
---

So you characterize the enforcement of this statute in Maryland on the basis of one extremely atypical case, which you admit was totally politcally motivated? Your 'logic' is laughable. As for the Tripp case....

OS, in post # 177:
"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).

I was merely referring to information contained in news articles generated by the Tripp case; I did not cite the Tripp case as evidence of anything. Again, you have failed to offer any meaningful evidence to support your claims.

I would also point out here that the subject is hand is the audiotaping of a police in your home or on your private property (by you or your neighbors), and legalities involved in such an action. Talking about "personal tapeing [sic] of one's own phone call" is off-topic and irrelevent, as was ChicagoFarmer's incoherent rambling about taping "voices in his office". I only responded to CF because the legal advise he was giving was not only wrong; it was dangerous.

[Vigilant1]

And one more thing....

bvw:
"You should really have done some research yourself before upbraiding someone else....

The fact that I posted a link explaining the law shows that I DID, in fact, research the matter. That was only one site of several that I looked at. However, if you follow your own advise and do some research, and come up with some pertinent info, please post it here. I'm certainly willing to listen. The goal is to get the correct info posted here.

[bvw]

You haven't provided anything except your own opinion, some misguided recollections of the Tripp case, and your own personal recollection of some past conversation with a lawyer you know in a state with wiretap laws significantly different than Maryland's. I have suggested that you do some research, yet you continue to go on without such research. Why?

[bvw]

Where did you post such a link? Perhaps I have missed it.

I might suggest that just posting a link is weak, rude or hasty as things go in discussions -- it's generally considered polite to give a summarizing excerpt or your own fair summary.

[bvw]

"I remember seeing in the many articles about Linda Tripp violating the telephone clause of the Maryland wiretap statute when she taped Monica Lewinsky "

This claim of many articles that say "there had been vigorous enforcement of that [Maryland wiretap] statute in the past" -- that specically I'd like you to try and back that up with some cites. As I recollect, the opposite case was true --- that the statue was rarely prosecuted!

[Vigilant1]

The link in question is at the bottom of post # 161. I posted several excerpts from that page, and if you go to the link, their info is case referenced at the bottom of the page.

As for rudeness, your obvious hypocrisy in that charge is clear for everyone to see. You have failed to provide any support or references to back up any of your points, yet you continue to demand it from me after I've already provided it. You say I must provide years-old news articles to back up a passing comment. Sorry, I'm not your research assistant. You are focused in on irrelevant peripheral issues (the Linda Tripp case), taking the thread away from the real issue at hand. That is the fedgovthugs harrassing and intimidating law-abiding gun owners.... remember ???

It's clear that you aren't interested in contributing anything useful to this thread. All you're after is a pizzin' match. Sorry, you're just wasting our time here. I'm not playing your game. So run along now, Junior....

[bvw]

Here's some legal research supporting the legitimacy of recording YOUR OWN phone calls in Maryland. (Kevin Wood, "A Summary of Maryland's Interception Law"):

... the Maryland legislature, in enacting the Maryland "interception" statute, patterned the state law, and even copied it in many cases, after the federal law. By adopting the legal provision of the federal law, Maryland is also obligated to follow in good faith federal law interpreting the same provisions in the federal counterpart. Of course, case law is secondary to actually complying with what the face of the statute actually says.

The only court that has picked up on this elusive, but controlling, distinction is the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which concluded in 1974 as follows:

The government has adopted the position of the trial court below that the intercepting device was the recorder and not an extension telephone. While such a view avoids the problem presented, we are simply not persuaded by this contention. We agree with appellant that the recording of a conversation is immaterial when the overhearing is itself legal. It is the means whereby the contents of the conversation are acquired that is crucial. See State v. Vizzini, 115 N.J. Super. 97, 278 A.2d 235. A recording device placed next to, or connected with, a telephone receiver cannot itself be the "acquiring" mechanism. It is the receiver which serves this function--the recorder is a mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication. This interpretation comports squarely with the clear distinction drawn between "intercepting" and "recording" under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8) (a), which deals with judicially authorized interceptions: The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. [emphasis added].

We therefore conclude that the tape recorder in question cannot constitute the intercepting mechanism when used, as it is argued here, connected to a telephone receiver. U.S. v. RICHARD KAY HARPEL, 493 F.2d 346 (10th Cir. 1974). (emphasis added)

Even though this may be an older case of a circuit in which Maryland is not even a part (appeal was from a Colorado U.S. District Court), the argument cannot be ignored and is as valid today as it was in 1974.

The bottom line is that Congress intended to make a "clear distinction" between "intercepting" and "recording" and reflected this intention in the statute itself.

The HARPEL case addressed above refers to a section of the federal "interception" law as follows:

The contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. 18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(a). (emphasis added) This provision of the law, as HARPEL points out, clearly distinguishes that the communication must be "intercepted" first and then "recorded on tape" as two separate operational, and legal, functions. This provision in the federal statutes, calling out the distinction, cannot be ignored by the press nor the courts if either are acting in good faith to search of the truth in the law and what the law was originally intended to regulate.

Well, you say, that's federal law, but what about Maryland law? The answer is that the Maryland legislature wanted to adopt the same provision and logic into Maryland law so they merely copied, almost verbatim, the federal statute and in Maryland statute provided:

Recordings of contents of intercepted communications(1) The contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by any means authorized by this subtitle, if possible, shall be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-408(g). (emphasis added)

They are the same in purpose and form with a few words changed, but the "clear distinction" is still there and the HARPEL argument still applies. That is, an "interception" is not the same as a "recording" and an "interception" is clearly the "acquisition" of the communication and NOT the "recording" or "taping" of it.

[bvw]

If there's any case law in Maryland about recording YOUR OWN phone calls, please let us know. You did claim you there was ... at least that you had seen "many cases" reported. Even just the news articles that so state ... many cases of wiretap violations prosecuted .. some cite to back up what you claimed. Anything! Please?

[Vigilant1]

bvw:
"If there's any case law in Maryland about recording YOUR OWN phone calls, please let us know. You did claim you there was ..."

No, I did NOT make that claim. I said....

OS, in post # 161:
"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...."

I would also point out that on the page you referenced, the author, a Mr. Kevin Wood, has no title; thus he isn't a lawyer, judge or law professor. His opinion is no more authoritative than yours or mine. Here is a far more reliable source:

NOTE: The following link is to a .pdf document, and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

Opinions of the Attorney General, Opinion No. 00-020 (August 11, 2000) (scroll to bottom of page)

The Wiretap Act defines "intercept" to mean "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." CJ §10-401(3).9 The federal statute contains an identical definition. 18 U.S.C. §2510(4).

Interestingly, that was written two years ago by someone we're all very familiar with now - Chief Charles Moose, Phd. And as for the rest of your post....

OS, from post # 191:
"You say I must provide years-old news articles to back up a passing comment. Sorry, I'm not your research assistant. You are focused in on irrelevant peripheral issues (the Linda Tripp case), taking the thread away from the real issue at hand. That is the fedgovthugs harrassing and intimidating law-abiding gun owners.... remember ??? .... Sorry, you're just wasting our time here. I'm not playing your game."

I'm done with this irrelevant topic, and with you.

[bvw]

You claimed there were -- as your remembered reading -- a whole lot of cases where people were prosecuted for recording THEIR OWN phone calls. You haven't -- and frankly cannot -- back that up.

Now you also seem to be taking Chief "White-Van" Moose as some sort of authority, yet even that quote does NOT contradict the well-thought, well-researched legal analysis by Mr. Woods. In that piece Mr. Woods lays-out the one of the few relevant case law cites. This is from a Federal Appeals Court since cites for such cases are rare, yet as Mr. Woods clearly explains the legislative intent is the same in both Federal and the derivative Maryland statutes.

I emphasize the word legislative because, well, legislators are mere laymen and laywomen -- in this country election to a law-making body is not restricted to some elite group of lawyers, judges, professors -- at least last time I looked. Yet these very laymen write the law. Why then do you hold the clearly well-reasoned and well-researched views of a layman is such disregard. That is un-American, illogical, and unfair.

[Vigilant1]

bvw:
"You claimed there were -- as your remembered reading -- a whole lot of cases where people were prosecuted for recording THEIR OWN phone calls. You haven't -- and frankly cannot -- back that up.

You are a liar. I made no such claim. I posted what I actually said and refuted this BS you're spewing as false, yet you still repeat it. You are demanding that I back up your lie about what I never said in the first place, which is simply assinine.
----------

bvw:
"Now you also seem to be taking Chief "White-Van" Moose as some sort of authority....

Who wrote the legal opinion is irrelevant. It is a listed legal opinion from the Attorney General's office. It may be used as a legal argument in state court in matters covered by under opinion. I do not say it's authoritative; the state judiciary says the AG's official legal opinions are authoritative, and accepts them as such. Anyone with a tiny clue how the judiciary works would know this. Try citing a webpage from an unqualified person like Mr. Woods in court, and see what it gets you. Your ignorance is showing....
----------

bvw:
"....yet even that quote does NOT contradict the well-thought, well- researched legal analysis by Mr. Woods."

Apparently, you suffer from a reading disability (or mere stupidity). From Mr. Wood's page:

"But, one thing I am certain of now is that an "interception" of a communication is NOT the same thing as a "recording" of a communication."
---

From the Attorney General's legal opinion:

"The Wiretap Act defines "intercept" to mean "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."
---

Recording is most certainly "acquisition of the contents of [an].... oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device". You are clearly wrong on this point, and refuse to admit it. You dance around it by trying to place a "half-baked interpretation" of legislative intent and caselaw by a nobody from a netpage as a higher authority than an official legal opinion by the Attorney General's office, which clearly shows your FoS. Whether you admit your error or not is irrelevant, as anyone reading this thread can see the truth of the matter.

Since you cannot read & comprehend simple English language sentences, and lie about what I've said, we have no common ground for an intellegent or meaningful debate. So piss off.

[bvw]

`