CCW training requirement just might be here soon.

[fightinbluhen51]

Ok, if they can be reformed away from being in bed with MSP, I see your point.

And I have done that. I will update them this morning.

 

[Lightning]

Does anyone know what time the Bill is scheduled to be heard today in the Senate?

 

[eruby]

IF we make it thru tomoorow with out this bill passing, how does the fact they may not get a budget and may go into overtime with the session play into this bill.

NOBODY

On WBAL this morning, they said if the session goes into overtime, only the budget will be debated and any other bills not passed will have to be re-introduced next year.

 

[Inigoes]

On WBAL this morning, they said if the session goes into overtime, only the budget will be debated and any other bills not passed will have to be re-introduced next year.

Yep, we gotta be vigilante till midnight.

Tomorrow only money matters can be dealt with in the legislature.

 

[SWO Daddy]

Talked at length today to a guy who owns a gunshop and is also a firearms instructor for MSP.
He tells me that he is working with them on developing a training program for "new" non G & S permit holders should the States legal attempt fail. Although nothing has been established they are intending to make it a serious training requirement. He's presently working on a plan that covers 8 hours, minimum 250 rounds, and you have to qualify with the weapon you intend to carry.
I barfed at this and pointed out that among other things, there could be plenty of good reasons why one who carries a service caliber might want to temporarily switch to a convenient pocket pistol at times.
He stated that their intent is to stop anyone qualifying with a .22 rimfire and then carrying a .45.

I'm just reporting the conversation, and he did make the point that any final decision is way off.

I'm sure the owner of this shop doesn't stand to benefit financially if this course he's "working with them on developing" comes to fruition.

Then again, we need to remember that this is coming from a guy at a gun shop, so it's at least 50/50 that the whole thing is BS.

 

[PJDiesel]

Does anyone know what time the Bill is scheduled to be heard today in the Senate?

It's not far down the list. Assuming they go in order, and not take long on each, it will be voted on this morning.

 

[Patrick]

It has to clear two houses today.

Be clear that they have other ways to do this. The simple truth is that the top-lone politicians are behind this. The Governor is pushing it. If they still want this to pass, it will. The only thing that caused them to stop were your voices. They did not expect it to happen. It brought them pause, as it should have.

I think some folks are just now starting to get the message: this is now a civil right. It is not social policy.

The leaders knew that, but the lower echelon lawmakers hadn't quite gotten the news. We delivered it. It was new information to some of them: this is now a legal civil right.

Several federal courts have now ripped the band-aid off the wound: restrictions on keep and bear are restrictions on civil rights. This is literally news to some lawmakers. They thought this was the old battle of social policy versus gun nuts. But that was yesterday's fight. Today's fight is about civil rights. Now that the right is proven to exist, restricitions on it will fall most heavily on those least able to afford them. Any politician supporting such restrictions are working to unfairly deny a civil right to the most needy.

It is a simple message because it is true. Part of our mission it to educate, and no matter what happens today I think we have done a good thing. We have started the conversation and educated people.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

The Gov is on with Maryland Morning on 88.1 this morning. Dunno if anyone can get through to them and call in, but might be good to berate him on this!

 

[fightinbluhen51]

http://www.wypr.org/

If you can listen, or get a chance to call in. I can't pull up the stream and I can't get the station in my building.

 

[300RUM]

It does not have anything to do with that. It's a fact of life that some people need training just because they may have never seen a gun up close, never mind know how to be safe with one. It's great that you know all about guns and do not need any training.

But what if my mom wants to carry? Trust me when I tell you she needs some training.

We are gun guys and know about guns and how to be safe with them (I hope). But no matter how good we are we can always learn something new. The fact is some people desperately need training.

Is it a pain in the a$$ for the people who know how to use a gun? Sure. Can we talk about how the constitution does not say right to bare arms only if your trained? Sure.

But to play devils advocate here, back when the constitution was written everyone carried a gun men women and children for protection and hunting. Guns were a way of life for everyone. Everyone new how to handle and use a gun because they were as common as our cell phones today. Try to find a kid that does not know how to use a cell phone, I dare you. They all know how to handle a cell phone. That how it was back then with guns. Everyone new all about guns. A gun back then was just another tool that was used everyday back then.

Fast foward to today, (and in many ways you can blame our government for keeping guns out of the hands of many people as well as making it hard for the people who could or wanted to buy a gun), we now have a sociaity where MENY people have never seen a gun up close or only on TV, and do not know the first thing about guns or gun safety. It's just a fact of life. And many of them will want a ccw as well. And they should have the right to get their ccw like you and me.

Now some will be smart enough to realize they need training and seek training out on their own just because it's a good idea. But many people besides being very lazy and not that smart will not get any training.

These people have every right to get their ccw like you and me and they will be sitting and walking right next to you and your family members.

I'm just saying.

I just want to say that I stand with my opinion. If your mom needs training,I'm not saying she can't get it, I'm saying it's ******** to make everyone take it. I'm scheduling to take two classes at this time and I shoot around 5,000 rounds a year.

Why do I want/need another training course? Because it includes skill that I either don't have or need to refine. IMO neither of these classes would be any good for someone like your mom.

 

[smokey]

Time to call again

 

[clandestine]

Time to call again

 

[Straightshooter]

Senate just had 3rd reader on this bill and moved to put it on hold until later today. Let's hope the clock runs out on the possibility to get it through the House if it passes.

 

[Garet Jax]

Just sent another email to all state senators and delegates:

The action taken by senators to amend HB579 is reprehensible. Not only did they take what was a great bill that had been (and should have been) unanimously approved and modify it to violate a civil right, but they also did it under cover of the night without giving other state senators, state delegates and most importantly other Maryland residents the time to review it, understand it and digest it.

Do not forget, your job it to represent the wishes and desires of the people of this state. Attempting to force through amendments that violate the civil rights of the very people you are supposed to represent is despicable. It is even more disgusting that you attempted to do it on the back of a legitimate bill that should have been passed.

Ultimately, I stand by the will of the people. If Maryland residents want some sort of legitimate training requirements for possession of a concealed carry permit, then I would support it. I would equally well support no training requirements for the same permit. Unfortunately, we will never know what Marylanders trully want since the actions of a select few have removed the most important group of people from the equation - shame on you.

 

[Patrick]

I enjoy the strong views on safety training, it's applicability and the constitutional questions they pose. Later this week I'd be happy to engage with my personal views. But right now they are a distraction from our real issue. Here's why:


The MD proposals have nothing to do with safety training. They are proposals to enact "back-up" restrictions on gun rights, across the board.

MSI's position is simply that there is no need to fix something not broken. There has not been a rash of safety issues in Maryland from those who lawfully own firearms. Accidents happen, but firearms ownership and recreational shooting is still safer than cheer-leading. Even so. if the state wants to enact a training regimen as a result of Shall-Issue, then they should pick from proven systems that have been in place for decades. We offered language culled from successful programs. Many of these establish some 'rules of the road' and require some common safety and legal information to be demonstrated. The important thing is that the requirements were designed to be attainable by everyone.

The Maryland legislature instead attempted to hijack the idea of safety training and turn it into a backdoor restriction regime. They want to modify law to create a whole new class of training for shall-issue that let's a political entity create and administer "training requirements" with no limits, no guidance and no oversight. The people pushing this law change are open and adamant that all guns rights are to be denied at all times.

A complete dismissal of the right is impossible, even for them. So the training will be expensive but available. It will require lots of time and lot of money to surmount the new hurdles they put in place.

This limits the right, for sure. But it limits the right to those who can afford the state games in time and dollars. The effect is that those who cannot afford both will have their right denied. This is not the first civil right to have undergone such nuanced treatment by resistive authorities. You'd think the politicians would have learned by now: any time you try to restrict a civil right, you hurt the ones most in need of its exercise. In this case, the poor and minority communities would be overwhelmingly affected.

In their zeal to restrict arms from the stereotypical 'gun guy' - who is overwhelmingly viewed to be white and middle class - the good politicians of Maryland would actually be restricting the right from everyone but that group. Let's face it: doctors, lawyers, professionals and those in the middle class will be able to afford the requirements; poor people will not.


Now the state doesn't want to stop with shall-issue. They also want to create similar "training requirements" for the purchase of all regulated arms. That means a class and fee for every purchase. Again...who is most affected by these restrictions?

Our state leaders have shown their cards multiple times. When defending their unconstitutional laws to the federal courts, they called out the specter of the people of "urban Baltimore and Prince Georges County" carrying guns. They let a rich banker walk into BWI with a loaded gun and then go home with a warning, while fighting all the way to the US Supreme Court to put a poor man in prison for daring to take his legally acquired handgun home with him on the bus. Now they craft laws meant to deny a civil right to these same people.

We anticipated a training requirement (and several other things) to come up last week. But we were appalled at just how brazenly the leaders of this state attacked civil rights using tricks straight out of history. Seriously, some of the impacts initially went over my head because I honestly could not believe it. They must have thought nobody was going to call them on it.

But we did, and so did others. Going forward, we need to make these 'teachable moments' even to those who will "never hold a gun in their hands in a million years." If you attack one civil right in such a dangerous way, you open the door to attacks on others.

Keep in mind our right is fundamental and enumerated in the Constitution...unlike myriad other rights the people of this state expect to be protected. However antiquated some consider the Second Amendment, one thing is clear: once you target key provisions from the Bill of Rights, other unenumerated civil rights are easy prey.

 

[smokey]

Beidle's office was EXTREMELY friendly and helpful. The woman was very pleasant to talk to and voiced her personal concern about the amendment. The office fell short of voicing concrete opposition and relied on a noncommittal, "chances are it's not going to pass the senate", instead of saying outright beidle was against it....but that she'd take my concerns to beidle

Mary Ann Love's office was less cordial and more down to business. I was able to get my name down in opposition, but they were less interested about my reasons why. I essentially pulled a bill oriellly and just kept talking about reasons why and didn't allow her to hang up on me when she wanted.

Sophocleus's office treated me like I didn't know anything, but once I clarified that I did were very helpful. I told them my name and address and that I wanted the delegate to voice my opposition to hb579. The woman on the line said it's already passed the house and Sophocleus has nothing to do with it anymore. I had to go back and forth with her a lot to make her understand I knew the original numbers on the house vote, I knew what frosh's amendment was, I knew it still had to pass the senate, and I knew it could bypass the judicial committee to come back to the house for a final approval WITH senate amendments. Once I showed her she had no wiggle room to be noncommittal and asked her again should it come back to the house, could I count on his vote in opposition, she said it depends on what form it takes when it comes back, but that she usually agrees with his decisions and she feels in it's current form he'd vote against it. She said they were on the floor now and she could only get my messages to him in the next session today, if this was brought up in the morning session, my messages wouldn't get to him.

Degrange's assistant was helpful and took my name and address. She put me down in opposition and listened attentively to my explanation why, then thanked me for my concerns.

time to keep going...hope u'all are having good luck too

 

[Hopalong]

Going forward, we need to make these 'teachable moments' even to those who will "never hold a gun in their hands in a million years." If you attack one civil right in such a dangerous way, you open the door to attacks on others.

Keep in mind our right is fundamental and enumerated in the Constitution...unlike myriad other rights the people of this state expect to be protected. However antiquated some consider the Second Amendment, one thing is clear: once you target key provisions from the Bill of Rights, other unenumerated civil rights are easy prey.

This is the point I have been raising with my friends who are either not pro-2A or on the fence. It's not about guns, it's about civil rights.

 

[Patrick]

Beidle's office was EXTREMELY friendly and helpful.

...

time to keep going...hope u'all are having good luck too

Perfect. Thx.

I tell them who I represent and the phone gets quiet, fast. They take my info and promise a call back from a legislative assistant. Then crickets...

I take that as success. I am nobody, but together we speak volumes. The fact they get scared of talking to little 'ole me means you are doing awesome things. I and MSI are just borrowing your mojo a few minutes at a time.

 

[smokey]

This is the point I have been raising with my friends who are either not pro-2A or on the fence. It's not about guns, it's about civil rights.

We already pay $30 extra every time we buy a handgun. Imagine a training fee added to that. Lots of people shopping at basspro have a hard time scraping up money to justify getting a $400 taurus m85....that's now $430+6% tax...$455.80. Add in even a $30 training fee and that gun is now an unaffordable $485.80.....assuming the person can afford to take a day off of work.....

They're targeting poor people across maryland. Our elitists in office only want to allow your to exercise your rights if you're rich enough.

 

[Jim Sr]

I enjoy the strong views on safety training, it's applicability and the constitutional questions they pose. Later this week I'd be happy to engage with my personal views. But right now they are a distraction from our real issue. Here's why:


The MD proposals have nothing to do with safety training. They are proposals to enact "back-up" restrictions on gun rights, across the board.

MSI's position is simply that there is no need to fix something not broken. There has not been a rash of safety issues in Maryland from those who lawfully own firearms. Accidents happen, but firearms ownership and recreational shooting is still safer than cheer-leading. Even so. if the state wants to enact a training regimen as a result of Shall-Issue, then they should pick from proven systems that have been in place for decades. We offered language culled from successful programs. Many of these establish some 'rules of the road' and require some common safety and legal information to be demonstrated. The important thing is that the requirements were designed to be attainable by everyone.

The Maryland legislature instead attempted to hijack the idea of safety training and turn it into a backdoor restriction regime. They want to modify law to create a whole new class of training for shall-issue that let's a political entity create and administer "training requirements" with no limits, no guidance and no oversight. The people pushing this law change are open and adamant that all guns rights are to be denied at all times.

A complete dismissal of the right is impossible, even for them. So the training will be expensive but available. It will require lots of time and lot of money to surmount the new hurdles they put in place.

This limits the right, for sure. But it limits the right to those who can afford the state games in time and dollars. The effect is that those who cannot afford both will have their right denied. This is not the first civil right to have undergone such nuanced treatment by resistive authorities. You'd think the politicians would have learned by now: any time you try to restrict a civil right, you hurt the ones most in need of its exercise. In this case, the poor and minority communities would be overwhelmingly affected.

In their zeal to restrict arms from the stereotypical 'gun guy' - who is overwhelmingly viewed to be white and middle class - the good politicians of Maryland would actually be restricting the right from everyone but that group. Let's face it: doctors, lawyers, professionals and those in the middle class will be able to afford the requirements; poor people will not.


Now the state doesn't want to stop with shall-issue. They also want to create similar "training requirements" for the purchase of all regulated arms. That means a class and fee for every purchase. Again...who is most affected by these restrictions?

Our state leaders have shown their cards multiple times. When defending their unconstitutional laws to the federal courts, they called out the specter of the people of "urban Baltimore and Prince Georges County" carrying guns. They let a rich banker walk into BWI with a loaded gun and then go home with a warning, while fighting all the way to the US Supreme Court to put a poor man in prison for daring to take his legally acquired handgun home with him on the bus. Now they craft laws meant to deny a civil right to these same people.

We anticipated a training requirement (and several other things) to come up last week. But we were appalled at just how brazenly the leaders of this state attacked civil rights using tricks straight out of history. Seriously, some of the impacts initially went over my head because I honestly could not believe it. They must have thought nobody was going to call them on it.

But we did, and so did others. Going forward, we need to make these 'teachable moments' even to those who will "never hold a gun in their hands in a million years." If you attack one civil right in such a dangerous way, you open the door to attacks on others.

Keep in mind our right is fundamental and enumerated in the Constitution...unlike myriad other rights the people of this state expect to be protected. However antiquated some consider the Second Amendment, one thing is clear: once you target key provisions from the Bill of Rights, other unenumerated civil rights are easy prey.

+1