" Foster a Bill" Drive

[TopShelf]

HB42 - Opposed

Well, this one ought to win me a few new friends The truth hurts

Dear Delegates,

As of January 2014, the wait time for Maryland State Police to process a firearms application is above 120 days**. This bill will effectively implement a broad-based firearms ban on all “regulated” firearms, as it forces purchasers to wait on taking possession of the firearm until such time that the background check is complete.

Instead, please consider making Maryland a “Point of Purchase“ state. This would allow FFL’s to use the NICS background check system, which is widely used across the nation. This would also eliminate the Maryland State Police from the application process, which would significantly decrease the risk that the wealth of personal Maryland resident information that exists in state "gun" databases could again be compromised.

TODO: Look over http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3057197&postcount=119

I respectfully request you give this bill an unfavorable report.


** http://delegatemike.com/state-polic...amendment-rights-of-the-citizens-of-maryland/

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Well, this one ought to win me a few new friends The truth hurts

Dear Delegates,

As of January 2014, the wait time for Maryland State Police to process a firearms application is above 120 days**. This bill will effectively implement a broad-based firearms ban on all “regulated” firearms, as it forces purchasers to wait on taking possession of the firearm until such time that the background check is complete.

Instead, please consider making Maryland a “Point of Purchase“ state. This would allow FFL’s to use the NICS background check system, which is widely used across the nation. This would also eliminate the Maryland State Police from the application process, which would significantly decrease the risk that the wealth of personal Maryland resident information that exists in state "gun" databases could again be compromised.

TODO: Look over http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3057197&postcount=119

I respectfully request you give this bill an unfavorable report.

** http://delegatemike.com/state-police-working-with-progressives-to-violate-the-second-amendment-rights-of-the-citizens-of-maryland/

If you think yours is bad, wait till you read that litany.

 

[tsmith1499]

Just finished sending written testimony on HB 36, 60, 715. More tomorrow.

 

[peoples1234]

HB 94

March 3, 2014
House Judiciary Committee
101 House Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Committee Members:

I am a registered Democrat from District 15, and today I am writing to you to state my opposition to, and recommendation for an unfavorable report on, House Bill 94. This bill would prohibit the manufacture of detachable magazines or firearm receivers by 3-Dimensional printing. While the reasoning presented in the bill may initially appear to be well founded, upon further research, it is not.

The first premise that HB 94 presents is that “the technology of 3-Dimensional printers is quickly advancing and enabling the production of operational firearms components”. 3-D printers have been commercially available for years and are just now coming into the consumer market. Even with this influx of 3-D printing available to consumers, there have ZERO reported crimes in the United States that involved a 3-D printed gun. ZERO. The reality is that 3-D printed guns are not the boon for criminals that was feared. It is still, and will remain, easier/quicker/cheaper for criminals to obtain guns through black market methods.

The second premise that HB 94 presents is that “3-D printer produced fully operational high-capacity detachable magazines designed for assault weapons as well as assault weapon receivers”. This premise is invalid because of the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (SB 281) passed through the Maryland state legislator and signed into law. This law already makes it illegal for a person to “manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm”. Additionally, according to SB 281 it would be illegal for an individual to produce a firearm receiver that was assembled into a banned, or non-compliant configuration. The legal code is already plenty lengthy, there is no need to unnecessarily add to it.

The final premise that HB 94 presents is that “many commercially available printers are able to print materials that are unable to be detected by walk-through metal detectors”. This premise is invalid, much like the second, because the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (recently renewed by Congress) prohibits the manufacture of firearm receivers without a metal strip that can be detected by metal detectors. Again, there is no need for redundancy.

In conclusion, this bill prohibiting 3-D printing of detachable magazines and firearm receivers accomplishes nothing that is not already accomplished by existing federal and state law. Plus, there is no public safety justification to the complete prohibition of 3-D printed receivers (assembled in legal configurations) since there is no evidence that the prohibition is in the best interest of the state. I hope that you will consider these points and recommend an unfavorable report for House Bill 94.

Kind Regards,

Any thoughts? I kind of tried to take it point by point as presented in the bill.

 

[Gryphon]

Here's mine for HB36. I'll send it to Mike's office tomorrow by email/.pdf. My live testimony will be a little more creative.

March 3, 2014

House Judiciary Committee
House Office Building, Room 101
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Re: House Bill 36 (Public Safety – Handgun Permit – Application Qualifications)

Subj: Written Testimony in SUPPORT

Chairman Vallario, Vice Chair Dumais and Committee Members:

I write in SUPPORT of House Bill 36 (“HB36” or “Bill”) and request a favorable vote and report to pass the Bill out of Committee for debate and consideration by the entire House.

I am a registered voter – an Independent among the increasing ranks of the “unaffiliated” in this State – and therefore a potential swing vote during future elections. Although none of you regularly represent me (or my wife) in Legislative District 7, I still view each of you as representing our interests when fulfilling your duties as part of this Committee. The entire State relies on each member of any committee to get the ball rolling, and so at this early stage I request that you treat my input as if it had come from one of your own constituents.

I am depending on each of you to initiate a common sense change that will clarify the law and put Maryland on parity with its adjacent neighbors, along with 40 other States, that do not arbitrarily prohibit law abiding, eligible, and properly trained individuals from obtaining a hand gun “carry and wear permit” for the purpose of fundamental self-defense.

As proposed House Bill 36 will revise Section 5-306(a)(6) of the Public Safety Article. The change is simple, easy to understand and positive. The Bill eliminates the arbitrary and almost certainly unconstitutional [fn1] “good and substantial” requirement from the “carry and wear” permitting process. Notably, the Maryland State Police (“MSP”) acknowledges that “the number one reason for denial of handgun permits for the last twenty years in Maryland” has been the “good and substantial reason” requirement. See MSP Executive Summary – Handgun Action Plan, August 16, 2012, Captain Jack C. McCauley, Commander, Licensing Division.

The Legislature has enacted statutes making it far more difficult to obtain, purchase or possess a handgun, as well as to obtain a carry and wear permit. These objective requirements include stringent criminal background checks, waiting periods, finger printing, significantly increased handling and safety training, certified live fire proficiency, etc. Yet at the end of the road – and despite having satisfied all of these objective requirements enacted by the Legislature for Public Safety – responsible, law abiding, tax paying, applicants are still consistently denied carry and wear permits solely because the Executive Branch (including the Superintendent of the MSP) have unilaterally decided that an individual’s fundamental right to self-defense does not satisfy the “good and substantial” requirement.

While I generally appreciate the hard work and dedication of the MSP, I do not recall waiving, assigning, or delegating decisions regarding my personal defense to the Superintendent or MSP who – just like any other police department – has no duty to protect me and my family from harm. See e.g., Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Furthermore, the Legislature has never proclaimed or enacted any statute that precludes the right to self-defense from satisfying the current “good and substantial” requirement, or that even defines what “good and substantial is. Frankly it is absurd for anyone to suggest self-defense – a civil right unto itself – isn’t a good and substantial reason for obtaining a handgun permit.

House Bill 36 eliminates the arbitrariness and subjectivity that currently exists in the carry and wear permit process. However, HB 36 leaves intact each and every one of the objective criteria the Legislature has enacted for the purpose of Public Safety. Accordingly, I request each of you to cast a favorable vote, and for the Committee to refer HB36 with a favorable report to the full House for consideration and passage.

Sincerely,

Gryphon


1. A clear split of authority exists among the federal circuit courts on whether a State may infringe on the fundamental and individual right to keep and bear arms (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) by requiring a “justification,” or a “good and substantial” reason,” to obtain a permit to carry a handgun. The most recent opinion answering this question in the negative was issued by the 9th Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2786 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014). Hence, it is anticipated that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari in Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013)(petition for cert. pending) or another similar case to resolve the question for the entire nation in the near future. In any event, HB36 provides each of you with an opportunity to eliminate the arbitrary process, and to restore the rights of otherwise eligible, qualified, and properly trained taxpayers and voters in this State to obtain a carry and wear permit based upon the Legislature’s objective criteria.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Gryphon, thats awesome!

 

[Gryphon]

Just caught a few typos and will clean up the formatting. But I thought I'd try a different tack, i.e. I am not asking them to change their objective criteria, just jettison the problematic subjective G&S. I'll send it to Mike's office in the morning. You are doing a kick ass job organizing the troops SNI - wish I had more time.

 

[Bob Lee $wagger]

Nice Job Gryphon. Very well written. Short and to the point. Says just about everything that needed to be said. Good Luck on Tuesday.

____________________________________________
I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns.
NRA Lifetime
SAF Lifetime
MD Designated Collector
Utah non resident CCW - good in 30+ states but not in the PRM.

 

[on_the_rox]

Written testimony sent on HB36 and HB715. Thanks to Mike Smigiel for providing the printing services and to those here for organizing this fostering drive. I appreciate working with all of you to try to move this state forward in the area of 2a rights.

 

[DC-W]

DC-W the law states an HQL is needed for purchase and transfer. Nothing about possession or manufacture. Also Federal law prohibits the unlicensed manufacture FOR sale of firearms.

Thanks mopar!

Revised.

HB 94
OPPOSE

I highly suggest that the Committee oppose HB 94. My name is DC-W and I am a registered Democrat from Dundalk.

This bill fails to mention that there is more than one method of 3-D printing and is ambiguous at best. Most people know 3-D printers for using plastic, however, metal objects can also be made via 3-D printing, although these machines differ heavily from their plastic printing counterparts. A company called, “Solid Concepts” from California successfully made a 1911 patterned handgun this way. This method of manufacture offers advantages in quality and strength, which can translate to more reliable and safer firearms. Banning the 3-D printing of firearms in general stifles innovation and fails to observe that there are already many other ways of making firearms.

In Maryland, it is already currently a crime to assemble or manufacture a magazine with a capacity of 10 rounds or greater by any method. The method of manufacture makes no difference in general because of current law and in regards to the aim of this bill. Magazines require the use of an internal metal spring inside for proper function. The metal spring pushes a device called the “follower” which guides the cartridges up towards the opening of the magazine. These cartridges are also made of metal. The majority of shell casings are made of either brass or steel. The primer used to ignite the gunpowder in a cartridge is also made of metal.

It is also already illegal to come into possession of an “assault weapon” after Oct. 1, 2013. Therefor, making something like an AR-15 receiver is in violation of state law as it is already written. I'll also add that making certain types of firearms, like short-barreled shotguns or rifles, and machine guns are violations of Federal law. Federal law does however permit one to manufacture their own firearms for personal use so long as they are legally able to own them and do not sell them.

Making your own firearms is not a new or foreign concept. One could make a firearm from components already available in their own home or from those for sale at any hardware store. For years, these crude firearms have been made all over the world, and even in prisons. The slang term for them is “zip guns”.

As for making your own firearm from plastic or other non-metallic materials, Federal law already requires that a firearm contain an certain amount of steel to be in compliance with the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988; at least 3.7 ounces worth.

I also question how such a law can be enforced. Merely owning a 3-D printer does not suggest that the user intends to print firearms or magazines or otherwise break a law. Without monitoring every Marylander, and simultaneously breaching the 4th Amendment of our Constitution, it is impossible to prevent anyone from breaking this law, or any other that could be broken within someone's home. The act of making an undetectable firearm in itself is prohibited under current laws and this bill will do nothing to stop someone determined enough to make one.






This legislation is unnecessary and I suggest that it is given an unfavorable report.


Sincerely,

DC-W
Sources:

The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act

Solid Concepts 3-D Metal Printed Firearm
http://www.solidconcepts.com/news-r...rinted-metal-gun-manufactured-solid-concepts/

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Updating OP with testimony links. Please bear with me, there's a lot to work with here.

This is a good thing!

Keep it up folks!

 

[Gryphon]

Okay here's mine for HB521

BTW, I was thinking about putting Judge Legg's quote (in my signature line) at the bottom of my letters!


March 3, 2014

House Judiciary Committee
House Office Building, Room 101
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Re: House Bill 521 (Firearms – Handgun Permit Regulations – “HQL” Holders)

Subj: Written Testimony in SUPPORT

Chairman Vallario, Vice Chair Dumais and Committee Members:

I write in SUPPORT of House Bill 521 (“HB521” or “Bill”) and request a favorable vote and report to pass the Bill out of Committee for debate and consideration by the entire House.

I am a registered voter – an Independent among the increasing ranks of the “unaffiliated” in this State – and therefore a potential swing vote during future elections. Although none of you regularly represent me (or my wife) in Legislative District 7, I still view each of you as representing our interests when fulfilling your duties as part of this Committee. The entire State relies on each member of any committee to get the ball rolling, and so at this early stage I request that you treat my input as if it had come from one of your own constituents. I am depending on each of you to initiate a common sense change that will improve efficiency while ensuring ongoing public safety.

With the passage and enactment of The Firearms Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA2013”), the Legislature significantly increased the requirements and obstacles for law abiding Maryland citizens to purchase a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. The new requirements include, inter alia, that applicants be finger printed, pass a comprehensive background check performed by the Maryland State Police (“MSP”), receive firearm safety and handling training that includes a live fire exercise approved by the MSP, and to obtain and possess a Handgun Qualification License (“HQL”) issued by the MSP that includes a photograph of the licensee. All of this has been dictated by the Legislature as a precursor for the lawful purchase of a handgun for personal protection and self-defense. Notably, these requirements are more restrictive, onerous, time consuming and expensive than those imposed by most other states in our nation to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit.

Whether or not the new HQL requirement is a good thing can be debated. However, if we are to be intellectually honest we must all agree that an applicant cannot obtain a HQL if he or she is a criminal, is otherwise prohibited by law, or lacks the training specifically required by the Legislature to ensure public safety.

Under the current law a citizen that has already obtained a HQL must also apply for and obtain a “carry and wear” permit if he or she desires to carry the handgun for its primary purpose, i.e. self-defense. Unfortunately, the carry and wear permit process involves another redundant application, more finger prints, another comprehensive MSP conducted background check, firearm safety and handling training that includes a live fire exercise approved by the MSP, and yet another “permit” card that includes a photograph of the permitee. Of course the applicants incur significant additional time and expense to navigate this redundant application and permitting process.

HB521 reflects a common sense “two option” approach to the issue of carry and wear permits in the future. First, those that do not possess a valid HQL (but that already possess a handgun) would continue to have the option of applying for and obtaining a carry and wear permit through the prior recognized process. This guarantees that the applicant would be fingerprinted, pass the requisite background check, and have adequate training before the carry and wear permit would be issued. Second, individuals that have already obtained a HQL under the more onerous law – and thereby demonstrated their eligibility purchase hand guns to the satisfaction of the Legislature – will be issued a carry and wear permit upon application to the MSP without incurring significant delays and redundant expense.

I appreciate the Legislature’s desire to prevent criminals from possessing handguns, and personally believe that firearm safety and training are good things. However, as a taxpayer, voter, and Second Amendment advocate, I expect the Legislature to be more efficient; especially when there is no downside to public safety. If I already own and am wearing a belt, for God’s sake why should I have to purchase and wear suspenders too?

House Bill 521 eliminates a redundant, time consuming and expensive process for both the MSP and the applicant while maintaining public safety. Accordingly, I request each of you to cast a favorable vote, and for the Committee to refer HB521 with a favorable report to the full House for consideration and passage.

Sincerely,

Gryphon

 

[Hopalong]

Folks,

I'd like to apologize for being absent from this thread. I've been laid up since Thursday with a pretty bad back injury. I'm planning on typing up some testimony today and submitting it. If I'm done at a reasonable hour, I'll share it here.

Hop


PS: Back injuries suck. A lot. Ow.

 

[dblas]

Folks,

I'd like to apologize for being absent from this thread. I've been laid up since Thursday with a pretty bad back injury. I'm planning on typing up some testimony today and submitting it. If I'm done at a reasonable hour, I'll share it here.

Hop






PS: Back injuries suck. A lot. Ow.

And the rest of the rocket scientist contingent finally checks in.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

OP Links added, pm me with post link if I missed any and I'll update.

Thank you everyone, great work going on here!

Hopalong, there's a few orphans, would be great if you could take a few of those on.

 

[dogbone]

HB 90 - Opposed

Short but to the point, I hope:

We all oppose violent behavior and loathe it particularly when it enters into a family situation. We have broadened the definition of “family” in recent years and on the whole the recognition of the diversity of special relationships between people will be a good thing for our society.

This bill, however, entirely oversteps the bounds in granting a special relationship status based on what may have been a fleeting and casual encounter. This bill hopes to expand the circumference of the circle enclosing a family far beyond reason. I ask you to return an unfavorable report.

 

[Hopalong]

And the rest of the rocket scientist contingent finally checks in.

Heh.

Hopalong, there's a few orphans, would be great if you could take a few of those on.

I'll take a crack at them.

 

[DC-W]

Some of the orphaned bills were making my head spin a bit. HB 1199 seems particularly treacherous.

 

[Gryphon]

Finalized and sent mine for both 36 and 521 to Delegate Mike by email. BTW, the instructions said to send the testimony attached as a word.doc attachment. But I, and the rest of you, may want to include a signed/scanned/.pdf file if that's an option for you.

 

[Brooklyn]

HB90 opposed

My effort on HB90

Short and sweet . Time is short as well.

I oppose HB90.

While I lack the requisite legal training to mount the full argument this bill and indeed the entire issue of PBJ appears to be problematic with respect to substantive due process.. I urge an unfavorable report. If this becomes law we will be force to challenge far more of these restrictions as it will be clear that it is a " Camels's nose under the tent" we can not abide.

There is a distinct pattern of late in which our opposition starts with reasonable restrictions ( violent felon's ) and ends with .. well they never end and that's the point.

It may interest the committee to know that, historically felon's were not prohibited from bearing arms, as it was essential to survival, moreover to the day felon's even violent felons are often allowed to enlist in the The armed Forces of the united states (I know of one such situation personally , suggesting that they are suitable for militia service. This snuggest that it is far from clear if a felon can be forever debarred from owning firearms. Of course the truly dangerous felons do not ask permission to won firearms-- a fact you can verify by spending the night in there company on any Baltimore street corner ( Please do not do this -- its not safe ) making the issue moot.

I regret that I have not the time to do research for you, but I would strongly recommend that a full study of the implementations of this perpetual expansion of restrictions be undertaken before any further legislation of this type is undertaken , between the 2a and substantive due process you are likely to risk a general challenge to the entire system of restriction.

For myself I might be willing to put up with some inconvenience ( ie NCIS check ) even if I think it is largely serves no purpose with respect to felons, provided the cost is low, but as you have proven to me that you will continue to tighten my restrictions without limit you are going to force me, and by extenuation the 2a community, to challenge the constitutionally of laws we whose goals we any even support , and whose burden is bearable simply because you have proven that you can not restrain yourself.

It is far from clear that IS will support most of what passes for gun control today. Be ware that each over reach forces us to challenge what we might otherwise tolerate. We should never have let it get this far, and this lesson we have learned well


I urge an unfavorable report. If you do not restrain yourself we will need to fight you at every turn, even on matters we might otherwise support.


Thank you.