" Foster a Bill" Drive

DC-W said:

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

Click to expand...

I just took a look at 1199 and it made my head spin too.

It seems like it's just adding stiffer penalties for handgun crimes, but it seems to involve simple transport violations, which could be a huge issue for otherwise law-abiding folks who are just transporting their handguns improperly.

Did I miss something? I also couldn't help by notice that there is no subsection (b). It goes straight from (a) to (c).

I'm not touching that one without more information. NEXT!

Looking at HB 286: it basically says that the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor would no longer apply to the crime of using a firearm in the commission of a felony or other violent crime. Since the "use of a firearm" crime is itself a misdemeanor, this seems like lawmakers just want to make complicated exceptions for firearms crimes.

I can see the benefit of making keeping more charges on the table longer for Baltimore drug thugs, hopefully with the intent of keeping them in jail longer. But I think this is totally the wrong way to do it. I'll take a stab at this one.

Hopalong said:

Looking at HB 286: it basically says that the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor would no longer apply to the crime of using a firearm in the commission of a felony or other violent crime. Since the "use of a firearm" crime is itself a misdemeanor, this seems like lawmakers just want to make complicated exceptions for firearms crimes.

I can see the benefit of making keeping more charges on the table longer for Baltimore drug thugs, hopefully with the intent of keeping them in jail longer. But I think this is totally the wrong way to do it. I'll take a stab at this one.

Click to expand...

That bill is essentially SB 284, which is being headed by Frosh.

Gryphon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good point. Just updated the OP to add PDF file type. In fact, I have been using PDFs to send

Thanks!

BTW, more sample testimony is always welcomed.

Hopalong said:

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.

Click to expand...

Let's get back to work.

Can't back down now.

Gotta get back to Annapolis cuzz their back at it again.

We got your back until you're back on your feet.

Hopalong said:

Looking at HB 286: it basically says that the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor would no longer apply to the crime of using a firearm in the commission of a felony or other violent crime. Since the "use of a firearm" crime is itself a misdemeanor, this seems like lawmakers just want to make complicated exceptions for firearms crimes.

I can see the benefit of making keeping more charges on the table longer for Baltimore drug thugs, hopefully with the intent of keeping them in jail longer. But I think this is totally the wrong way to do it. I'll take a stab at this one.

Click to expand...

I made some arguments against SB248 that might be helpful.

Hopalong said:

I just took a look at 1199 and it made my head spin too.

It seems like it's just adding stiffer penalties for handgun crimes, but it seems to involve simple transport violations, which could be a huge issue for otherwise law-abiding folks who are just transporting their handguns improperly.

Did I miss something? I also couldn't help by notice that there is no subsection (b). It goes straight from (a) to (c).

I'm not touching that one without more information. NEXT!

Click to expand...

I will look when I can but I think we can just say oppose as written and point out our concerns about simple transport.


we need a bill ( if there is not one already that creates a clear safe harbor for transport perhaps we can say as much in that testimony .


Hope you back is getting better -- that was you right .. i am cramming like crazy on these damn bills..

HB 0712

Have at it, folks!


I have become too tired of reading reports of violent crime in which there is a steady litany of examples of early release of violent offenders. The “sentenced to five but out in two” game is a lose-lose situation for the citizens of Maryland. I fully understand the need to have a reward system to encourage good behavior in the Maryland corrections system but that is not how the system is being used.

Criminals in federal prisons have an incentive to behave while in prison. For good behavior they get “good conduct” credits, which reduce the time they actually serve on their sentences. Maryland awards good conduct credits, too, but not for good conduct. Our state uses good conduct credits to get criminals out of prison early, even when they behave badly.



The Division of Correction (DOC), following Maryland law, applies good conduct credits to a prison sentence the day an inmate steps through its doors. For example, let’s say a convicted robber is arrested again and convicted for carrying a gun, for which he gets a mandatory sentence of five years “without parole.” DOC will take that sentence, immediately apply the good conduct credits, and calculate the actual time to be served at about four years. (The inmate will be released even earlier if he accumulates credits for other reasons, such as living in double cells or participating in prison programs.)



Unlike the federal system, which awards credits after the inmate has actually earned them, Maryland reverses the process. Inmates get the credits first. The burden then shifts to DOC to prove bad behavior at administrative hearings, complete with inmate rights.

We could probably tolerate this system if DOC actually took credits away for misbehavior. But the process is not just reversed, it’s perverse. DOC won’t revoke good conduct credits even when it finds inmates guilty of violating prison regulations.

Justin Bolden, who was imprisoned for an attempted robbery (that ended in the victim’s murder by a co-defendant), was twice found guilty of assaulting another inmate and once possessed a weapon, among other offenses. He was sanctioned by being segregated and/or losing visitation rights. But he got to keep all of his good conduct credits.



Charles Ravenscroft was held in maximum security for behavior that included being “involved in stabbing of other inmate while serving [disciplinary segregation]” and for “assaultive behavior both in DOC and while [in an out-of-state prison.]” He also was convicted in state court for assaulting a correctional officer and sentenced to a year. Yet despite two DOC administrative convictions for assaults on inmates, two more for possessing a weapon and another two for disobeying orders, he kept his good conduct credits, too.



And finally there is Aaron Hatt, who compiled four assaults on correctional staff members as well as numerous other infractions. DOC prepared an Institutional Progress Report for Judge Nancy Loomis-Davis in Anne Arundel County who was deciding whether to take Hatt out of prison and put him in drug treatment. The report described Hatt’s conduct as “absolutely unacceptable institutional adjustment.” This made no difference to Judge Davis-Loomis, who let him out of prison anyway. But at least she wasn’t hypocritical, like DOC, which had failed to take one credit from Hatt for any of his infractions.

Please stop inflicting on Maryland citizens the carnage caused by early release of violent offenders. I ask you to please support this bill and return a favorable report.

dogbone said:

Have at it, folks!


I have become too tired of reading reports of violent crime in which there is a steady litany of examples of early release of violent offenders. The “sentenced to five but out in two” game is a lose-lose situation for the citizens of Maryland. I fully understand the need to have a reward system to encourage good behavior in the Maryland corrections system but that is not how the system is being used.

Criminals in federal prisons have an incentive to behave while in prison. For good behavior they get “good conduct” credits, which reduce the time they actually serve on their sentences. Maryland awards good conduct credits, too, but not for good conduct. Our state uses good conduct credits to get criminals out of prison early, even when they behave badly.



The Division of Correction (DOC), following Maryland law, applies good conduct credits to a prison sentence the day an inmate steps through its doors. For example, let’s say a convicted robber is arrested again and convicted for carrying a gun, for which he gets a mandatory sentence of five years “without parole.” DOC will take that sentence, immediately apply the good conduct credits, and calculate the actual time to be served at about four years. (The inmate will be released even earlier if he accumulates credits for other reasons, such as living in double cells or participating in prison programs.)



Unlike the federal system, which awards credits after the inmate has actually earned them, Maryland reverses the process. Inmates get the credits first. The burden then shifts to DOC to prove bad behavior at administrative hearings, complete with inmate rights.

We could probably tolerate this system if DOC actually took credits away for misbehavior. But the process is not just reversed, it’s perverse. DOC won’t revoke good conduct credits even when it finds inmates guilty of violating prison regulations.

Justin Bolden, who was imprisoned for an attempted robbery (that ended in the victim’s murder by a co-defendant), was twice found guilty of assaulting another inmate and once possessed a weapon, among other offenses. He was sanctioned by being segregated and/or losing visitation rights. But he got to keep all of his good conduct credits.



Charles Ravenscroft was held in maximum security for behavior that included being “involved in stabbing of other inmate while serving [disciplinary segregation]” and for “assaultive behavior both in DOC and while [in an out-of-state prison.]” He also was convicted in state court for assaulting a correctional officer and sentenced to a year. Yet despite two DOC administrative convictions for assaults on inmates, two more for possessing a weapon and another two for disobeying orders, he kept his good conduct credits, too.



And finally there is Aaron Hatt, who compiled four assaults on correctional staff members as well as numerous other infractions. DOC prepared an Institutional Progress Report for Judge Nancy Loomis-Davis in Anne Arundel County who was deciding whether to take Hatt out of prison and put him in drug treatment. The report described Hatt’s conduct as “absolutely unacceptable institutional adjustment.” This made no difference to Judge Davis-Loomis, who let him out of prison anyway. But at least she wasn’t hypocritical, like DOC, which had failed to take one credit from Hatt for any of his infractions.

Please stop inflicting on Maryland citizens the carnage caused by early release of violent offenders. I ask you to please support this bill and return a favorable report.

Click to expand...

Curiosity - do you have citations for these statements?

Unless it's just a dumb bill, there's something deeper about 1199, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

The big thing it appears to do is to take what was previously a misdemeanor, then "instant felony, just add ammunition"

I wonder why the statutes are being modified in this manner, rather than simply adding "whether loaded or unloaded"?

A mandatory minimum of 18 months, and then a nebulous "each violation is a separate crime"... Is that one charge for every round in the firearm??

Also, how does this apply to places where we ARE allowed to carry?

Not a lot clear to me about this one.

MJD438 said:

Curiosity - do you have citations for these statements?

Click to expand...

Lifted it from Page Croyder's Criminal Justice blog at:

http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com

dogbone said:

Lifted it from Page Croyder's Criminal Justice blog at:

http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see any actual citations for this (I have looked through several pages of her blog and don't see any links to actual data points). I am afraid that the assertions will be ignored by JUD members without factual citations. With factual citations, it may actually make interesting verbal testimony as well.

My stab at written testimony HB-286. Comments/critique welcome.

--------------------

Delegates,

On it's surface, HB-286 seems like a very simple, straightforward bill. It would extend the statue of limitations of the misdemeanor crime of using a firearm in the commission of a felony or a crime of violence as defined in § 5–101 by making such a crime subject to § 5–106(B) of the Courts Article.

There is a similar bill currently before the Maryland State Senate, SB-248. During oral testimony for that bill, the State's Attorney for Prince George's County testified that the purpose of this bill is to make it easier for prosecutors to successfully prosecute suspects after the one-year statue of limitations for a misdemeanor has expired. I think we can all agree that giving prosecutors more tools to incarcerate violent criminals would benefit the public safety of the state.

However, both of these bills suffer from the same fundamental flaw. Instead of giving prosecutors more tools to actually find and apprehend suspects or give them longer longer jail sentences, these bills create a special exception for a specific law, and in doing so add another layer of complexity to the already Byzantine gun laws of the state of Maryland. If anyone is guilty of this crime, they are, by definition, also guilty of a felony or a crime of violence, neither of which are subject to the one year statute of limitations.

Instead of creating more complex laws, legislators should focus on the light sentencing and "revolving door justice" that seems to plague our state's urban areas.

Because of this fundamental flaw in judicial logic, I ask that you return an unfavorable report for HB-286.

Thank you for your consideration.

Hopalong said:

Looking at HB 286: it basically says that the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor would no longer apply to the crime of using a firearm in the commission of a felony or other violent crime. Since the "use of a firearm" crime is itself a misdemeanor, this seems like lawmakers just want to make complicated exceptions for firearms crimes.

I can see the benefit of making keeping more charges on the table longer for Baltimore drug thugs, hopefully with the intent of keeping them in jail longer. But I think this is totally the wrong way to do it. I'll take a stab at this one.

Click to expand...

This is a very bad bill.. It server no purpose. If they can't make the elements of the felony how will they make the elements of the misdemeanor ?

At best oppose as written far to may unanswered questions in my opinion..

I think it is an election year read hearing to hid the low closing rate in

Baltimore...

If this is the bill I think it is there is now no SOL at all on a misdemeanor-- to me that's a substantive due process issue.

If you need ADD ON CHARGES FOR A FELONY AT ALL SOMETHING IS WRONG ---FIX IT.

and if its a prime charge in lie of a felony then how can you use, in court convict for which you were not charged or convicted..

this can be a full on assault on due process ..


its more double illegal BS with a dash of proof-- we don;t need no stinken proof.

I really think this needs full study--- and I bet the Chair does as well.

Hopalong said:

My stab at written testimony HB-286. Comments/critique welcome.

--------------------

Delegates,

On it's surface, HB-286 seems like a very simple, straightforward bill. It would extend the statue of limitations of the misdemeanor crime of using a firearm in the commission of a felony or a crime of violence as defined in § 5–101 by making such a crime subject to § 5–106(B) of the Courts Article.

There is a similar bill currently before the Maryland State Senate, SB-248. During oral testimony for that bill, the State's Attorney for Prince George's County testified that the purpose of this bill is to make it easier for prosecutors to successfully prosecute suspects after the one-year statue of limitations for a misdemeanor has expired. I think we can all agree that giving prosecutors more tools to incarcerate violent criminals would benefit the public safety of the state.

However, both of these bills suffer from the same fundamental flaw. Instead of giving prosecutors more tools to actually find and apprehend suspects or give them longer longer jail sentences, these bills create a special exception for a specific law, and in doing so add another layer of complexity to the already Byzantine gun laws of the state of Maryland. If anyone is guilty of this crime, they are, by definition, also guilty of a felony or a crime of violence, neither of which are subject to the one year statute of limitations.

Instead of creating more complex laws, legislators should focus on the light sentencing and "revolving door justice" that seems to plague our state's urban areas.

Because of this fundamental flaw in judicial logic, I ask that you return an unfavorable report for HB-286.

Thank you for your consideration.

Click to expand...

good enough i may toss in my stuff from below.. but we don't disagree ..

Ok, I believe things are up to date. Am stepping out into the madness of the grocery store for pre-snow preps. Keep going, I will catch up later.

If anyone wants to pitch in on the admin side here, they can check my links and let me know if they are pointing correctly.

BB soon.

Keep writing and sending! I want Andi to have more than snow piled up when she gets in tomorrow.

Mr H said:

Unless it's just a dumb bill, there's something deeper about 1199, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

The big thing it appears to do is to take what was previously a misdemeanor, then "instant felony, just add ammunition"

I wonder why the statutes are being modified in this manner, rather than simply adding "whether loaded or unloaded"?

A mandatory minimum of 18 months, and then a nebulous "each violation is a separate crime"... Is that one charge for every round in the firearm??

Also, how does this apply to places where we ARE allowed to carry?

Not a lot clear to me about this one.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is because the bill is missing a large chunk of 4-203. The following should be on page 2 of the bill between lines 17 and 18:

(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a person who transports a handgun under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection transports the handgun knowingly.

(b) Exceptions. -- This section does not prohibit:

(1) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person who is authorized at the time and under the circumstances to wear, carry, or transport the handgun as part of the person's official equipment, and is:

(i) a law enforcement official of the United States, the State, or a county or city of the State;

(ii) a member of the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard on duty or traveling to or from duty;

(iii) a law enforcement official of another state or subdivision of another state temporarily in this State on official business;

(iv) a correctional officer or warden of a correctional facility in the State;

(v) a sheriff or full-time assistant or deputy sheriff of the State; or

(vi) a temporary or part-time sheriff's deputy;

(2) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun, in compliance with any limitations imposed under § 5-307 of the Public Safety Article, by a person to whom a permit to wear, carry, or transport the handgun has been issued under Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Public Safety Article;

(3) the carrying of a handgun on the person or in a vehicle while the person is transporting the handgun to or from the place of legal purchase or sale, or to or from a bona fide repair shop, or between bona fide residences of the person, or between the bona fide residence and place of business of the person, if the business is operated and owned substantially by the person if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;

(4) the wearing, carrying, or transporting by a person of a handgun used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;

(5) the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;

(6) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person on real estate that the person owns or leases or where the person resides or within the confines of a business establishment that the person owns or leases;

(7) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a supervisory employee:

(i) in the course of employment;

(ii) within the confines of the business establishment in which the supervisory employee is employed; and

(iii) when so authorized by the owner or manager of the business establishment;

(8) the carrying or transporting of a signal pistol or other visual distress signal approved by the United States Coast Guard in a vessel on the waterways of the State or, if the signal pistol or other visual distress signal is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case, in a vehicle; or

(9) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person who is carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the handgun, if:

(i) the handgun is unloaded;

(ii) the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the handgun is being transported in accordance with the court order; and

(iii) the person transports the handgun directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station.

I noticed that (the things I referenced as 'allowed'), but saw it as one of those things that would be "fixed later"...

I still can't quite fathom what they're trying to do, other than set the stage to restrict ammunition, maybe??

Or...

Now that this would be a felony, it becomes a "firearms crime", and might make this yet another bill this session, which tinkers around the edges of SoLs and lookbacks??

It's a confusing one...

“Firearm” includes an antique firearm, handgun, rifle, shotgun,
2 short–barreled rifle, short–barreled shotgun, starter gun, or any other firearm,
3 whether loaded or unloaded.

4 (b) A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence,
5 as defined in § 5–101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is
6 operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.

7 (c) (1) (i) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor
8 and, in addition to any other penalty imposed for the crime of violence or felony, shall
9 be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 20 years.


The wing nuts in the mGA apparently consider anything that looks like gun to be worth up to 20 years ..


this is the existing code not the new proposal.. but it gives me reason to oppose on its face anything they do, face.

HB 286 opposed

This has the look of the kind of bill I would love to support, bit I can't. And not just because I think its election year grandstanding. Frankly, I expect such grandstanding and if a bill will do any good at all I am prepared to take what I can get anyway I can get it.

The law to which this bill applies states that :


“Firearm” includes an antique firearm, handgun, rifle, shotgun,
2 short–barreled rifle, short–barreled shotgun, starter gun, or any other firearm,
3 whether loaded or unloaded.


What his means is that criminals are more like to use actually functional firearms since the added penalty applies to anything that even looks scary -- it will have the opposite of its intent -- moreover given the two bad scenarios of being the victim of an armed robbery in which I do not get shot, or a mugging from behind with a lead pipe over the head in which I am rendered into a persistent vegetative state, I prefer an armed robbery. I therefore think it unwise to encourage the latter by penalizing the former .

Perhaps if some real thought were given to this matter we could push the actual crime -- causing injury--- and not the means. I urge an unfavorable report and recommend that you craft laws to enhance the penalty for causing injury. That one I would support -- if it were well crafted.

Thank you