" Foster a Bill" Drive

Links are current.

Thanks Brooklyn.

I got on CrazySanMan so it looks like we'll have 2 for 717. The more the merrier...

Still need some input on 718.

ShallNotInfringe said:

Links are current.

Thanks Brooklyn.

I got on CrazySanMan so it looks like we'll have 2 for 717. The more the merrier...

Still need some input on 718.

Click to expand...

I don't see a 718. ?

717 and 719 are up next for me

TopShelf said:

I don't see a 718. ?

717 and 719 are up next for me

Click to expand...

Correction. 719. Thanks! Give me something good to steal on that one

I got a response for 719 over here.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=146995

HB719 Supporting

I support HB719. The crusade against guns appears to have morphed into a crusade against due process. I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that, to the extent that PBJ is the result to a plea agreement that agreement is in my opinion unlikely to be the result of a knowing waiver of the right to trial. Assuming a failure to expunge I would expect litigation on this point.

If you really are concerned that PBJ is used to all dangerous persons to have guns, perhaps you can think about why it's ok for such dangerous people to be on the street. I take it you have little confidence that the courts are using PBJ with discretion , and thus only when the court finds that they are in a fact not dangerous, or where perhaps overcharged and coped a plea instead of getting off scott free. Well here is some good news-- you can create laws that establish clear criteria for when PBJ can given. What you can't do -- consistent with due process is reach back and get do over.


I urge a favorable report -- before this gets litigated.

Thank you.

Brooklyn said:

I support HB719. The crusade against guns appears to have morphed into a crusade against due process. I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that, to the extent that PBJ is the result to a plea agreement that agreement is in my opinion unlikely to be the result of a knowing waiver of the right to trial. Assuming a failure to expunge I would expect litigation on this point.

If you really are concerned that PBJ is used to all dangerous persons to have guns, perhaps you can think about why it's ok for such dangerous people to be on the street. I take it you have little confidence that the courts are using PBJ with discretion , and thus only when the court finds that they are in a fact not dangerous, or where perhaps overcharged and coped a plea instead of getting off scott free. Well here is some good news-- you can create laws that establish clear criteria for when PBJ can given. What you can't do -- consistent with due process is reach back and get do over.

I urge a favorable report -- before this gets litigated.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Lol. Good points.

My sample for HB36:

Testimony for HB 36

In Support

Dear Delegates,

I firmly believe in the right of a people to have an opportunity to protect themselves from danger. As anyone watching the news knows the murder rate in Maryland has been rising recently. I am very concerned for mine and my families safety outside of our home. I am outraged that the legislature and governor of Maryland have not fully addressed my concerns and if they are not addressed I intend to spread the word and work to replace the current politicians with ones that consider my family as an important asset to this state.

I was very moved by the testimony that I heard recently in the Maryland Senate Judicial Committee proceedings regarding a very similar bill, SB729, that would strike the requirement for "good and substantial reason" to be able to defend oneself and their family outside of the home. Several persons testifying relayed that they in fact had CCW privileges but only during the course of carrying money or equipment for their businesses. They were disturbed that they were seen fit to protect money but not their families. I adamantly agree that there is something wrong in a state where money is more important that the lives of the citizens. I also heard very emotional testimony from a gentleman who's wife was assaulted on her way home a mere month after moving to this state. The lady was not able to provide for her own protection because of Maryland's "good and substantial" requirement. At trial her attacker was sentenced to PBJ and anger management courses. According to testimony after sentencing the judge determined that this perpetrator had done the same exact thing before and also been sentenced to PBJ and anger management courses. Please allow our fine citizens and our families to protect themselves.

Perhaps you have your CCW. As politicians you qualify and that is your "good and substantial" reason. Why should only certain classes of people be able to defend themselves from crime. What about your wives, husbands, sons, daughters, etc. Should they not also be afforded the same protection. The law abiding citizens of Maryland deserve better. We deserve an equal playing field. I want to know that my wife and family are safe. Right now I have no way to ensure that they can protect themselves or that I can provide protection for them outside of the home.

HB36 would allow an individual that has had all of the currently required checks and training the opportunity to keep themselves, their families, and possibly others safer. I cannot imagine trying to explain to my constituents why I would not support their right to defend themselves from crime. Ultimately law abiding citizens of Maryland vote. I will work to spread the word as to whom supports Marylanders rights to protect themselves and who does not. Again, I cannot imagine having to explain why anyone should not be able to protect their family. I look forward to following the rest of this session and hopefully seeing honest progress on making Marylanders safer. Thank you for your consideration of my testimony.

I respectfully request that you give this bill a favorable report.

PS: What I don't want to see is us treated like common criminals and charged with felony counts for accidently taking a loaded handgun to or from a range.

The problem is how do the Police/State make that call.

I think this is what should concern all of us.

Again, just my .025

Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee
In Favor of House Bill 715

March 4, 2014

Members of the committee,
I am requesting your support for HB 715 (SB 584) Public Safety - Handgun Identification Requirements. The bill would repeal the current requirement that a fired shell casing be submitted with each new handgun a MD resident purchases.

The requirement was intended to help law enforcement officers identify criminals based on spent shell casings left behind at crime scenes. Although thousands of casings have been filed by Maryland State Police (MSP), none has been used to track down a criminal. MSP has not requested funds to continue the database, as they realize it is ineffective and places additional burden on law enforcement.

The requirement also places undue burden on MD gun buyers. Currently the requirement costs gun purchasers an additional $30 or more over the cost of the gun purchased. Additionally, only certain FFL holders have the ability to provide MSP with the casings, so buyers must shop around or have their new guns transferred to specific dealers to meet he casing requirement. The added hassle, as well as the extra cost, has caused me to purchase a used gun instead of a new one.

I ask that you vote in favor of HB 715 (SB 584) Public Safety - Handgun Identification Requirements to repeal the spent casing requirement. It has not worked and merely makes it more difficult for MD residents to purchase new handguns.

Sincerely,

BDWMS
Columbia MD
District 13

iH8DemLibz said:

PS: What I don't want to see is us treated like common criminals and charged with felony counts for accidently taking a loaded handgun to or from a range.

The problem is how do the Police/State make that call.

I think this is what should concern all of us.

Again, just my .025

Click to expand...

That came outta nowhere....

How exactly does having a gun make a person a criminal???

HB 719 - opposed

Support - not Oppose! Disregard post title, which it wont let me change

Thanks to mopar92 and Brooklyn for ideas!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I do not feel that someone who receives a Probation Before Judgment (PBJ) should be precluded from purchasing/owning ”regulated” firearms. Based on my understanding of the role a PBJ plays in the legal/judicial system, they would typically come into play when:

• There is a questionable amount of evidence to prove a crime was committed
OR
• It is questionable as to whether or not the defendant actually committed a crime at all

As I understand them, PBJ’s are not considered a conviction. I do not feel someone should be punished at some TBD future time (in this case when they want to purchase a firearm) for a crime for which they were not convicted. A PBJ comes with some punitive action already, I believe the terms of which are determined by the Judge hearing the case. I think we should let the Judge be the Judge of the action the defendant should take, and not try to tack on more punishments for a non-conviction (the PBJ) at a later time.

Also, is this type of punishment something that the 5th amendment forbids? Is this bill looking to add a 2nd penalty to already finalized PBJ’s, or just those that happen after the bill is enacted?

The inclusion of PBJs as excludable events in the original bill makes me wonder if those who originally wrote this bill have lost faith in the overall use of PBJs throughout the judicial and legal systems. If that is the case, please address those issues in a more appropriate manner.

I respectfully request that you give this bill a favorable report.

ShallNotInfringe said:

Correction. 719. Thanks! Give me something good to steal on that one

Click to expand...

Pilfer away - http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3062147&postcount=311 Been a long day for me...I need to clean up the English in mine after I get some sleep.

I think mopar92 and Brooklyn did great jobs, and I borrowed some ideas/copy from them.

ShallNotInfringe said:

That came outta nowhere....

How exactly does having a gun make a person a criminal???

Click to expand...

The bill makes carrying and the transport of a firearm a felony.
Throw in an overzealous or uneducated LEO and a similar prosecutor and boom. Mandatory sentence and a felony charge and incarceration.

How many testimonies will we have for each bill (if SNI or someone else is keeping a tally)? Any indication on bills that need a few more letters? Otherwise I'll just pick more at random.

This is a really great idea! Thanks for those that are really taking the lead with this sort of thing and representing us all in Annapolis. Written testimony and emails are nice, but your presence REALLY helps.

TopShelf said:

Thanks to mopar92 and Brooklyn for ideas!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I do not feel that someone who receives a Probation Before Judgment (PBJ) should be precluded from purchasing/owning ”regulated” firearms. Based on my understanding of the role a PBJ plays in the legal/judicial system, they would typically come into play when:

• There is a questionable amount of evidence to prove a crime was committed
OR
• It is questionable as to whether or not the defendant actually committed a crime at all

As I understand them, PBJ’s are not considered a conviction. I do not feel someone should be punished at some TBD future time (in this case when they want to purchase a firearm) for a crime for which they were not convicted. A PBJ comes with some punitive action already, I believe the terms of which are determined by the Judge hearing the case. I think we should let the Judge be the Judge of the action the defendant should take, and not try to tack on more punishments for a non-conviction (the PBJ) at a later time.

The inclusion of PBJs as excludable events in the original bill makes me wonder if those who originally wrote this bill have lost faith in the overall use of PBJs throughout the legal system. If that is the case, please address those issues in a more appropriate manner.

I respectfully request that you give this bill an unfavorable report.

Click to expand...

another thought i have on this..... what about raising the idea that people have no way to go back and resolve their case in a different way to avoid this result now.

mopar92 said:

The bill makes carrying and the transport of a firearm a felony.
.

Click to expand...

no fooling. i hadn't read any of these, i'm just the admin

oh and the cookie lady...

back to the conversation with iH8DemLibz...

that's like saying just because a man has a penis he is going to rape someone.

maybe i'll use that line.

ShallNotInfringe said:

another thought i have on this..... what about raising the idea that people have no way to go back and resolve their case in a different way to avoid this result now.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. I had that in mind as well. There is something about adding penalties later that is not sitting right with me. The time/penalty was served/paid already, and now one wants to add more to the sentence....un no, I think not I need to research that more. I believe there is some legal precedent around this subject, but dont know enough about it...

ShallNotInfringe said:

no fooling. i hadn't read any of these, i'm just the admin

oh and the cookie lady...

back to the conversation with iH8DemLibz...

that's like saying just because a man has a penis he is going to rape someone.

maybe i'll use that line.

Click to expand...

I think the conversation is a follow on to 1199 discussions. Penalties for carry / concealed carry / loaded carry, etc.. They want to up/adjust some of the penalties to a felony, 18 month min, no PBJ. The bill, and its adjustments, are a bit complicated...

TopShelf said:

Excellent point. I had that in mind as well. There is something about adding penalties later that is not sitting right with me. The time/penalty was served/paid already, and now one wants to add more to the sentence....un no, I think not I need to research that more. I believe there is some legal precedent around this subject, but dont know enough about it...

Click to expand...

They had no idea they were bargaining away their 2nd amendment right.... And it's too late.

Can a person appeal a PBJ?

iH8DemLibz said:

PS: What I don't want to see is us treated like common criminals and charged with felony counts for accidently taking a loaded handgun to or from a range.

The problem is how do the Police/State make that call.

I think this is what should concern all of us.

Again, just my .025

Click to expand...

which bill? I just finished 800 and a working on them all.