SB1040--Terror Watchlist Bill--NRA-ILA

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

NRA-ILA has issued a notice about this bill, and the off-schedule hearing for it (which will be limited)...

On Wednesday, March 16, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Bill 1040, the “Terrorist Watchlist” bill. However, your NRA-ILA has learned the committee has decided to only hear limited testimony on the legislation as indicated by the posted rules. It is imperative that you contact Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Chair, Senator Bobby Zirkin, and strongly urge him to schedule Senate Bill 1040 for a full hearing with no limits on testimony.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2016rs&id=SB1040

Jim12 · Mar 10, 2016

SB 1040

Department of Legislative Services

"Fiscal and Policy Note"

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/fnotes/bil_0000/sb1040.pdf

"...
...
...
Additional Comments: DSP indicates that the department does not currently have authorization to access TSDB."

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

Jim12 said:
SB 1040

Department of Legislative Services

"Fiscal and Policy Note"

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/fnotes/bil_0000/sb1040.pdf

"...
...
...
Additional Comments: DSP indicates that the department does not currently have authorization to access TSDB."

I love it...

State Effect: The change is procedural in nature for the Department of State Police (DSP) and does not directly affect governmental finances. It is assumed that the bill does not materially affect the number of handgun permits issued by DSP.

Well, considering that the number issued is as close to zero as makes no nevermind....

Jim12 · Mar 10, 2016

NRA-ILA link to correspond with relevant legislator(s): https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=100

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

I'll be rewriting my missive from the House side tonight...

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

Made some refinements and added some impact...

Borrow as you see fit.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

SB1040, which would further restrict the Right of Marylanders to effective self-protection through additional limiting of the issuance of Wear and Carry permits, may be well-intended, but is (once again) nothing more than a knee-jerk response to current events (and nothing less than an Unconstitutional infringement).

As with the atrocious--and apocryphally named--Firearms Safety Act of 2013 (which I am proud to have fought and helped limit, motivating many to descend on Annapolis in record numbers), which came into being over one act, SB1040 appears to have been conceived in the back alley of a single act of terrorism. The one thing these progenitors of bad law have in common has nothing to do with this legislation, but rather that application of current law by both individuals and law enforcement would have likely prevented them.

Also, as with 2013, it has become increasingly apparent that the leadership in the General Assembly (both chambers) are bent on defying the will of an increasing number of Marylanders, in an effort to ramrod an anti-Second Amendment agenda through.

But, I digress...

The Terrorism Watch List, as maintained by the FBI, is known to be largely erroneous. It is also widely considered to be a strict violation of not only Due Process, but also of several Constitutionally Enumerated Rights (I count five... and this bill would make six).

To utilize a known flawed standard as the basis for determining the application of an Enumerated Right (regardless of the restrictions already in place) is the hallmark of a desperate attempt at legislative fiat, and should be an embarrassment to a body as historically distinguished as the Maryland General Assembly.

The time-tested saw, "One case makes for bad law" definitely would apply here, and I recommend an Unfavorable vote.

Sincerely,
[me]
Democrat, D32

teratos · Mar 10, 2016

One of the arguments (I believe) Raskin made was that very few people dispute the fact that they are on the list. Of course, unless you fly you won't KNOW you are on the list. :sad20:

mopar92 · Mar 10, 2016

teratos said:
One of the arguments (I believe) Raskin made was that very few people dispute the fact that they are on the list. Of course, unless you fly you won't KNOW you are on the list.

Nor will you be told if you are, in fact, on the list.

I would probably make the no fly list, my passport photo was when I was 14.............no beard and glasses.
Passport is expired but in a pinch could still be used but my appearance has changed drastically

Maybe we could get Bruce Jenner as suprise celebrity testimony?

Jim12 · Mar 10, 2016

There were probably relatively few black voters at first who were required to pay a poll tax who actually tried to vote, too.

And there's a relatively low percentage of women who actually have abortions.

There are very few people among 300,000,000 of us who are arrested and who need to have their rights read to them.

All it takes is one violation.

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

Jim12 said:
There are very few people among 300,000,000 of us who are arrested and who need to have their rights read to them.

But a lot of them are really used to it.

teratos · Mar 10, 2016

Mr H said:
But a lot of them are really used to it.

Stoveman · Mar 10, 2016

Mr H said:
Made some refinements and added some impact...

Borrow as you see fit.

Just sent off an email to Zirkin. I tweaked yours a little but thanks for the template.

Jim12 · Mar 10, 2016

Mr H said:
But a lot of them are really used to it.

Yes, and they're all entitled to have them read each and every time no matter how many times they've been arrested, or their rights have been violated.

But doesn't matter to deprive somebody of 2A rights because they're on a "watch" list.

What's the current status of the Oregon case that the ACLU is involved with?

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

Jim12 said:
Yes, and they're all entitled to have them read each and every time no matter how many times they've been arrested, or their rights have been violated.

But doesn't matter to deprive somebody of 2A rights because they're on a "watch" list.

What's the current status of the Oregon case that the ACLU is involved with?

Try getting them to read it themselves.......

Jim12 · Mar 10, 2016

BTW, some witnesses used info from 2007 and 2009; I think there's much more recent info available.

Here's some -- ACLU of all places: https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/watchlists

EL1227 · Mar 10, 2016

Van Hollen vs Alford - Gun Control via The Terrorist Watch List

Revised version ...

Maryland: Senate Committee Limits Testimony on “Terrorist Watchlist” Legislation

On Wednesday, March 16, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Bill 1040, the “Terrorist Watchlist” bill. However, your NRA-ILA has learned the committee has decided to only hear limited testimony on the legislation as indicated by the posted rules. It is imperative that you contact Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Chair, Senator Bobby Zirkin, and strongly urge him to schedule Senate Bill 1040 for a full hearing with no limits on testimony.

Since they are 'limiting testimony', send this YouTube link to Senator Bobby Zirkin, copy your representative, and ask that it be submitted as expert testimony.

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

Stoveman said:
Just sent off an email to Zirkin. I tweaked yours a little but thanks for the template.

Folks should tweak more than a little!

Similar concepts are great, but I get the feeling too many recognizable notes will look like 'talking points' and start to get ignored.

Jim12 · Mar 10, 2016

ACLU blog update:

Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms
By Hina Shamsi, Director, ACLU National Security Project
December 7, 2015 | 5:30 PM

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-fre...it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

"The No Fly List is in the news this week, just in time for the ACLU’s argument in federal court on Wednesday in its five-year-long challenge to the list’s redress process.

Last night, in response to last week’s tragic attack in San Bernardino, California, President Obama urged Congress to ensure that people on the No Fly List be prohibited from purchasing guns. Last week, Republicans in Congress defeated a proposal that would have done just that. "I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list," House Speaker Paul Ryan said.

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

Over the years since we filed our suit — and in response to it — the government has made some reforms, but they are not enough....

...Unfortunately, the government’s new redress process still falls far short of constitutional requirements. In our case, it refuses to provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. Much as before, our clients are left to guess at the government’s case and can’t clear their names. That’s unconstitutional.

There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do. As we’ve told the court based on evidence from experts, these kinds of predictions guarantee a high risk of error. If the government is going to predict that Americans pose a threat and blacklist them, that’s even more reason for the fundamental safeguards we seek.

We disagree with Speaker Ryan about many things. But he’s right that people in this country have due process rights. We want to see them respected. "

This is the ACLU, folks, the people the Left look to. If MD is out in front of them, MD is in the troposphere. No oxygen and very cold.

AssMan · Mar 10, 2016

I don't think they care, really. Just letting them know that many people are opposed is more important - and even that isn't really meaningful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr H · Mar 10, 2016

While I agree about the article, Jim, this bill specifically references the Terror Watch List.

In some ways, it's the 'same thing only different'... but, with MSP not even having access, this should be the focus.

SB1040--Terror Watchlist Bill--NRA-ILA

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banana'd

Let Freedom Ring

Banana'd

Let Freedom Ring

Banana'd

Banana'd

My hair is amazing

Official MDS Court Jester

Let Freedom Ring

Banana'd

My hair is amazing

TV Personality

Let Freedom Ring

Banana'd

Let Freedom Ring

R.I.P.

Banana'd

Let Freedom Ring

Meh...

Banana'd

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics