The Maryland Gun Center

teratos · Oct 18, 2014

Lou45 said:
I've been in Annapolis during senate and house gun bill hearings many times and many different years in the past when our 2A rights were on the line in this state, notably the session of 2004 when Leah Barrett, or whatever her real name is, was leading the charge to get Maryland GA to pass a state version of the Clitton (misspell on purpose) federal 10 year ban on the misleading nomenclature of the so-called "ass-halt rifle ban". Back then, when a person approached the podium to make their testimony, a question was asked by the panel of every person to the liking of, "Who are you representing and are you being paid or compensated in any way to be here and testify today?". The anti-gun crowd was somewhere in the 80% to 90% range of those being $$$ (financially) compensated in one means or another. On the other side of the spectrum (our side), those that were receiving some sort of $$$ compensation was drastically less than 10%, my realistic estimation would be in the 1%, perhaps as high, but unlikely so, a maximum of 2%. G, I don't know how long you've been around the 2A community in Maryland and also an active proponent fighting for our rights, but believe me, your statement regarding those being $$$ compensated versing those not being compensated (on their own dime) with regard to pro and anti 2A is nothing new. If you've been around this 2A freedom patriot type for many years, you know what I mean and this is not directed at you but to those that may be fairly new to the political and 2A world as we know it here in Maryland.

I'm fairly new. 2013 is when I really got involved. I have tried to learn the history of the issues in MD, and John Josselyn has been a good mentor for me in that regard. I think the paid shills are important to point out. In fact, in retrospect, we should have had someone from "our side" asking each member of the "expert panels" if they were being compensated. I don't recall if we actually did. I believe the only person on our side who would have said they were paid was Shannon. Of course, that was no secret.

dogbone · Oct 18, 2014

teratos said:
I'm fairly new. 2013 is when I really got involved. I have tried to learn the history of the issues in MD, and John Josselyn has been a good mentor for me in that regard. I think the paid shills are important to point out. In fact, in retrospect, we should have had someone from "our side" asking each member of the "expert panels" if they were being compensated. I don't recall if we actually did. I believe the only person on our side who would have said they were paid was Shannon. Of course, that was no secret.

Enough time before the next "Gun Bill Day" to plan a standard opening statement we can all use to get the point across. Since common courtesy and decorum of the proceedings already promote starting your testimony with an introduction, adding a few words about "here on my own dime" shouldn't use up more than a few seconds of our limited testifying time.

teratos · Oct 18, 2014

dogbone said:
Enough time before the next "Gun Bill Day" to plan a standard opening statement we can all use to get the point across. Since common courtesy and decorum of the proceedings already promote starting your testimony with an introduction, adding a few words about "here on my own dime" shouldn't use up more than a few seconds of our limited testifying time.

Yep. I don't hear about any billionaires having to back pro-gun grass roots organization.

The caliber (excuse the pun) of folks I have gotten to rub shoulders with since getting involved with MSI is astounding. There isn't a better bunch of people anywhere, IMO. You can't buy the kind of commitment I have seen.

GBMaryland · Oct 18, 2014

Brooklyn said:
Jack.. nothing would have changed in 2013. Nothing.

But now you can speak and that has already made a difference.

Welcome to the fight to save Maryland...well the public part of that fight,anyway.

Yeah, we pretty much all know the the far left blackmailed the remaining Democrats by threatening to support whoever ran against anyone that failed to vote for the FSA2013...

Rigged from the beginning...

Lou45 · Oct 18, 2014

teratos said:
I'm fairly new. 2013 is when I really got involved. I have tried to learn the history of the issues in MD, and John Josselyn has been a good mentor for me in that regard. I think the paid shills are important to point out. In fact, in retrospect, we should have had someone from "our side" asking each member of the "expert panels" if they were being compensated. I don't recall if we actually did. I believe the only person on our side who would have said they were paid was Shannon. Of course, that was no secret.

So you're fairly new to this, battling the libtards in their cesspool. You catch on quick. :thumbsup:

dogbone said:
Enough time before the next "Gun Bill Day" to plan a standard opening statement we can all use to get the point across. Since common courtesy and decorum of the proceedings already promote starting your testimony with an introduction, adding a few words about "here on my own dime" shouldn't use up more than a few seconds of our limited testifying time.

Good idea with possible addition/revision; "Here on my dime and my time, unlike most of those that support this anti-gun bill".

Mr Bear · Oct 19, 2014

Lou45 said:
So you're fairly new to this, battling the libtards in their cesspool. You catch on quick.

Good idea with possible addition/revision; "Here on my dime and my time, unlike most of those that support this anti-gun bill".

I like this approach. Will remember this the next time we're in Annapolis to testify.

zich6 · Oct 19, 2014

A belated welcome Jack. It's nice to be able to call you "Jack," instead of Captain.

Like me, I wondered how you could survive in the organization you came from. Now I know and for what it's worth, I'm proud of you.

You're a huge resource here. Thanks so much for your contributions.

Tim

ngman · Oct 19, 2014

Welcome aboard, your insight and knowledge is very welcomed.

Jim12 · Oct 19, 2014

Lou45 said:
So you're fairly new to this, battling the libtards in their cesspool. You catch on quick.

Good idea with possible addition/revision; "Here on my dime and my time, unlike most of those that support this anti-gun bill".

Pols have more respect for hired lobbyists than citizen testifiers. For many reasons. Just like judges render judgments in favor of litigants with lawyers more than those who come to court without one -- even though they're supposed to bend over backwards for pro se litigants.

Lou45 · Oct 19, 2014

Jim12 said:
Pols have more respect for hired lobbyists than citizen testifiers. For many reasons.

I'll have to check this ^^^ out; as a matter of fact, I'll be meeting up with my attorney later this afternoon.

Hhhhmmmmm ....... so the politicians don't wanna', or like to have any verbal correspondence whether in person or not, with any of it's citizenship that the politician represents, but prefers to be approached and spoketh to/with by a lobbyist and NOT it's citizenry that voted that politician into office. Well then why doesn't that politician go to the lobbyists to get those lobbyists to vote for that politician??? If that happens, I'm unaware of it. What the politicians ACTUALLY DO is reach out to the citizenship that he/she does, or will represent to hopefully raise enough support and acquire enough of the CITIZEN'S VOTES to secure his or her seat in office. Now once secure in office, the politician wants to NOT hear, talk, or otherwise correspond with the citizenry that he/she represents and that also supported/voted that politician in office. There seems to be somewhat of a major disconnect here once a politician is voted into office by it's citizenry; a potential deliberate disconnect between the politician and the citizenry responsible for that politician winning the office. Maybe we need another approach..........

hodgepodge · Oct 19, 2014

teratos said:
Many of the proponents of the Firearm Suppression Act of 2013 were paid to be there, too.

It's funny, if you look at editorials on this topic, the people that write in favor of gun control are people like Vinnie Demarco (paid). The people that show up to protest "gun violence" are folks like Moms Demand Action (funded by Bloomberg). They can't get anyone out without some money being spent somewhere.

The people who write editorials against more gun control are people like Captain McCauley. He does it on his own time and his own dime. The folks who protest gun control are people like you and me. Again, our own time and our own dime. In fact. It costs most of us money to go to Annapolis, since we have to take time off work, drive, park, eat etc. I think it is very telling.

We (the 2A community) should own the gun violence and gun safety arguments. We should own the term "common sense gun laws", because if any of the gun laws in Maryland had a shred of common sense injected into them, the landscape would be a dramatically different one. I would like to see us own those arguments. It would inject confusion into the other side and likely get the attention of people on the fence.

I think the doctor may be on to something. While I cringe when I hear many politicians push for "common sense gun laws", we do need to also push for truecommon sense laws.

Why ban rifles that are not used by criminals? There's no common sense in banning "scary things".

Why make me wait 7 days to bring home a gun? I own several so it's not a cooling off issue. Online checks can, and should be, be done instantly. Other states do. It's common sense.

Until we actively prosecute straw purchasers, there's no common sense in requiring me to submit fingerprints.

There's no common sense in requiring a background check if I want to transfer a shotgun to my son.

There's no sense in Maryland having stricter gun laws than other states. OK, there's Baltimore. But common sense means going after criminal usage, not my target pistols.

I truly am opposed to "gun violence". But that means going after those who commit violence with a gun. (And violence with a gun is no different than violence with a knife or a rock.) Stopping gun violence does not mean restricting my ability to purchase another Single Action Army revolver.

teratos · Oct 19, 2014

hodgepodge said:
I think the doctor may be on to something. While I cringe when I hear many politicians push for "common sense gun laws", we do need to also push for truecommon sense laws.

Why ban rifles that are not used by criminals? There's no common sense in banning "scary things".

Why make me wait 7 days to bring home a gun? I own several so it's not a cooling off issue. Online checks can, and should be, be done instantly. Other states do. It's common sense.

Until we actively prosecute straw purchasers, there's no common sense in requiring me to submit fingerprints.

There's no common sense in requiring a background check if I want to transfer a shotgun to my son.

There's no sense in Maryland having stricter gun laws than other states. OK, there's Baltimore. But common sense means going after criminal usage, not my target pistols.

I truly am opposed to "gun violence". But that means going after those who commit violence with a gun. (And violence with a gun is no different than violence with a knife or a rock.) Stopping gun violence does not mean restricting my ability to purchase another Single Action Army revolver.

Right. We are all opposed to violence of any kind (I hope). Letting the other side continue to use the idea that they are against violence (particularly gun violence) unopposed make us subconsciously seem that we are somehow OK with it. We aren't. The same goes for "common sense gun laws". We are somehow against common-sense gun laws? If we are all using the same terms, suddenly people may find themselves having to go a little deeper than just the buzzwords.

Dogabutila · Oct 20, 2014

fabsroman said:
I completely understand what you are saying and understand that there is probably a new SB281 introduced in the General Assembly every year. Thing is, I think everybody here knows what SB281 refers to when somebody uses it, unless there is some other horrendous gun bill in the future also titled SB281.

Perhaps as compromise 2013SB281? Or '13SB281?

fabsroman · Oct 20, 2014

Dogabutila said:
Perhaps as compromise 2013SB281? Or '13SB281?

Yeah, I can go with SB281 of 2013. It just makes me want to puke when I have to say or write "Firearms Safety Act of 2013" because it seems like it is the "2nd Amendment Infringement Act of 2013" and there is hardly any safety involved with it whatsoever.

Doctor_M · Oct 20, 2014

ShafTed said:
How about a little truth in advertising?

FSA2013 = Firearm Suppression Act of 2013

I used that line a couple of times in committee testimony this year.

If that means that every firearm sold since October comes with a suppressor, that would be a good thing.... sorry, my delusions got away from me.

Applehd · Oct 20, 2014

Website still out of commission... sorry if I missed something in a previous post.

Straightshooter · Oct 20, 2014

The site is likely down in order to figure out where to insert their next piece of bad information after they were made to correct their version of the time frame in which CCW Safety courses needed to be taken. They said 1 year, COMAR says 2 years. Now someone is not meeting their quota of fabricated confusion.

Jack McCauley · Oct 20, 2014

The Maryland Gun Center and The Licensing Division are separate entities.

OrbitalEllipses · Oct 20, 2014

teratos said:
Right. We are all opposed to violence of any kind (I hope). Letting the other side continue to use the idea that they are against violence (particularly gun violence) unopposed make us subconsciously seem that we are somehow OK with it. We aren't. The same goes for "common sense gun laws". We are somehow against common-sense gun laws? If we are all using the same terms, suddenly people may find themselves having to go a little deeper than just the buzzwords.

We don't need common sense gun laws, we need common sense gun prosecution for the laws already on the books that aren't being prosecuted. e.g. all of them

Jack McCauley · Oct 21, 2014

rwbow1969 said:
Welcome aboard Jack.

Question: Are the applications for hunting licenses through the DNR being used by MSP to find disqualified firearms owners, since the DNR now requires a SSN# for the hunting licenses?

I hope I worded that right....

Rob

They ( he MD State Police) has used the DNR database before. It's not something that I ever approved or allowed under my watch. It's a very poor tactic that erodes the public's trust all for the sake of number production. It does nothing to target gun violence. In fact, it takes time and resources away from targeting violent crime. State Stat reporting drives this type of poor time management and enforcement methods. It is a question you could easily ask of the MSP through a Public Information Act request though. The SS# has no added benefit of this search. It can be done with or without the #. Though I suppose it would be easier to match up identities to a criminal database quicker. Does that address the question sufficiently?

The Maryland Gun Center

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Active Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Member

Active Member

Let Freedom Ring

R.I.P.

Senior Member (Gold)

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Throbbing Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics