2013 HB 131 - CRIMINAL LAW – ACCESS TO FIREARMS – PENALTIES

[TheTruth]

The hits keep on coming folks. Please reserve judgement until the text of the bill is posted. However, I feel that this is another anti 2A bill being introduced into the house. Another reactionary bill against our rights. This is important if you have children.

HB 131

Delegate Lafferty

CRIMINAL LAW – ACCESS TO FIREARMS – PENALTIES

Prohibiting a person from storing or leaving a loaded or unloaded firearm in a location where specified individuals could gain access to the firearm; and altering the penalty for a violation of the Act.
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2013
CR, § 4-104 - amended
Assigned to: Judiciary

Source link : http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/hb/hb0131f.pdf

This bill adds making it a crime to knowingly make accessible an unloaded or loaded firearm to someone who is not legally allowed to possess a firearm and calls for seizure of the gun in question. I don't like this bill. It is too nebulous.

 

[MDFF2008]

This seems to be a response to he who shall not be named's mother not securing her firearm.

I'll reserve judgement. I think your a ****ing moron if you know your kid is bat shit crazy and you leave a gun out.

 

[erwos]

This seems to be a response to he who shall not be named's mother not securing her firearm.

I'll reserve judgement. I think your a ****ing moron if you know your kid is bat shit crazy and you leave a gun out.

I'm with you.

 

[Mr H]

On the surface, it sounds like an enhancement to existing law.

Mighe not be a bad thing, but I guess we'll know soon enough.

 

[TheTruth]

This seems to be a response to he who shall not be named's mother not securing her firearm.

I'll reserve judgement. I think your a ****ing moron if you know your kid is bat shit crazy and you leave a gun out.

Absolutely - this is exactly what I think it is. Looks like they are using the House to introduce this garbage. I DONT like the unloaded part of the synopsis.

 

[Boom Boom]

Use of the word "specified" is odd. It seems to eliminate every human being except for a person or persons "specified" beforehand.

 

[erwos]

If I were to guess, this might be an expansion of the existing safe storage law to encompass all firearms.

 

[Boom Boom]

This seems to be a response to he who shall not be named's mother not securing her firearm.

I'll reserve judgement. I think your a ****ing moron if you know your kid is bat shit crazy and you leave a gun out.

Is there any proof she left a gun out? How do we know he didn't find a safe combination or torture it out of her? I haven't heard or read details that prove anything one way or another. If somebody knows otherwise, please provide a link.

 

[ColonelHurtz]

Don't put too fine a point on it, boys.

More odious law and more tyranny from the gun banners.

 

[Mr H]

Is there any proof she left a gun out? How do we know he didn't find a safe combination or torture it out of her? I haven't heard or read details that prove anything one way or another. If somebody knows otherwise, please provide a link.

We don't know squat for sure...

But there are plenty of discussions on that.

 

[rambling_one]

The press excoriated the mother without providing evidence as to the claim.

 

[TheTruth]

Original post updated. Links crazy people with children and calls for mandatory seizure of the gun. I don't like how this is written and would probably be very hard to prove unless you admitted it.

 

[2AHokie]

On first read, it sounds bad. I tend to skip straight to the bold text.

Then I read the definitions at the top because I was looking to see what counted as a child (under 16). I found that the entire section does not apply, among other reasons, if the child has "a certificate of firearm and hunter safety issued under § 10–301.1 of the Natural Resources Article."

I do not know how difficult or expensive this is to obtain, but it seems reasonable that if your child has been trained then the penalties no longer need to apply and the state is deferring to parents to decide what is right (as it should). I did read that section of the Natural Resources Article, but it's very unclear to me. Perhaps someone else can educate me on what counts. Is an NRA-based course enough? If it is (or if it's similarly easy to obtain), I'm in the neutral camp. It won't help, but it won't hurt. If you're concerned and want to CYA, you can make your kid take the course if you haven't already.

 

[Threeband]

It doesn't say "children" or even "felons". It says "someone who is not legally allowed to possess a firearm".

That could apply to any "prohibited person", or to anyone who might come back "disapproved" by the MSP, or even someone who is delayed on a NICS check. It is too vague. It could even apply to a person who has gotten a couple of DWIs in the past few years.

 

[bobnieder]

I'm not firing up the email machine until more details are forthcoming -- but, I agree, it doesn't sound like it's headed into good places.

 

[2AHokie]

It doesn't say "children" or even "felons". It says "someone who is not legally allowed to possess a firearm".

It definitely says child (line 13) OR prohibited person. I agree that it might need clarification on the definition of prohibited person.

12 (c) A person may not store or leave a loaded OR UNLOADED firearm in a
13 location where the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised child
14 [would] OR A PERSON WHO IS PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM PURCHASING OR
15 POSSESSING A FIREARM COULD gain access to the firearm.

 

[greghall]

Is there any proof she left a gun out? How do we know he didn't find a safe combination or torture it out of her? I haven't heard or read details that prove anything one way or another. If somebody knows otherwise, please provide a link.

Is there any proof of anything havent heard anything on the investigation at all???

 

[TheTruth]

On first read, it sounds bad. I tend to skip straight to the bold text.

Then I read the definitions at the top because I was looking to see what counted as a child (under 16). I found that the entire section does not apply, among other reasons, if the child has "a certificate of firearm and hunter safety issued under § 10–301.1 of the Natural Resources Article."

I do not know how difficult or expensive this is to obtain, but it seems reasonable that if your child has been trained then the penalties no longer need to apply and the state is deferring to parents to decide what is right (as it should). I did read that section of the Natural Resources Article, but it's very unclear to me. Perhaps someone else can educate me on what counts. Is an NRA-based course enough? If it is (or if it's similarly easy to obtain), I'm in the neutral camp. It won't help, but it won't hurt. If you're concerned and want to CYA, you can make your kid take the course if you haven't already.

Disagree. What is in the PDF which is not in bold is already the law, which you are citing. The changes are in bold. The wording is nebulous and I don't accept legally mandated gun seizures.

Really - what part of "COULD ACCESS" doesn't scare you? So, if someone in your house is feeling suicidal or has other personal issues, where is the line drawn?

Not good and a poorly written bill.

 

[Jaybeez]

I read a story yesterday that the mother took a two day spa trip and came home the night before the killings, and that she did have her weapons in a locker or safe. the killer had two days alone to break into it.

 

[psucobra96]

too vague, therefore unenforceable but it would have to be challenged first. Poorly written.