Annapolis Watch 3.14.14

[Biggfoot44]

And the testimony ended 4 min later.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Wow. The witnesses waited 3 hrs for a 4 min hearing.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Nothing gun related on schedule for today. Not yet announced if voting session for tommorow.

 

[1ceman]

Thanks for updating us

 

[Biggfoot44]

BF44 will be shutting down and heading home.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Thank you BF44!

 

[drblast33]

Thanks guys for being our eyes and ears!

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

1185 -UNF 3/14.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Come on down , any time . Visit your representive's office. Visit a committee member's office. If the member isn't available ( often not) speak to a staffer. If nothing else leave your name , and the issues you are concerned with. It helps if you can name a specific Bill or two , but if only "2nd Ammendment issues" , they'll get the hint. Sit in on a committee session. Stand in the hallway of the State House a start/ end of a general session.

 

[Biggfoot44]

This was exact same Bill as HB214 , with different sponsers.

Castle Doctrnre , but with fine print issues.

I'd love to someday know the story behind all this.

 

[Clovis]

This was exact same Bill as HB214 , with different sponsers.

Castle Doctrnre , but with fine print issues.

I'd love to someday know the story behind all this.

Yeah, I'd like to see a side by side comparison of which one's voted for or against on 214 and 1185. Think anyone changed their vote?

 

[TopShelf]

HB1185 - Criminal Law - Crimes Against Property - Right to Defend Property

Establishing that an occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against another person when the other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that the other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the unlawful entry or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the unlawful entry; establishing that a person acting in accordance with the Act is immune from specified criminal prosecution.

HB286 - Criminal Law - Use of Handgun in Crime of Violence or Felony

Extending the statute of limitations for a violation of a specified provision of law prohibiting using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence or felony; etc.

 

[MJD438]

Yeah, I'd like to see a side by side comparison of which one's voted for or against on 214 and 1185. Think anyone changed their vote?

Once the vote sheets are up, I will try to get them posted here. Am heading out the door to church, so won't be able to check MGALEG for a few hours.

 

[MJD438]

Once the vote sheets are up, I will try to get them posted here. Am heading out the door to church, so won't be able to check MGALEG for a few hours.

Vote sheet for 1185 has not been posted yet. I will look again this evening.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Vote sheet for 1185 has not been posted yet. I will look again this evening.

I'm on it.

Started a Gun Bill Tracking Thread to post status: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=147937

Since there were so many bills and hearing dates, made sense to munge them together and keep track.

 

[MJD438]

I'm on it.

Started a Gun Bill Tracking Thread to post status: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=147937

Since there were so many bills and hearing dates, made sense to munge them together and keep track.

Saw that - was going to work on a spreadsheet to track that, but didn't want to do that while sitting in Sabbath School...

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Saw that - was going to work on a spreadsheet to track that, but didn't want to do that while sitting in Sabbath School...

Wired up all the bills on the MDGA tracker. There is an option for spreadsheet output, but figured it was easier for folks to just scan a list than open a file.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Yeah, I'd like to see a side by side comparison of which one's voted for or against on 214 and 1185. Think anyone changed their vote?

HB 214 and HB 1185 were identical proposals, one sponsored by a D (Conaway), the other by a R (Parrott).

Here's the Committee votes for HB 214 (note the vote was for "favorable", so a yes was a vote for FAV): http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb0214_jud.pdf

Result 8-11, 2 absent (Rosenberg and Simmons): UNF

Here's the Committee votes for HB 1185 (note the vote was for "unfavorable", so a yes was a vote for UNF):
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb1185_jud.pdf

Result: 12-8; 1 absent (Arora out, Simmons voted this time Yes); UNF

 

[andimorony]

HB 214 and HB 1185 were identical proposals, one sponsored by a D (Conaway), the other by a R (Parrott).

Here's the Committee votes for HB 214 (note the vote was for "favorable", so a yay was a vote for FAV): http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb0214_jud.pdf

Result 8-11, 2 absent (Rosenberg and Simmons): UNF

Here's the Committee votes for HB 1185 (note the vote was for "unfavorable", so a yea was a vote for UNF):
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb1185_jud.pdf

Result: 12-8; 1 absent (Arora out, Simmons voted this time Yay): UNF

SNI....might I make a suggestion? Start using the phrase "the correct vote was___" it clarifies what the vote SHOULD be without confusing new/not-so-newbies ...

So for HB 1185 the correct vote was "nay". When I first started this, that helped me a lot.

But maybe its just me that struggled with it.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Yes'm.

The "correct" vote all depends on how the legislator intended to vote on the motion. If the motion was for an unfavorable report, and the legislator was in favor of the bill - they would be opposed to an unfavorable report and thus vote nay to the motion. If the motion was for a favorable report and the legislator was in favor of the bill, they would vote yea.

Nonetheless, both 214 and 1185 ultimately were reported unfavorable with interesting vote tallies.

Hope that clears things up.