MDGA Gun Bill Tracking

[ShallNotInfringe]

I'd have to check if SB248 and HB286 are offucually Companion Bills , but they are at least fundimentally similar. As ammended , our objections had been adressed , and passage was expected..

Tommorow (Monday) will be an Interesting Day in the Committees.

They were not officially filed as cross filed bills, but started as identical and ended as identical.... Left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

Looks to me like both chambers passed the same bill with identical language by amendment to both bills. Not sure why they need a further hearing on it. Maybe they haven't figured that out yet, but IMHO they are done with it. It's passed.

HB 286:

5–106.
(a) Except as provided by this section and § 1–303 of the Environment

Article, a prosecution for a misdemeanor shall be instituted within 1 year after the
offense was committed.
(DD) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF AN

OFFENSE UNDER § 4–204 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE RELATING TO THE
USE OF A FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR FELONY IS
THE SAME AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE UNDERLYING CRIME.
...

SB 248:

5–106.
(a) Except as provided by this section and § 1–303 of the Environment

Article, a prosecution for a misdemeanor shall be instituted within 1 year after the
offense was committed.
(DD) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF AN

OFFENSE UNDER § 4–204 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE RELATING TO THE
USE OF A FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR FELONY IS
THE SAME AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE UNDERLYING CRIME.
...

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Maybe Mike could argue that they can use that time allocated to hearing the same bill (HB286 and SB248 ) to vote the other gun bills.

Like the wasted time and effort to hear two versions of the same bill (HB 214 and 1185), rather than voting on the other 28 gun bills in the hopper, that ended with the same result - UNF.

 

[TopShelf]

Trouble is, these days there are no committees pro-gun bills would not be desk drawered or voted down.

Thats a bummer! Hopefully things will change with the next round of elections, which I hope to include some ejections

 

[Biggfoot44]

The House Judicary IS our strongest Committee.

Meanwhile the more time spend debating identical bills , runs down the clock to not discuss other Bills. Just like last year on House Floor , pro 2A Delegates would have been glad to discuss the PG School Board power grab for days and days.

 

[Mr H]

They were not officially filed as cross filed bills, but started as identical and ended as identical.... Left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

Looks to me like both chambers passed the same bill with identical language by amendment to both bills. Not sure why they need a further hearing on it. Maybe they haven't figured that out yet, but IMHO they are done with it. It's passed.

HB 286:

5–106.
(a) Except as provided by this section and § 1–303 of the Environment

Article, a prosecution for a misdemeanor shall be instituted within 1 year after the
offense was committed.
(DD) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF AN

OFFENSE UNDER § 4–204 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE RELATING TO THE
USE OF A FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR FELONY IS
THE SAME AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE UNDERLYING CRIME.
...

SB 248:

5–106.
(a) Except as provided by this section and § 1–303 of the Environment

Article, a prosecution for a misdemeanor shall be instituted within 1 year after the
offense was committed.
(DD) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF AN

OFFENSE UNDER § 4–204 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE RELATING TO THE
USE OF A FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR FELONY IS
THE SAME AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE UNDERLYING CRIME.
...

Same exact path in both houses???

OK, now I wonder why they want so badly for this to pass, even as-amended

 

[TopShelf]

Unlimited statute of limitations. So they can prosecute and levy the firearm penalty, which might mave otherwise not been possible because too much time has elapsed. Not sure where this would make a difference...

 

[Mr H]

Unlimited statute of limitations. So they can prosecute and levy the firearm penalty, which might mave otherwise not been possible because too much time has elapsed. Not sure where this would make a difference...

That was the original plan... now, via amendment, SoL is limitied to the referenced offense... which, while not great, is better.

My gut tells me there may be something else we're not seeing.

 

[TopShelf]

Hmmm, not familiar with precedents on statute of limitations. I have a feeling they found some bs charge they can prosecute, but it is nearly pointless without the firearm penalty.
Maybe without the original offense they can't charge the firearm aspect of it. Why have unlimited SoL on the firearm charge alone? There must be some case pecedent to force their limiting SoL

 

[Clovis]

Even though they seem the exact same, they may feel the necessity to call for a conference committee to "make them the same", add admendments, have a revote and then on to MOM. Mischief may be afoot. We have enough lawyers on our side, some of them are delegates and senators perhaps they should be consulted.

 

[kennyd]

Subscribed, thanks SNI!

 

[Brooklyn]

That was the original plan... now, via amendment, SoL is limitied to the referenced offense... which, while not great, is better.

My gut tells me there may be something else we're not seeing.

the 2014 two step.. misdirect from the gun control debacle .. even liberals get a clue eventually but it has to be on their terms.. doing it last year would have been a win for us. now its a win for them.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Even though they seem the exact same, they may feel the necessity to call for a conference committee to "make them the same", add admendments, have a revote and then on to MOM. Mischief may be afoot. We have enough lawyers on our side, some of them are delegates and senators perhaps they should be consulted.

Here's both SB248 and HB286 third readers (as passed in their respective chambers):

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/sb/sb0248t.pdf

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hb/hb0286t.pdf

Look identical to me. Can you detect a difference? Sorry if I am missing it.

Something is up or the system/people haven't figured out they have the same bill. It's ready to be called "Enrolled" from what I can see.

 

[Clovis]

AGC lists them as crossfiled...just saying.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

AGC lists them as crossfiled...just saying.

They are not shown as cross filed on the MDGA site (the official site).

Can you detect any differences between the two versions?

 

[Clovis]

They are not shown as cross filed on the MDGA site (the official site).

Can you detect any differences between the two versions?

I can see none, still odd they are not offically cross filed and moving independantly through each house. Do you know if they plan on having a hearing in the opposite house and then be sent to the other floor for a vote?

Two bills exactly the same...twice as good?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I can see none, still odd they are not offically croos filed and moving independantly through each house. Do you know if they plan on having a hearing in the opposite house and then be sent to the other floor for a vote?

Two bills exactly the same...twice as good?

Honestly, I think it's a left hand not coordinating with the right hand. Am thinking of writing off to the two committee chairs to congratulate them on the passage of their bill and inquire why they would hold a hearing on an already enrolled bill (by identical language). . They would probably be glad to have another item off their list at this point in the session.

 

[Clovis]

Honestly, I think it's a left hand not coordinating with the right hand. Am thinking of writing off to the two committee chairs to congratulate them on the passage of their bill and inquire why they would hold a hearing on an already enrolled bill (by identical language). . They would probably be glad to have another item off their list at this point in the session.

Possible you are correct, but I am too much of a cynic to fully believe they are just inept and not up to something. Although inept would be refreshing evidence of how really bad the place can be. Could make interesting commentary for the elections

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Possible you are correct, but I am too much of a cynic to fully believe they are just inept and not up to something. Although inept would be refreshing evidence of how really bad the place can be. Could make interesting commentary for the elections

Maybe they are jockeying for who's bill is better to claim credit

 

[Biggfoot44]

These Bills were heavily pushed for by the various States Atty's . As origionally drafted it would have been a Double Win for them.

It is a lot easier to get a conviction for "Use of a handgun to " than for actual murder , rape , agg assult , etc.

Under the origional wording , let's say in 1947 grandpa saw someone skulking about his barn , livestock , tractor , whatever. So he did a Joe Biden , fired a shot in the air , and yelled for "get outta my farm" . Now that they're 97 in the nursing home Bobby Burglar still holds a grudge. He files charges against Grandpa that that he was frightened by being disuaded from his moisdeeds. Because a firearm was used , 1st Degree Assult aka Crime of violence , and bingo , "use of a firearm in " .

To give the States Atty's a little benefit of the doubt ,they probably will *usually* use it for cold cases where sombody rats them out years later to reduce their own charges. But that brings up the blind "Trust Us" .

So some extention beyond the current 1yr is understandable. 3yrs would have have been good, but matching the underlieing offense is livable. SA's still get a Win

So we just need to be on look out for Reconcilitation tomfoolery.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Updated. Sunday Deer Hunting in Calvert County bill passed in the House today.

No vote sessions planned in HJC today between sessions, which reconvenes at 5. Senate is adjourned until 7, SJPC is not convening prior to the floor session.