Referendum

[Mooseman]

Do you want to prove to the legislature that Marylanders support gun control? can you imagine what horrific bills we'll see the year after our referendum fails (and it likely will). We need to get this to the courts asap, they are banning the AR-15 by name, America's most popular rifle, we can easily make an argument that its a weapon in common use (and this is just one of many violations we can address), we have grounds to fight, lets start on the fight we can win.

This bill will pass despite overwhelming them with facts and people on our side. Referendum or not they will pass more and worse laws next year.

 

[6-Pack]

Ok, I lied, I'm not done posting.

If we don't referendum: 1) the bill goes into effect this year (if we send to referendum, it will be delayed until after we vote in November 2014), 2) we send a message to Annapolis that we don't have support and they'll try more restrictions, 3) they will impose more restrictions whether or not we go to referendum, 4) we lose a chance of winning without having to go to court.

Ok, let's say we make the argument they banned the most popular rifle by name, the AR-15. That gets thrown out and the rest of the bill stays. That's our "win" in court, which will be many years down the road.

Remember, We out outnumbered antis by 4,000 to 300 (13:1) at rallies in Annapolis.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Ok, I lied, I'm not done posting.

If we don't referendum: 1) the bill goes into effect this year (if we send to referendum, it will be delayed until after we vote in November 2014), 2) we send a message to Annapolis that we don't have support and they'll try more restrictions, 3) they will impose more restrictions whether or not we go to referendum, 4) we lose a chance of winning without having to go to court.

Ok, let's say we make the argument they banned the most popular rifle by name, the AR-15. That gets thrown out and the rest of the bill stays. That's our "win" in court, which will be many years down the road.

Remember, We out outnumbered antis by 4,000 to 300 (13:1) at rallies in Annapolis.

I have said these things over and over again...I have been ignored. Thank you for having a brain and realizing the same thing I have been saying.

 

[bigplayer2382]

so what do we need to do to start up a referendum and where do i sign?

 

[6-Pack]

Please DO NOT do anything until we get some guidance. We have until May 1, 2013, to file our petition format for advance determination of sufficiency.

You can read how to start a referendum here: http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/6-201-3A.pdf

 

[Ranger Tom]

See this thread:

MDPetitions 2013 Survey.

Can it be merged with this thread?

 

[RustinRifle55]

For info contact Del. Neil Parrott of Washiongton Co. He organizes petitions.

 

[fidelity]

Ok, I lied, I'm not done posting.

If we don't referendum: 1) the bill goes into effect this year (if we send to referendum, it will be delayed until after we vote in November 2014), 2) we send a message to Annapolis that we don't have support and they'll try more restrictions, 3) they will impose more restrictions whether or not we go to referendum, 4) we lose a chance of winning without having to go to court.

Ok, let's say we make the argument they banned the most popular rifle by name, the AR-15. That gets thrown out and the rest of the bill stays. That's our "win" in court, which will be many years down the road.

Remember, We out outnumbered antis by 4,000 to 300 (13:1) at rallies in Annapolis.

Perhaps you or someone else can clarify this point that I am unclear on. In order to challenge the presumed new Maryland legislation (the current incarnation of SB281 that the Senate will vote on), doesn't there have to first be injury before we can take it to the courts? That is after October 1, those that have lost rights/property/something tangible can challenge the legality of the new legislation. If this is correct, doesn't a referendum forestall this type of challenge because it delays the implementation of the law?

 

[6-Pack]

Perhaps you or someone else can clarify this point that I am unclear on. In order to challenge the presumed new Maryland legislation (the current incarnation of SB281 that the Senate will vote on), doesn't there have to first be injury before we can take it to the courts? That is after October 1, those that have lost rights/property/something tangible can challenge the legality of the new legislation. If this is correct, doesn't a referendum forestall this type of challenge because it delays the implementation of the law?

Yes.

In order to challenge in court, a case needs to be "ripe," which means the law must be in full force an effect (pass the referendum and go into effect). However, a court can only answer a specific question. For instance:

1) if we challenge the provision banning AR-15s by name and win, the best case scenario is that AR-15s will be allowed and the rest is still there.

2) if we challenge property rights being taken away for those with a prior PBJ, best case scenario is that that provision is stricken.

3) if we challenge the licensing, best case scenario is that handgun qualification licenses are stricken.



To undo this legislation in the courts would take many lawsuits and many, many years. If we go to referendum, we "pause" the law from going into effect until the next general election (November 2014). This means we can stockpile more guns in the meantime. Also, there's a chance we could defeat the whole law in the next election.

However, if we referendum, we delay any lawsuits until the law is voted on and, if passed, when the law goes into effect. Considering how many years of litigation would be involved, pushing the effective date back by 1 1/2 years isn't really that bad. Look at how far we are getting with Woollard and all the time it's taken (I'm not downplaying the case - I'm trying to illustrate that we may not win in court).

 

[HKB]

In order to challenge in court, a case needs to be "ripe," which means the law must be in full force an effect (pass the referendum and go into effect). However, a court can only answer a specific question. For instance:

1) if we challenge the provision banning AR-15s by name and win, the best case scenario is that AR-15s will be allowed and the rest is still there.

2) if we challenge property rights being taken away for those with a prior PBJ, best case scenario is that that provision is stricken.

3) if we challenge the licensing, best case scenario is that handgun qualification licenses are stricken.



To undo this legislation in the courts would take many lawsuits and many, many years. If we go to referendum, we "pause" the law from going into effect until the next general election (November 2014). This means we can stockpile more guns in the meantime. Also, there's a chance we could defeat the whole law in the next election.

However, if we referendum, we delay any lawsuits until the law is voted on and, if passed, when the law goes into effect. Considering how many years of litigation would be involved, pushing the effective date back by 1 1/2 years isn't really that bad. Look at how far we are getting with Woollard and all the time it's taken (I'm not downplaying the case - I'm trying to illustrate that we may not win in court).

Just to add, other cases from other states could be heard before MD to benefit us.

 

[teratos]

Yes.

In order to challenge in court, a case needs to be "ripe," which means the law must be in full force an effect (pass the referendum and go into effect). However, a court can only answer a specific question. For instance:

1) if we challenge the provision banning AR-15s by name and win, the best case scenario is that AR-15s will be allowed and the rest is still there.

2) if we challenge property rights being taken away for those with a prior PBJ, best case scenario is that that provision is stricken.

3) if we challenge the licensing, best case scenario is that handgun qualification licenses are stricken.



To undo this legislation in the courts would take many lawsuits and many, many years. If we go to referendum, we "pause" the law from going into effect until the next general election (November 2014). This means we can stockpile more guns in the meantime. Also, there's a chance we could defeat the whole law in the next election.

However, if we referendum, we delay any lawsuits until the law is voted on and, if passed, when the law goes into effect. Considering how many years of litigation would be involved, pushing the effective date back by 1 1/2 years isn't really that bad. Look at how far we are getting with Woollard and all the time it's taken (I'm not downplaying the case - I'm trying to illustrate that we may not win in court).

This NEEDS to go to court. Even Scalia says the courts need to rule on this. No referendum.

 

[6-Pack]

This NEEDS to go to court. Even Scalia says the courts need to rule on this. No referendum.

Delay provides us an advantage. Other states don't have he same referendum process and they will file suit sooner.

What makes you confident we'll win? How do you know certain provisions won't remain intact (see above)? You don't. Neither do I. A referendum gives us another, one-time-only, shot at defeating this,

 

[teratos]

Delay provides us an advantage. Other states don't have he same referendum process and they will file suit sooner.

We'll still lose. No advantage. Vinnie DeMarco says that Maryland has spoken.

 

[TheRealSundance]

I like the odds better having 2 chances to kill this bill, referendum and court.

 

[fidelity]

Yes.

In order to challenge in court, a case needs to be "ripe," which means the law must be in full force an effect (pass the referendum and go into effect). However, a court can only answer a specific question. For instance:

1) if we challenge the provision banning AR-15s by name and win, the best case scenario is that AR-15s will be allowed and the rest is still there.

2) if we challenge property rights being taken away for those with a prior PBJ, best case scenario is that that provision is stricken.

3) if we challenge the licensing, best case scenario is that handgun qualification licenses are stricken.



To undo this legislation in the courts would take many lawsuits and many, many years. If we go to referendum, we "pause" the law from going into effect until the next general election (November 2014). This means we can stockpile more guns in the meantime. Also, there's a chance we could defeat the whole law in the next election.

However, if we referendum, we delay any lawsuits until the law is voted on and, if passed, when the law goes into effect. Considering how many years of litigation would be involved, pushing the effective date back by 1 1/2 years isn't really that bad. Look at how far we are getting with Woollard and all the time it's taken (I'm not downplaying the case - I'm trying to illustrate that we may not win in court).

Thank you. My other concern, mentioned up thread, is who writes the referendum language that is voted in ballots? It would seem that framing of the issue is critical when put to the vote of the general public (e.g. do you, Joe Citizen, think that one must be fingerprinted to exercise fundamental rights?).

 

[BigBossMan]

I hear "they get to write the question" lots. Who is they? Why do they get to do it? And I would think you could have an emergency challenge in court for an obviously slanted question.

 

[kennyd]

I am not convinced on this whole referendum thing, I am listening to both sides, but having seen what happened last November I just have a gut feeling it would not go so well.

 

[VTHokie7]

This may have already been said. But we can't win a referendum when we would have to fight Bloomberg money.

 

[rwbow1969]

I'm not scared of much, but letting the idiots in this state decide the fate of my constitutional rights scares the $h!t out of me.

This, and this is why I would stay away from a referendumb.

 

[Chewyk78]

This, and this is why I would stay away from a referendumb.

The silent majority is simply not engaged or motivated... They mumble about gun control from their sofa, then fall asleep. They are not organized and angry, but we are. The silent majority is just that, they will not vote. It doesnt matter much to them, because it doesnt have any direct impact on their lives. This piece of legislation matters a great to us; we are, at this moment in time, an organized bloc of single issue voters. We would destroy a refrendum vote in this state.