SB-1: PLEASE CONTACT HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

[GTOGUNNER]

Any word on the hearing today?

JUD_3_29_2023_meeting_1

mgahouse.maryland.gov

Start watching at the 1:38 hour mark

 

[Some Guy]

Any word on the hearing today?

I attended. I thought it went well. I think about 35 people testified in opposition to SB-1. I thought all the testifiers did great. This is my first MGA rodeo so I'm not sure if/how this effort may influence the outcome, but for sure there were many questions from the legislators about the bill and some of its obvious infirmities. It would be good to hear from others that attended to see how they thought it went.

If you're interested in seeing the recording of the hearing the link is below. The SB-1 part starts at about 1:40:00.

Committees - Media

 

[tjv4163]

Just sent another round of e mails.

Weird as only about maybe half of them respond to my e mails. That sound normal ?
I send them from my private e mail signing my name but also from my work e mail that has my professional healthcare management signature attached.

They usually don’t respond it staffers and it’s not unusual. They have to make it seem like they actually “care” what we have to say.

 

[Raineman]

Any word on the hearing today?

I watched it online. Typical shitshow lies from the anti's. You can tell just by watching that the pretentious Clippinger & Co. have already made up their mind they are passing it with some probably Democrat only amendments. They took a 15 minute break after the hearing then came back for a voting session which I didn't catch the beginning of, so I don't know what the voting record was/is. The arrogance increases annually.

 

[Bertfish]

I watched it online. Typical shitshow lies from the anti's. You can tell just by watching that the pretentious Clippinger & Co. have already made up their mind they are passing it with some probably Democrat only amendments. They took a 15 minute break after the hearing then came back for a voting session which I didn't catch the beginning of, so I don't know what the voting record was/is. The arrogance increases annually.

SB1 was not voted on

I didn't get to listen in but as I understand it amendments are likely. Good or bad amendments is ok in a way because it sets up conflict between the House and Senate which eats time.

 

[Raineman]

SB1 was not voted on

I didn't get to listen in but as I understand it amendments are likely. Good or bad amendments is ok in a way because it sets up conflict between the House and Senate which eats time.

Thanks, wasn't sure if I missed it.

I agree about the eating time, but waldstrikkker was welcoming changes, so my guess is the fix is in. The discussed changes seemed overwhelmingly expected.

 

[lazarus]

Thanks, wasn't sure if I missed it.

I agree about the eating time, but waldstrikkker was welcoming changes, so my guess is the fix is in. The discussed changes seemed overwhelmingly expected.

Which is ironic, because he shrilly clutched his pearls and shouted down any changes to it in the senate. The only one he didn't was a clarification on what concealed carry meant, and that one was so damned obvious even he'd seem like an unreasonable idiot to push back against it.

The amendment on the establishment serving alcohol is pretty danged straightforward and reasonable, as well as the amendment to provide exemptions for people acting in clear and present dangerous situations, and he practically cried his eyes out begging everyone to vote down those amendments. Heck, the alcohol establishment amendment passed, until one D and then the senate president CHANGED THEIR VOTES.

So he is not for any amendments. I hope he has no choice and some more common sense stuff makes its way in to amending this terrible law. A, it delays it and sets up a better possibility it does not pass at all. B, unless amendments make it worse somehow, then they are likely to make it less awful. And as we can see with the MoCo bill, we may not get an immediate TRO/PI. I'd rather have a somewhat less awful law to deal with for several (or many) months.

I think someone mentioned it, like on the alcohol consumption on premises ban, it is hard as hell to know when the heck that might apply. Pardon my ignorance on the finer details, does the catholic church have a need one for communion (I'd assume religious observances don't, but I have no clue)? Most any venue that is temporarily selling it, needs it. Do liquor stores that have tastings require one (I assume yes)? Well gosh, now you are a criminal if you walk in to one and you don't realize they are doing a whiskey tasting in back. Its the same crap about demonstrations. Oh, signs mean you know. Except its 100 YARDS from a protest. I've got 20/10 vision after LASIK, but short of some 10x binos, I am not reading any "no guns" signs at 100 yards and I probably would have a hell of a hard time noticing if there was a sign posted or even what the heck the symbol on the sign looked like at 100 yds without magnification. To another's point arguing against that portion of the bill, how do you know if the hotel or motel you are staying at has a license to sell alcohol for consumption on premises? Probably most hotels with a restaurant do. So even if you aren't eating in the restaurant, you are potentially a criminal for carrying your gun into your hotel room.

 

[lazarus]

I did just watch it, go Delegate Arikan on questioning 4-203 and Waldy. Now getting Waldy on record as specifically stating his intention was for people to face 4-203 face up to 3 years in prison and would be prohibited by inadvertently carrying a firearm in to one of the thousands of new places that will be prohibited. Not just the criminal penalties under SB1.

Also I loved how Levy attempted to add an answer for Waldy and Delegate Arikan cut him off toot sweet.

PS I am really hoping that is one of the offered amendments that gets adopted is making it clear that 4-203 penalties will not apply if violating anything in SB1 (I mean, I can hope that would INCLUDE violating the new open carry ban)

 

[Georges2nd]

SB1 was not voted on

I didn't get to listen in but as I understand it amendments are likely. Good or bad amendments is ok in a way because it sets up conflict between the House and Senate which eats time.

What amendment would they likely add?

 

[MigraineMan]

To another's point arguing against that portion of the bill, how do you know if the hotel or motel you are staying at has a license to sell alcohol for consumption on premises? Probably most hotels with a restaurant do. So even if you aren't eating in the restaurant, you are potentially a criminal for carrying your gun into your hotel room.

Stayed in multiple hotels last year. None had formal "restaurants," but all had a continental breakfast and provided limited room service. All had single-serving bottles of beer and wine in a cooler for sale at the front desk. Wasn't clear if you had to take it to your room, or if you could socialize in the lobby/breakfast area.

 

[Some Guy]

What amendment would they likely add?

A lot was discussed in the hearing yesterday, and I'm sure committee members are also hearing from constituents about SB-1's many, many infirmities.

It's best to watch that hearing video to get an idea of what was discussed. The bill's sponsor was challenged on a few topics by committee members, including the chair. And MSI and other opponents offered a lot of different ideas during their testimony. It is definitely worth watching.

 

[lazarus]

Stayed in multiple hotels last year. None had formal "restaurants," but all had a continental breakfast and provided limited room service. All had single-serving bottles of beer and wine in a cooler for sale at the front desk. Wasn't clear if you had to take it to your room, or if you could socialize in the lobby/breakfast area.

None of the motels did. The couple of hotels I stayed at had lobby restaurants that served alcohol.

 

[AliasNeo07]

Would the been on carry inside of an establishment serving alcohol apply to one of the owners of said establishment? I would assume not since they are an owner of the business, but if so, it would be good to get some business owners to talk to these legislatures. I know a couple.

 

[coinboy]

What is the possibility that they will run out of time before passing SB1?

 

[AliasNeo07]

What is the possibility that they will run out of time before passing SB1?

Remote.

 

[teratos]

Would the been on carry inside of an establishment serving alcohol apply to one of the owners of said establishment? I would assume not since they are an owner of the business, but if so, it would be good to get some business owners to talk to these legislatures. I know a couple.

No. Owners are OK.

 

[Bertfish]

What is the possibility that they will run out of time before passing SB1?

Don't bet on it

 

[NebTim]

This is the only representative that replied to my emails with a positive message, she said she would never support any additional infringements. A few others replied (all through staff) and said they would take my appeal to NOT support SB1 into consideration.

Much respect for Delegate Lauren Arikan!

Delegate Lauren Arikan

Republican

lauren.arikan@house.state.md.us

 

[Allen65]

This is the only representative that replied to my emails with a positive message, she said she would never support any additional infringements. A few others replied (all through staff) and said they would take my appeal to NOT support SB1 into consideration.

Much respect for Delegate Lauren Arikan!

Delegate Lauren Arikan

Republican

lauren.arikan@house.state.md.us

I haven't heard squat back from Schmidt's office. He's my Delegate, and sits on the Judiciary Committee. But he seems as inert as Bagnall, who used to represent our area prior to the last redistricting. And before that we had McConkey...Gawd, can't my neighbors vote with someone with an IQ above the 30th percentile?

 

[Darkemp]

Munoz, Williams, Bartlett, and Arikan replied to me via their legislative aids but no others.