SB0164 - Deja vu?

[Seagrave1963]

This seems vaguely familiar from last year's session as an amendment which was voted down. It will be interesting to see if it gets traction this year. BTW - Brochin has his fingers in this one too.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/sb/sb0164f.pdf

 

[DC-W]

Is that Brochin trying to save face?
How nice of him.

 

[Mr H]

Trust... but verify the Living Hell out of him.........

 

[MDFF2008]

I think they are afraid of just how bad that looked.

 

[Seagrave1963]

I think they are afraid of just how bad that looked.

As they should be ashamed - the rhetoric and grandstanding about removing "good behavior" credits defied "common sense" legislation.

We have not forgotten

 

[rdc]

I think they are afraid of just how bad that looked.

It looked bad to anyone paying attention. The problem is it basically got brushed under the carpet. If it goes through this time it will be trumpeted from the rooftops that hey are being tough on crime. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

 

[Straightshooter]

This is exactly what Smeigle introduced as an amendment during the joint committee meeting last session that lead to a walkout by about a dozen of us when it was approved and then rejected on a second vote. This is just farming for voter support by a wolf on sheep's clothing.

 

[tapeman1]

If it goes through this time it will be trumpeted from the rooftops that hey are being tough on crime. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Yup.

 

[-Z/28-]

Trust... but verify the Living Hell out of him.........

Nope. We're past any trust with him. I don't care if he votes to repeal the FSA, he's a lying sack of shit that needs to go. A big chunk of his district is conservative, so we could find someone better to beat him.

 

[dblas]

Smigiel is aware...Stay tuned.

 

[Brooklyn]

4-204.
(a) (1) In this section, “firearm” means:
(i) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or
(ii) the frame or receiver of such a weapon.
(2) “Firearm” includes an antique firearm, handgun, rifle, shotgun, short–barreled rifle, short–barreled shotgun, starter gun, or any other firearm, whether loaded or unloaded.
(b) A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in § 5–101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.
(c) (1) (i) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, in addition to any other penalty imposed for the crime of violence or felony, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 20 years.
(ii) The court may not impose less than the minimum sentence of 5 years and, except as otherwise provided in § 4–305 of the Correctional Services Article, the person is not eligible for parole in less than 5 years.
(2) For each subsequent violation, the sentence shall be consecutive to and not concurrent with any other sentence imposed for the crime of violence or felony.
[Previous][Next]

Does not seem to change existing law..

What did I miss?

 

[Mr H]

look at the CAP/BOLD text... that's what's being added

 

[Brooklyn]

look at the CAP/BOLD text... that's what's being added

Right but it looks like the existing code already says no probation and mandated a 5 year min.... I quoted what I think is the current law..

Anyway no big deal..... the pros are on it.

 

[Seagrave1963]

Smigiel is aware...Stay tuned.

 

[dblas]

4-204.
(a) (1) In this section, “firearm” means:
(i) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or
(ii) the frame or receiver of such a weapon.
(2) “Firearm” includes an antique firearm, handgun, rifle, shotgun, short–barreled rifle, short–barreled shotgun, starter gun, or any other firearm, whether loaded or unloaded.
(b) A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in § 5–101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.
(c) (1) (i) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, in addition to any other penalty imposed for the crime of violence or felony, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 20 years.
(ii) The court may not impose less than the minimum sentence of 5 years and, except as otherwise provided in § 4–305 of the Correctional Services Article, the person is not eligible for parole in less than 5 years.
(2) For each subsequent violation, the sentence shall be consecutive to and not concurrent with any other sentence imposed for the crime of violence or felony.
[Previous][Next]

Does not seem to change existing law..

What did I miss?

You quoted 4-204 which adds item III under c, look at 3-702 where D is being added, and 11-502 where D is being added.

You need to look at the whole bill and all of the statutes affected, not just the last statute.

 

[dogbone]

Nope. We're past any trust with him. I don't care if he votes to repeal the FSA, he's a lying sack of shit that needs to go. A big chunk of his district is conservative, so we could find someone better to beat him.

The only candidate so far in District 42 is the Republican, Chris Cavey.
No primary opponents for Brochin, yet. Any gun loving DINOs care to toss your hat in the ring and give Brochin more to worry about?

 

[-Z/28-]

The only candidate so far in District 42 is the Republican, Chris Cavey.
No primary opponents for Brochin, yet. Any gun loving DINOs care to toss your hat in the ring and give Brochin more to worry about?

I think Cavey has a good chance if he can get some support in the lower half of the district(Towson area). But I'd feel better if we had a DINO candidate on the other side too.

 

[Brooklyn]

You quoted 4-204 which adds item III under c, look at 3-702 where D is being added, and 11-502 where D is being added.

You need to look at the whole bill and all of the statutes affected, not just the last statute.

OK hard on cell phones but I see it..

 

[Robert]

Is that Brochin trying to save face?
How nice of him.

I don't think it's about saving face. I believe it's about moving on "their terms". They didn't want to give a cm on any of the final floor gun bills last session and it showed like the northern lights. They were IMO flexing their muscles.

This session and the ones to follow will be no different, they will do what they want, when/if they want it.