Special Session: SB21 Introduced

[Biggfoot44]

As usual , I blink and a thred blows up.

In a backhanded sense I have to tip my hat to SB21 . Brillient effort to craft a bill to try to be bearly constitutional , while at the smame time substantially aclomplish the opposite.

The words * potential danger to the public* replace the words * Good & Substantial * . But they are even more vague and even more difficult to disprove a negative. We have hopes that MSP will inherently wish to streamline the process for their own convience , but the scope is potentially unlimited.

The Bill is not intended to be logical or enable rational effective carry.

It is intended to discourage as many people as possable from applying. Allow the widest possable scope for disaproving. Prevent carry in most places (beyond the existing exceptions ) that might actually be required for protecting self or family. Making it so that the people who do perseverve to have Permits will have to be constantly strapping on & >trapping off if going about everyday life for average population. This will quickly be found to be a major PIA , and in many ways counterproductive. It will quickly evolve into permit holders only occasionally packing only when they have planned out a specific agenda tailored around specific places instead of crrying on daily basis as a matter of default.

[ Excuse the more obscure Civil Rights refrence than usual , for 15-20yrs in 1890s-1900s Md made repeated efforts to craft voting statutes that would just squeek by 14A even in Jim Crow era , while preventing those pesky Negros from actully voting in ant numbers to ctually influence any races or policies they never sucueded to get their desired results and still pass muster, eventually gave up. ]

 

[Biggfoot44]

Guys , we're obsessing over the alcohol issue , and not seeing the forest , for concentrating on the moss growing on north facing bark.

If various people want to *go temprence * that's their choice , and I'm not going to put them in a headlock to force them to imbibe.

BUT the *drunken barroom gunfights* concept is already proven to be as bogous as *Blood in the Streets*

There are already plenty of States with alchol/ carry laws of all three catagories all have similar (extremely low) rates of problems. Yes we chuckled over the irony of antigun SA both having a Perm-t , and being tripped up by an unfamilar statute. But it in't even aledged thar he actually mishandled his handgun , meerly that transporting in vehicle , yet off body was inherently illegal.

 

[montoya32]

I see this bill as two things:
1. They still want to dictate where our freedoms are "legal".
2. This is a roadmap for criminals. It gives them the flashing blue lights of where the pickins will be easy.

Why would the state think they have the right to dictate that we cannot carry in our own places of worship? I thought there was supposed to be separation of church and state? I understand schools, but government buildings, only if there is already armed security. If not, then CC should be legal.

 

[CypherPunk]

Because this is Maryland run by Liberal Anti-Gunners.

We cannot give an inch!

I've said it before, a captive locked up in a small cage will think he is in heaven when offered a larger cage.

I agree.

 

[2ndCharter]

It has already been said in different ways but I wanted to put my thoughts out there on why I dislike SB21 and more importantly, what I would propose to change it.

1. Training - I fundamentally disagree with any new training requirement. If it was a concession that I had to make for a good bill, I would:
   1. Codify the required training objectives
   2. Allow training to be conducted by private industry if it is to contain live fire or allow a simple online course if it doesn't.
   Any training that requires permit seekers or renewals to physically attend, is going to be burdensome. Where on the Eastern Shore would the MSP conduct such training? Furthermore, what makes me less qualified to carry as a permit holder today than after I've received this training?
2. Alcohol - Beat to death. Should only be a consumption ban. That also should be spelled out specifically. If I drink a couple of beers tonight and carry tomorrow, I will still have alcohol in my system. It should be codified to a blood alcohol level (and not 0.00).
3. Place Restrictions - I don't think the government should be dictating what can and can not happen on private property, that it should be left up to the property owners (theaters, churches, private schools etc.). How about we exercise a bit of that separation of church and state whereby the State does not prohibit the free exercise of religion? I'm an ordained minister and I'm opening up a new church; The Second Path. We believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the free exercise thereof. We don't have a brick and mortar location and believe the entire world to be our church. Can I get an Amen?

 

[G O B]

It has already been said in different ways but I wanted to put my thoughts out there on why I dislike SB21 and more importantly, what I would propose to change it.

1. Training - I fundamentally disagree with any new training requirement. If it was a concession that I had to make for a good bill, I would:
   1. Codify the required training objectives
   2. Allow training to be conducted by private industry if it is to contain live fire or allow a simple online course if it doesn't.
   Any training that requires permit seekers or renewals to physically attend, is going to be burdensome. Where on the Eastern Shore would the MSP conduct such training? Furthermore, what makes me less qualified to carry as a permit holder today than after I've received this training?
2. Alcohol - Beat to death. Should only be a consumption ban. That also should be spelled out specifically. If I drink a couple of beers tonight and carry tomorrow, I will still have alcohol in my system. It should be codified to a blood alcohol level (and not 0.00).
3. Place Restrictions - I don't think the government should be dictating what can and can not happen on private property, that it should be left up to the property owners (theaters, churches, private schools etc.). How about we exercise a bit of that separation of church and state whereby the State does not prohibit the free exercise of religion? I'm an ordained minister and I'm opening up a new church; The Second Path. We believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the free exercise thereof. We don't have a brick and mortar location and believe the entire world to be our church. Can I get an Amen?

AMEN!

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

If they can do it for one in 24 hours, they should be able to do it for all in 24 hours.

Does not compute. Police respond to hostage situations faster than they respond to noise complaints because A) one is more urgent than the other, and B) police resources are finite. The idea is that somebody in urgent need should be able to jump the line. Attempting to make the line just as fast for everybody wastes resources (money, time, officers) and invites sloppy errors (and the attendant revocation letters.)

2. This is a roadmap for criminals. It gives them the flashing blue lights of where the pickins will be easy.

Don't criminals try to avoid flashing blue lights?

On a related note, isn't it funny how red, white, and blue are supposed to symbolize freedom...until they're flashing in your rear views?

 

[Minuteman]

It is very foolish to handle a dangerous item under the influence of alcohol: snakes, guns, divorce papers...

Having said that, I will say I known of several 'cops' who have drank and carry firearms. Pretty dumb I know, but I'll also say for the most part, they usually drink less and still conduct themselves like they normally would even without having that beer during dinner. If anyone is involved in a shooting, and someone suspects the shooter is intoxicated, they will almost certainly test, and that will be used in any criminal/civil proceedings. The same could be said if you were accosted and injured an attacker, with or without a weapon. Judge what the person actually did. This focus on alcohol and carrying is just another lever antis can exploit. I'm not arguing people should drink and climb ladders, drive cars or handle poisonous snakes.


I believe a lot of people in this forum may imbibe a little too much on occasion, the thread 'What are you drinking tonight' is one of the most popular here. And I'll also bet most all of you have access to a firearm at home while drinking. But it is an exceedingly rare thing for a otherwise lawful gun owner to commit an act of violence with a firearm, even under the influence. In the cases that it happens it is a tragedy, but statistically inconsequential, and in no way should some irresponsible dumb-ass' actions give cause to violate my right to defend myself.

Drunk driving, drunk carrying; don't do it! If you do and your judgement is impaired, it will be doubly bad on you. A law restricting a persons ability to carry a concealed handgun for personal protection into a Park, restaurant (that serves alcohol), a church, etc. is only going to deter the most law-abiding persons and sets people up for very harsh and undeserving penalties.

 

[Inigoes]

It is very foolish to handle a dangerous item under the influence of alcohol: snakes, guns, divorce papers marriage proposals...

FIFY

Getting into trouble is easy.

Getting out is what really costs a lot of money.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Everyone needs to listen to Michael Bayne's Down Range Radio podcast #277 (08-08-12).


NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
GRRN Supporter

Is that on iTunes?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

No, they can't. The provision is, and should be, available for those who have an urgent need for a handgun permit...this is when your life is in imminent danger. Nobody can expect the State to issue every permit in 24 hours. Imagine if the situation were reversed. The State says it takes 90 days to issue a permit. You have never really wanted one before, but now you have a threat against you or your family. The answer? Sorry Mr. Hen, there is no provision in the law for you, get to the back of the line.

I'm not taking issue with people receiving their permits in 24 hours...if it can be done for one it can be done for all.

If Pennsylvania can do it in less than 2 hours, so can the state of Maryland.

Further, if we have to wait 90 days but we expidited some, then we have created additional classes of people yet again. Threats that are verified and urgent are understandable, but if it can be done for some it theoretically can be done for all; And some states inclusive of our northern neighbor do exactly that.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I have been thinking about the (4) A PRIVATE SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY, OR COLLEGE; 7 part of this bill today and come up with these questions...

Is an academy or technical school/institute considered a private school, university, or college? I would say most definitely, YES. So, if these places became gun-free zones...

Where would you teach the gunsmithing trade?

What about the Maryland State Police Academy? Wouldn't the academy become a gun-free zone?

What about a private military academy or military school where firearms training is part of the curriculum?

Further, they are private property...I'm not sure how the state can deprive anyone of their property rights without compensation. I suppose if they get state grants that maybe there is an angle there, still don't know how that could work.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Does not compute. Police respond to hostage situations faster than they respond to noise complaints because A) one is more urgent than the other, and B) police resources are finite. The idea is that somebody in urgent need should be able to jump the line. Attempting to make the line just as fast for everybody wastes resources (money, time, officers) and invites sloppy errors (and the attendant revocation letters.)

And I will again point up north and say, Pennsylvania.

Even if not that model I will point south and say virginia.

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

And I will again point up north and say, Pennsylvania.

Even if not that model I will point south and say virginia.

Fair do's. I would support issuing permits in that kind of time frame, but I don't anticipate it happening any time soon. As it is today, I have no objection to letting some applicants take emergency priority. I don't think it's an equal protection problem any more than the police response example above. Sure, it'd probably be used to make things easier on our Chosen Few as well, but cutting off your nose should be done carefully and only in dire situations

 

[foxtrapper]

Hell in VA you can just open carry if there is a sudden threat, no lisc needed, including within a vehicle- and you need only be 18 to start, not 21.

York county PA sheriff's- 20 mins in and out, with LTCF in your hand.

 

[gmhowell]

Further, they are private property...I'm not sure how the state can deprive anyone of their property rights without compensation. I suppose if they get state grants that maybe there is an angle there, still don't know how that could work.

You have to let blacks sit where they want.
You have to have ramps for wheelchairs.

etc.

What you are afraid of is trivial in the eyes of the law.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I could almost sorta buy the * Issue quickly in Emergencies * concept , if it were actually done even handedly.

From newspaper reports at the time , serving MoCo County Exec' daughter received n harassing phone call. He received a Handgun Permit 24 hrs before he even filled out an app.

On another thread it was related that a former (recently retired) LE Ofc had a verified Mafia Contrct on him relating to his LE activities before he retired. Vouched for by a US Atty. MSP wouldn't issue an emergency Permit , and he was instead sworn in as US Mrshall to defend himself.

 

[Chris]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that a Special Session could be called by the Governor but only for one issue not to open up the flood gates for a host of other bills dealing with different issues. Chris

 

[2ndCharter]

I could almost sorta buy the * Issue quickly in Emergencies * concept , if it were actually done even handedly.

From newspaper reports at the time , serving MoCo County Exec' daughter received n harassing phone call. He received a Handgun Permit 24 hrs before he even filled out an app.

On another thread it was related that a former (recently retired) LE Ofc had a verified Mafia Contrct on him relating to his LE activities before he retired. Vouched for by a US Atty. MSP wouldn't issue an emergency Permit , and he was instead sworn in as US Mrshall to defend himself.

Mostly correct. He didn't retire but was a trooper for 8 years before going into a different line of work at the Capitol.

 

[Kharn]

I'm not taking issue with people receiving their permits in 24 hours...if it can be done for one it can be done for all.

If Pennsylvania can do it in less than 2 hours, so can the state of Maryland.

Further, if we have to wait 90 days but we expidited some, then we have created additional classes of people yet again. Threats that are verified and urgent are understandable, but if it can be done for some it theoretically can be done for all; And some states inclusive of our northern neighbor do exactly that.

It was MSP policy in 2004 (and I bet it hasn't changed) that any currently-serving police officer that appears at the Handgun Division to apply should leave with at least a temporary permit and his full permit application jumps to the front of the line. If he applies outside of business hours, he is supposed to get his temp permit within 48 hours.