The Draft Bill, Amended

[Multifaceted]

This. Skip the meetings with delegates, fill the hearing room.

Good point, the main assembly building (State House) House Chamber galleries can only seat approximately 60 persons on either side, so maybe 120 total. Anyone left out in the halls after the session starts might want to head over the the House Office Bldg to stake a claim in the committee room.

If Vinny and his parrot brigade are planning to show, then we need to pack the committee room.

 

[occbrian]

Good point, the main assembly building (State House) House Chamber galleries can only seat approximately 60 persons on either side, so maybe 120 total. Anyone left out in the halls after the session starts might want to head over the the House Office Bldg to stake a claim in the committee room.

If Vinny and his parrot brigade are planning to show, then we need to pack the committee room.

I'm going straight to committee. Would suggest others do the same. That room and those seats are more important.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

They use possess NUMEROUS times in the bill they SPECIFICALLY exempt temporary possession by your minor children. So you want to assume receive=possess ??? C'mon now. Read the bill, in order. There is a specific exemption for possession. It specifically says a minor can POSSESS. so your assumption that receive is vague and equals possession is wrong, at least in the event of minor possession, because it is specifically exempted. It might mean that I can't loan YOU my gun at the range if you don't have a license, but it does NOT keep you from taking your kids to the range.

It might come out that way, but it is by no means clear. The proposed new law creates new elements for new offenses. Under the old law, in the situation you describe, no offense occurred -- the minor is generally prohibited from possession of a handgun, but there is a detailed exception. But that is not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing the possible effects of the proposed new law. You put too much weight on the fact that the draft recites the old language, including the minors' exception, but that is just a formality of how the Maryland legislature shows where they are inserting new language. They are not repealing the exception to the old prohibition, but that does not mean that they are not creating new and broader prohibitions. The old law dealt with who can possess a regulated firearm. But the proposed new law would add an entirely new prohibition, separate and apart from the earlier disqualifications. You implicitly acknowledge this yourself, when you say that under the proposed new law "I can't lend you my gun at the range" if I don't have the license. That is right. To do so would NOT violate the old law governing possession of regulated firearms (which the minors' exception is part of), but it would violate the proposed new law against receiving a handgun without the license -- which has no exception for me, or for your kid.

No, I do not assume that "receive=possess." You are the one who seems to be assuming that receive=possess, because you're trying to apply the exception to the old prohibition as if it applied to the new prohibition. I say that we do not know what "receive" means, unless the legislature defines it in the bill and specifies any necessary exceptions. Or else, it means what some judge or prosecutor decides it means, down the road. The legislature should explicitly make exceptions to the new prohibition, or else the prudent thing to do is assume that the license prohibition will be broadly construed.

 

[Brooklyn]

Think any Vinnie s will show?

 

[SomeGuy]

"flash Suppressor" means a device that functions, or is intended to function , to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.

A scope, a flashlight, a rail, or any number of other things will reduce muzzle flash.

 

[Xander]

I was thinking, "Can I really afford a day off work?" After reading this absolute disaster, yes, yes I can. See y'all tomorrow.

 

[Multifaceted]

Think any Vinnie s will show?

Assume that they do, prepare accordingly.

 

[Multifaceted]

I'm going straight to committee. Would suggest others do the same. That room and those seats are more important.

My thoughts exactly, but I'm getting my nifty MDS/MSI badge first!

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Assume that they do, prepare accordingly.

The notice from Vinnie says to go to the HJC... Isn't it a joint HJC/HGO committee session, which means it'll be in a different room? Where was the March 1 hearing?

** Wasn't one crucifixion enough?? Annapolis 3/29/13 **

 

[occbrian]

"flash Suppressor" means a device that functions, or is intended to function , to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.

A scope, a flashlight, a rail, or any number of other things will reduce muzzle flash.

Spoke to Smigiel about this. He made sure they new that flash suppressor does not equal muzzle brake.

So... We'll see how it ends up being interpreted by MSP, but brakes are *supposed* to be ok.

 

[Xander]

It might come out that way, but it is by no means clear. The proposed new law creates new elements for new offenses. Under the old law, in the situation you describe, no offense occurred -- the minor is generally prohibited from possession of a handgun, but there is a detailed exception. But that is not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing the possible effects of the proposed new law. You put too much weight on the fact that the draft recites the old language, including the minors' exception, but that is just a formality of how the Maryland legislature shows where they are inserting new language. They are not repealing the exception to the old prohibition, but that does not mean that they are not creating new and broader prohibitions. The old law dealt with who can possess a regulated firearm. But the proposed new law would add an entirely new prohibition, separate and apart from the earlier disqualifications. You implicitly acknowledge this yourself, when you say that under the proposed new law "I can't lend you my gun at the range" if I don't have the license. That is right. To do so would NOT violate the old law governing possession of regulated firearms (which the minors' exception is part of), but it would violate the proposed new law against receiving a handgun without the license -- which has no exception for me, or for your kid.

No, I do not assume that "receive=possess." You are the one who seems to be assuming that receive=possess, because you're trying to apply the exception to the old prohibition as if it applied to the new prohibition. I say that we do not know what "receive" means, unless the legislature defines it in the bill and specifies any necessary exceptions. Or else, it means what some judge or prosecutor decides it means, down the road. The legislature should explicitly make exceptions to the new prohibition, or else the prudent thing to do is assume that the license prohibition will be broadly construed.

Also, while I appreciate detailed statutory construction and analysis - this bill, as written, is in contravention of the United States Constitution. Isn't that enough?

 

[fabsroman]

this still isn't a frosh steamroll job, where the only amendments allowed are the ones omalley gave him. this represents a tiny step back. and I don't know who or why its being done. its still a giant ball of shit.

I think the mantra from here on out needs to be "kill the bill" instead of complaining about this bit or that bit to our reps. these jackwagons might actually think this is a compromise.

Yep, after seeing this pile I am not the least bit inclined to compromise on anything.

 

[Multifaceted]

The notice from Vinnie says to go to the HJC... Isn't it a joint HJC/HGO committee session, which means it'll be in a different room? Where was the March 1 hearing?

** Wasn't one crucifixion enough?? Annapolis 3/29/13 **

I have an email from Del. Neil Parrott saying the both committees will be meeting in the Judiciary Committee (Room 100) in the House Office Building.

The 3/1 hearing was in the building next door in between the House Office and the State House. It doesn't appear that committee will meet there tomorrow.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I have an email from Del. Neil Parrott saying the both committees will be meeting in the Judiciary Committee (Room 100) in the House Office Building.

The 3/1 hearing was in the building next door in between the House Office and the State House. It doesn't appear that committee will meet there tomorrow.

Wow! That is going to be one packed room. Smigiel said they would work out rotating folks in/out. This is getting more interesting.

** Wasn't one crucifixion enough?? Annapolis 3/29/13 **

 

[MJD438]

Also, while I appreciate detailed statutory construction and analysis - this bill, as written, is in contravention of the United States Constitution. Isn't that enough?

Just like in the 1960's, MD politicians today (as a corporate body, not lambasting individual members) car for neither the US nor MD Constitutions.

 

[Hopalong]

With regards to the ammo ban on minors: Scott Shellenberger, the SA for Baltimore County, flat out admitted to me, off the record, that the restrictions on ammo posession could be interpreted to ban all shooting by minors. He told me that he wouldn't interpret that way, but that the fact that there was room for interpretation at all was an issue.

 

[MJD438]

I have an email from Del. Neil Parrott saying the both committees will be meeting in the Judiciary Committee (Room 100) in the House Office Building.

The 3/1 hearing was in the building next door in between the House Office and the State House. It doesn't appear that committee will meet there tomorrow.

Wow! That is going to be one packed room. Smigiel said they would work out rotating folks in/out. This is getting more interesting.

** Wasn't one crucifixion enough?? Annapolis 3/29/13 **

I am sensing another Busch plot - pack the room with legislators from both committees to ensure that there is no space for the citizenry to represent themselves in the room.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

Also, while I appreciate detailed statutory construction and analysis - this bill, as written, is in contravention of the United States Constitution. Isn't that enough?

No, it is not enough. There are plenty of people in Maryland and in other states how have been convicted under these types of restrictions, lost their gun rights and other rights, and even been incarcerated. The fact that the statutes under which they were convicted may be hard to square with the Second Amendment, as you read it and perhaps as I read it, is of small comfort to them. Therefore, it behooves all concerned to pay attention to the particulars of the proposed statutory language.

 

[occbrian]

I'll call Smigiel's chief of staff on her cell first thing in the AM.

II'll post if the meeting is NOT in judiciary (room 100 of house offices bldg).

Otherwise , go straight to house offices building when you get to annapolis. Skip gen. Assembly. There is a huge desk after you enter. Meet there. See you at 10am.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I am sensing another Busch plot - pack the room with legislators from both committees to ensure that there is no space for the citizenry to represent themselves in the room.

Naw!!! No way! Would they disregard the people? Naw!! Ya think

You may be onto something. This morning when I was talking to the speaker's secretary, she mentioned we may not be able to be in the room.... I responded with the fact that all committees were open to the public, since they are doing OUR work...

** Wasn't one crucifixion enough?? Annapolis 3/29/13 **